Federal Register Vol. 80, No.69,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 69 (April 10, 2015)

Page Range19193-19509
FR Document

80_FR_69
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 19193 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to SomaliaPDF
80 FR 19320 - Sunshine Act Meeting; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 19206 - Preregistration and Registration of Claims to CopyrightPDF
80 FR 19370 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 19385 - In the Matter of eCareer Holdings, Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 19195 - Modification of CDFI Certification RequirementsPDF
80 FR 19400 - Notice of Guarantee Availability (NOGA) Inviting Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications for the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Bond Guarantee ProgramPDF
80 FR 19327 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19339 - Tennessee; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 19334 - Imposition of Conditions of Entry for Certain Vessels Arriving to the United States From LibyaPDF
80 FR 19201 - Safety Zone; Naval Helicopter Association (NHA) Red Bull Helicopter Demonstration; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CAPDF
80 FR 19338 - West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 19203 - Safety Zone; Barge-Based Fireworks, Sturgeon Bay, WisconsinPDF
80 FR 19335 - New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 19200 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MDPDF
80 FR 19335 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 19391 - Tennessee Disaster #TN-00087PDF
80 FR 19276 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Polaris Industries, Inc., Subzone 167B (Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion Engines); Osceola, WisconsinPDF
80 FR 19393 - West Virginia Disaster #WV-00035PDF
80 FR 19278 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 19276 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 23 Under Alternative Site Framework Buffalo, New YorkPDF
80 FR 19252 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Missouri River, Atchison, KSPDF
80 FR 19277 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 19316 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 19298 - Applications for New Awards; Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions ProgramPDF
80 FR 19337 - Maine; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 19336 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program.PDF
80 FR 19241 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
80 FR 19338 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 19358 - Duke Energy Florida, Inc.; Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating StationPDF
80 FR 19394 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Van Gogh: Irises and Roses” and “Masterpiece in Focus: Van Gogh”PDF
80 FR 19504 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Further Amendments to Equal Employment OpportunityPDF
80 FR 19394 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Electronic Commerce-Identity Management and Related Trust Services; MeetingPDF
80 FR 19394 - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19508 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Small Entity Compliance GuidePDF
80 FR 19393 - Annual Meeting of the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards; Office of the National OmbudsmanPDF
80 FR 19279 - Request for Applicants for the Appointment to the United States-India CEO ForumPDF
80 FR 19328 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 19328 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19327 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19329 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
80 FR 19323 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19323 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19391 - Announcement of Growth Accelerator Fund CompetitionPDF
80 FR 19324 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19325 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19320 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 19320 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 19504 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; IntroductionPDF
80 FR 19290 - Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the Upgrade and Storage of Beryllium Metal at the DLA Strategic Materials Hammond, INPDF
80 FR 19415 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Minority VeteransPDF
80 FR 19316 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 19354 - Silicomanganese from Australia; DeterminationPDF
80 FR 19298 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; An Impact Evaluation of Support for PrincipalsPDF
80 FR 19358 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19331 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19263 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in WyomingPDF
80 FR 19346 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan, Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Kalawao and Maui Counties, HawaiiPDF
80 FR 19285 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 19284 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19283 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19346 - Notice of Amendment of the Site for the May 6-7, 2015, Meeting of the National Park System Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 19352 - Information Collection Activities: Well Control and Production Safety Training; Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19348 - Information Collection Activities: Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way (ROW); Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19342 - Receipt of Applications for Endangered Species PermitsPDF
80 FR 19286 - Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
80 FR 19380 - Van Eck Associates Corporation, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 19399 - Retooling Recalls WorkshopPDF
80 FR 19255 - Notice of Public Hearings: Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control TechnologiesPDF
80 FR 19344 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Central California Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 19395 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
80 FR 19399 - Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad Company-Trackage Rights Exemption-Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyPDF
80 FR 19343 - Notice of Public Meetings: Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, NevadaPDF
80 FR 19341 - Draft Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances, Receipt of Application for an Enhancement of Survival Permit for the Greater Sage-Grouse on Oregon Department of State Lands, and Draft Environmental Assessment; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 19345 - Idaho: Filing of Plats of SurveyPDF
80 FR 19355 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Pre-Apprenticeship DatabasePDF
80 FR 19396 - Research, Technical Assistance, and Training Programs: Application Instructions and Program Management GuidelinesPDF
80 FR 19333 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19280 - Export Trade Certificate of ReviewPDF
80 FR 19297 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Leadership Grant Program Annual Performance ReportPDF
80 FR 19296 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Plan To Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators; Frequently Asked QuestionsPDF
80 FR 19295 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)PDF
80 FR 19296 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)PDF
80 FR 19310 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
80 FR 19308 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-567 and FERC-587); Consolidated Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
80 FR 19305 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-65, FERC-65A, FERC-65B, FERC-585, and FERC-921); Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19315 - Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric ProjectPDF
80 FR 19312 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 19313 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gulf Markets Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 19308 - City of Wadsworth, Ohio; Notice of TeleconferencePDF
80 FR 19308 - Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 19311 - Erie Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 19315 - Mid-Georgia Cogen L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 19310 - Municipal Energy of PA, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 19311 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 19354 - Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines and Components Thereof Notice of Final Determination of No Violation; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
80 FR 19287 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 19226 - Secondary (C13PDF
80 FR 19370 - Notice of Technical MeetingPDF
80 FR 19329 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 19292 - Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 19355 - Notice of Availability of Funds and Funding Opportunity Announcement for YouthBuildPDF
80 FR 19356 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Job Openings and Labor Turnover SurveyPDF
80 FR 19341 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
80 FR 19381 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written ComplaintsPDF
80 FR 19385 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 19388 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation Date of the Rule Change To Allow Market Orders To Sell in No-bid Series To Be Entered Into the Electronic Order Book From a PAR WorkstationPDF
80 FR 19371 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the Tuttle Tactical Management Multi-Strategy Income ETF of ETFis Series Trust IPDF
80 FR 19378 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Proposed Rule Change Regarding Open Interest ReportingPDF
80 FR 19377 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Deletion of Rule 2.50PDF
80 FR 19389 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 1000-Equities To Reflect That Exchange Systems Will Reject Incoming Orders of Over 1,000,000 Shares That Are Marketable Upon ArrivalPDF
80 FR 19383 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 1000 To Reflect That Exchange Systems Will Reject Incoming Orders of Over 1,000,000 Shares That Are Marketable Upon ArrivalPDF
80 FR 19385 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Adopting New Rule 124 To Conduct a Midday Auction and Amending Rule 104 To Codify the Obligation of Designated Market Makers To Facilitate the Midday AuctionPDF
80 FR 19293 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 19238 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for “Marriage”, “Spouse”, and “Domestic Partnership”PDF
80 FR 19318 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0028, 3064-0097, 3064-0121, 3064-0134, 3064-0151)PDF
80 FR 19319 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10014, Ameribank, Inc., Northfolk, West VirginiaPDF
80 FR 19344 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Grand Junction Field Office, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 19396 - Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision for the Trunk Highway 41 River Crossing Tier I Final Environmental Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 19256 - EPAAR Clause for Level of Effort-Cost-Reimbursement ContractPDF
80 FR 19285 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 19285 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 19317 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 19320 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 19357 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19243 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Vermilion SnapperPDF
80 FR 19284 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 19290 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 19199 - Representation-Case ProceduresPDF
80 FR 19276 - Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee; and the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees for Trade; Renewal and Nominations; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 19196 - Patents and Other Intellectual Property RightsPDF
80 FR 19347 - Notice of Availability of the Northwest Area Water Supply Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Burke, Bottineau, Divide, McHenry, McLean, Mountrail, Pierce, Renville, Ward, and Williams Counties, North DakotaPDF
80 FR 19418 - Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008; the Application of Mental Health Parity Requirements to Coverage Offered by Medicaid Managed Care Organizations, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Alternative Benefit PlansPDF
80 FR 19326 - Office of Global Affairs Stakeholder Listening Session in Preparation for the 68th World Health AssemblyPDF
80 FR 19400 - Illinois Central Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Champaign County, IllPDF
80 FR 19231 - Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 19248 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19339 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 19251 - Interpretation of the Flight Time LimitationsPDF
80 FR 19220 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; ReconsiderationPDF
80 FR 19282 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 19206 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment AreaPDF
80 FR 19454 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant SubstitutesPDF
80 FR 19244 - Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop EnginesPDF
80 FR 19259 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 10 PetitionsPDF
80 FR 19246 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19321 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF

Issue

80 69 Friday, April 10, 2015 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19321-19322 2015-07700 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Foreign Agricultural Service

Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way, 19348-19352 2015-08264 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Well Control and Production Safety Training, 19352-19354 2015-08265 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act; Application of Mental Health Parity Requirements to Coverage Offered by Medicaid Managed Care Organizations, etc., 19418-19452 2015-08135 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19323-19324 2015-08288 2015-08289 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD, 19200-19201 2015-08343 Safety Zones: Barge-based Fireworks, Sturgeon Bay, WI, 19203-19206 2015-08345 Naval Helicopter Association Red Bull Helicopter Demonstration, San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA, 19201-19203 2015-08347 PROPOSED RULES Drawbridge Operations: Missouri River, Atchison, KS, 19252-19254 2015-08328 NOTICES Imposition of Conditions of Entry for Certain Vessels Arriving to the United States from Libya, 19334-19335 2015-08348 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund RULES Certification Requirements, 19195-19196 2015-08356 NOTICES Funding Availability: Bond Guarantee Program, 19400-19415 2015-08355 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress RULES Preregistration and Registration of Claims to Copyright; CFR Correction, 19206 2015-08383 PROPOSED RULES Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies: Public Hearings, 19255-19256 2015-08255 Defense Department Defense Department RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 19508-19509 2015-08306 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Introduction, 19504 2015-08281 Further Amendments to Equal Employment Opportunity, 19504-19508 2015-08309 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Upgrade and Storage of Beryllium Metal at the DLA Strategic Materials; Hammond, IN, 19290 2015-08280 Meetings: Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, 19292-19293 2015-08212 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 19287-19295 2015-08220 2015-08170 2015-08195 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: An Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals, 19298 2015-08274 College Assistance Migrant Program, 19295-19297 2015-08236 2015-08237 School Leadership Grant Program Annual Performance Report, 19297-19298 2015-08239 State Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators, 19296 2015-08238 Applications for New Awards: Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program, 19298-19305 2015-08324 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Funds and Funding Opportunities for YouthBuild, 19355 2015-08209 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; Reconsideration, 19220-19226 2015-07987 District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Moderate Nonattainment Area, 19206-19220 2015-07957 Exemptions from the Requirement of a Tolerance: Secondary (C13-C17) Alkane Sulfonates, 19226-19231 2015-08218 Pesticide Tolerances: Pyraclostrobin, 19231-19238 2015-08079 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes, 19454-19501 2015-07895 PROPOSED RULES Acquisition Regulations: Level of Effort — Cost-Reimbursement Contract, 19256-19258 2015-08183 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 19316 2015-08325 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19316-19317 2015-08278 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, 19246-19248 2015-07801 GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines, 19244-19245 2015-07865 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 19248-19251 2015-08072 Interpretation of Flight Time Limitations, 19251-19252 2015-07991 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19317-19318 2015-08179 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19318-19319 2015-08192 Terminations of Receivership: Ameribank, Inc., Northfolk, WV, 19319 2015-08191 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 19241-19243 2015-08320 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Community Disaster Loan Program, 19336-19337 2015-08321 Major Disaster Declarations: Hawaii; Amendment No. 1, 19338 2015-08318 Hawaii; Amendment No. 2, 19335-19336 2015-08341 Major Disasters and Related Determinations: Maine, 19337-19338 2015-08323 New Hampshire, 19335 2015-08344 Tennessee, 19339 2015-08349 West Virginia, 19338 2015-08346 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19305-19310 2015-08233 2015-08234 Combined Filings, 19311-19312 2015-08224 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Gulf Markets Expansion Project, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 19313-19315 2015-08230 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project, 19315 2015-08232 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Erie Power, LLC, 19311 2015-08227 Mid-Georgia Cogen, L.P., 19315-19316 2015-08226 Municipal Energy of PA, LLC, 19310 2015-08225 Meetings: Wadsworth, OH; Teleconference, 19308 2015-08229 Permit Applications: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 19312-19313 2015-08231 Staff Attendances, 19310-19311 2015-08235 Tariff Filings: Orlando Utilities Commission, 19308 2015-08228 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Trunk Highway 41 River Crossing Tier I, 19396 2015-08186 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act; Correction, 19320 2015-08396 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 19320-19321 2015-08283 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 19320 2015-08176 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 19320 2015-08282 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Guidance for Industry and Staff: Research, Technical Assistance, and Training Programs—Application Instructions and Program Management Guidelines, 19396-19399 2015-08246 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-Day Findings on 10 Petitions, 19259-19263 2015-07837 Black-footed Ferrets in Wyoming; Establishment of Nonessential Experimental Population, 19263-19275 2015-08271 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Permit Applications, 19342-19343 2015-08263 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Greater Sage-Grouse on Oregon Department of State Lands Candidate Conservation Agreement, 19341 2015-08250 Permit Applications: Endangered Species, 19341-19342 2015-08205 Foreign Agricultural Foreign Agricultural Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee; Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees for Trade; Renewal; Corrections, 19276 2015-08158 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Polaris Industries, Inc., Subzone 167B, Osceola, WI, 19276 2015-08333 Reorganizations under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 23, Buffalo, NY, 19276-19277 2015-08330 General Services General Services Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 19508-19509 2015-08306 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Introduction, 19504 2015-08281 Further Amendments to Equal Employment Opportunity, 19504-19508 2015-08309 Federal Travel Regulations: Terms and Definitions for Marriage, Spouse, and Domestic Partnerships, 19238-19241 2015-08193 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Meetings: 68th World Health Assembly Stakeholder Listening Session, 19326-19327 2015-08124
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19324-19326 2015-08284 2015-08285 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 19339-19341 2015-08065 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Reclamation Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 19278-19279 2015-08331 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China, 19282-19283 2015-07979 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the United Arab Emirates, 19277 2015-08327 Export Trade Certificates of Review, 19280-19282 2015-08240 Requests for Nominations: U.S.-India CEO Forum, 19279-19280 2015-08304 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications and Rulings, etc.: Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines and Components Thereof, 19354 2015-08223 Silicomanganese from Australia, 19354-19355 2015-08276 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, 19356-19357 2015-08208 Pre-Apprenticeship Database, 19355-19356 2015-08247
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Resource Management Plan, Grand Junction Field Office, CO, 19344-19345 2015-08187 Meetings: Central California Resource Advisory Council, 19344 2015-08254 Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Nevada, 19343-19344 2015-08251 Plats of Survey, 19345-19346 2015-08249 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 19508-19509 2015-08306 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Introduction, 19504 2015-08281 Further Amendments to Equal Employment Opportunity, 19504-19508 2015-08309 Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights, 19196-19199 2015-08145 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19357-19358 2015-08175 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Retooling Recalls Workshop, 19399 2015-08257 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 19329-19331 2015-08290 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 19328 2015-08293 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2015-08291 19327-19329 2015-08294 2015-08295 2015-08350 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 19327 2015-08292 National Human Genome Research Institute, 19329 2015-08213 National Labor National Labor Relations Board RULES Representation — Case Procedures, 19199-19200 2015-08159 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper; Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure, 19243 2015-08174 NOTICES Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 19284-19285 2015-08181 2015-08268 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 19285 2015-08180 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2015-08172 19284-19286 2015-08269 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 19283-19284 2015-08267 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Kalawao and Maui Counties, Hawaii, 19346-19347 2015-08270 Meetings: National Park System Advisory Board, 19346 2015-08266 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research, 19358 2015-08273 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Exemptions: Duke Energy Florida, Inc.; Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Station, 19358-19370 2015-08311 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19370 2015-08377 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 19286-19287 2015-08262 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Modifications to Proposal Nine, 19370-19371 2015-08216 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Somalia; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of April 8, 2015), 19193 2015-08420 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Northwest Area Water Supply Project; Burke, Bottineau, Divide, McHenry, McLean, Mountrail, Pierce, Renville, Ward, and Williams Counties, ND, 19347-19348 2015-08142 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Van Eck Associates Corporation, et al.; Exemptions, 19380-19381 2015-08258 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 19381-19383 2015-08204 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 19385-19388 2015-08203 CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, 19378-19380 2015-08200 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 19377-19378, 19388-19389 2015-08199 2015-08202 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 2015-08196 19383-19385 2015-08197 NYSE MKT, LLC, 19389-19391 2015-08198 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 19371-19377 2015-08201 Trading Suspension Orders: eCareer Holdings, Inc., 19385 2015-08373 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Tennessee, 19391 2015-08334 West Virginia, 19393 2015-08332 Growth Accelerator Fund Competition, 19391-19393 2015-08287 Meetings: Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, Office of the National Ombudsman, 19393-19394 2015-08305 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Van Gogh--Irises and Roses; Masterpiece in Focus--Van Gogh, 19394 2015-08310 Meetings: Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, 19394-19395 2015-08307 Advisory Committee on Private International Law, 19394 2015-08308 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19331-19334 2015-08245 2015-08272 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Illinois Central Railroad Co., Champaign County, IL, 19400 2015-08111 Trackage Rights Exemptions: Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad Co. from Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 19399-19400 2015-08252 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 19395-19396 2015-08253 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, 19415-19416 2015-08279 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 19418-19452 2015-08135 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 19454-19501 2015-07895 Part IV Defense Department, 19504-19509 2015-08306 2015-08281 2015-08309 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 69 Friday, April 10, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 12 CFR Part 1805 Modification of CDFI Certification Requirements AGENCY:

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), Department of the Treasury.

ACTION:

Interim rule.

SUMMARY:

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) is amending the CDFI certification regulation with respect to the financing entity requirement and participation as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. This regulatory change creates a means for the CDFI Fund, in its discretion, to permit a CDFI's Affiliate, which applies for CDFI certification, to rely on the Controlling CDFI's activity or track record in order to meet the financing entity requirement, solely for the purpose of the Affiliate participating as an Eligible CDFI under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.

DATES:

Effective on April 10, 2015. Comment due date: June 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

All comments concerning this revised interim rule should be addressed to the Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation Manager, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220; by email to; by email to [email protected]; or by facsimile at (202) 453-2466.

Electronic Submission of Comments: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt, and enables the Department to make them available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

All properly submitted comments will be available for inspection and downloading at http://www.regulations.gov. In general, comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are available to the public. Do not submit any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Meyer, Acting Manager, Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation, by mail to the CDFI Fund, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220; by email to [email protected]; or by facsimile at (202) 453-2466 (This is not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The CDFI Fund, Department of the Treasury, was established by the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). The mission of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) is to increase economic opportunity and promote community development investments for underserved populations in distressed communities in the United States. Its long-term vision is to economically empower America's underserved and distressed communities. The CDFI Fund's programs are designed to facilitate the flow of lending and investment capital to distressed communities and to individuals who have been unable to take full advantage of the financial services industry. Access to credit, investment capital, and financial services are essential ingredients for creating and retaining jobs, developing affordable housing, revitalizing neighborhoods, unleashing the economic potential of small businesses, and empowering people.

An important component of the CDFI Fund's authority is the certification of entities as Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), which permits such entities to have access to financial assistance through the Community Development Financial Institutions Program (CDFI Program) and other CDFI Fund programs, including the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.

Through the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Secretary of the Treasury provides a Guarantee for Bond(s) issued by a Qualified Issuer as part of a Bond Issue. In turn, the Qualified Issuer uses Bond Proceeds to make Bond Loans to Eligible CDFIs for Eligible Purposes, as those terms are defined in 12 CFR 1808.102. Under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, for a CDFI to be an Eligible CDFI, the CDFI must be certified by the CDFI Fund as meeting certification requirements (see 12 CFR 1808.202(a)).

In order for an entity to be certified as a CDFI, it must meet six criteria that are set forth in the regulation that governs CDFI certification: (i) Primary mission (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(1)); (ii) financing entity (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(2)); (iii) Target Market (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(3)); (iv) Development Services (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(4)); (v) accountability (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(5)); and (vi) non-government entity (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(6)).

The CDFI Fund is amending the CDFI certification regulation only with respect to the financing entity requirement and participation as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. This regulatory change creates a means for the CDFI Fund, in its discretion, to permit a CDFI's Affiliate (as defined in 12 CFR 1805.104(b)), which applies for CDFI certification, to rely on the Controlling CDFI's activity or track record in order to meet the financing entity requirement, solely for the purpose of the Affiliate participating as an Eligible CDFI under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.

In other words, this revised regulation states that, for purposes of participating in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Eligible CDFI, if it is an Affiliate of a CDFI, need not meet the financing entity requirement based on its own merit or activity but may instead rely on the financing entity track record of the affiliated CDFI. This regulatory revision affects only the Affiliate's ability to meet the financing entity requirement for CDFI certification: said entity must meet the other five certification criteria in accordance with the existing regulation.

Further, in this revised regulation, the CDFI Fund reserves the authority, in its discretion, to set additional parameters and restrictions on the financing entity requirement, which will be set forth in the Notice of Guarantee Availability (NOGA) for a particular application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. Such additional parameters or restrictions may include, for example, (i) a deadline by which the Affiliate must meet the financing entity requirement based on its own merit or activity, rather than relying on that of the affiliated CDFI, and (ii) a requirement that the affiliated CDFI must maintain its CDFI certification until such time that the Affiliate is able to meet all CDFI certification requirements based on its own merit or activity.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collections of information contained in this interim rule have been previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1559-0006, 1559-0021, and 1559-0022. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. This document restates the collections of information without substantive change.

National Environmental Policy Act

This revised interim rule has been reviewed in accordance with 12 CFR part 1815. The CDFI Fund's Environmental Regulations under the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA) require that the CDFI Fund adequately consider the cumulative impact proposed activities have upon the human environment. It is the determination of the CDFI Fund that the interim rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the NEPA and the CDFI Fund Environmental Quality Regulations, 12 CFR part 1815, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

Administrative Procedure Act

Because this interim rule relates to loans and grants, notice and public procedure and a delayed effective date are not required pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number

Community Development Financial Institutions Program—21.020.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1805

Community development, Grant programs-housing and community development, Loan programs-housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

Amendment to the Regulations

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the CDFI Fund is amending 12 CFR chapter XVII, part 1805 as follows:

PART 1805—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 1805 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 4703, 4703 note, 4710, 4717; and 31 U.S.C. 321.

2. Section 1805.201(b)(2) is revised to read as follows:
§ 1805.201 Certification as a Community Development Financial Institution.

(b) * * *

(2) Financing entity. (i) A CDFI shall be an entity whose predominant business activity is the provision, in arms-length transactions, of Financial Products, Development Services, and/or other similar financing. An Applicant may demonstrate that it is such an entity if it is a(n):

(A) Depository Institution Holding Company;

(B) Insured Depository Institution, Insured Credit Union, or State-Insured Credit Union; or

(C) Organization that is deemed by the CDFI Fund to have such a predominant business activity as a result of analysis of its financial statements, organizing documents, and any other information required to be submitted as part of its application. In conducting such analysis, the CDFI Fund may take into consideration an Applicant's total assets and its use of personnel.

(ii) For the sole purpose of participating as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program (see 12 CFR part 1808), an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI may be deemed to meet the financing entity requirement of this subsection by relying on the CDFI Fund's determination that the Controlling CDFI has met said requirement; provided, however, that the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to set additional parameters and restrictions on such, which parameters and restrictions shall be set forth in the applicable Notice of Guarantee Availability for a CDFI Bond Guarantee Program application round.

(iii) Further, for the sole purpose of participating as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the provision of Financial Products, Development Services, and/or other similar financing by an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI need not be arms-length if such transaction is by and between the Affiliate and the Controlling CDFI, pursuant to an operating agreement that includes management and ownership provisions and is in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund.

Dated: April 7, 2015. Mary Ann Donovan, Director, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.
[FR Doc. 2015-08356 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-70-P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14 CFR Part 1245 [Docket No: NASA-2015-0001] RIN 2700-AE02 Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

NASA has adopted as final, without change, a proposed rule amending its patent waivers regulations to update citations and the patent waiver policy, and to clarify and update the patent waiver procedures, so they are more in line with the National Aeronautics and Space Act (Space Act), the authorizing statute.

DATES:

This rule is effective May 11, 2015. Comments due on or before April 27, 2015. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

Comments must be identified with RIN 2700-AE02 and may be sent to NASA via the Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Please note that NASA will post all comments on the Internet with changes, including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen M. Galus, Office of the General Counsel, NASA Headquarters, telephone (202) 358-3437.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 79 FR 60119, on October 6, 2014, to amend its patent waiver regulations to update citations to the United States Code, to clarify the requirements and procedures for petitioning for a patent waiver so they follow more closely the terms of the Space Act, and to add grounds for denial of a petition for waiver of foreign rights. No comments were submitted on the proposed rule.

II. Discussion and Analysis

The NASA Office of the General Counsel had no comments to consider. NASA has adopted the proposed rule as final with one additional section update. After the proposed rule was published, an outdated citation was found in § 1245.108 License to contractor. In paragraphs (b) and (c), 14 CFR 1245.2 was updated to 37 CFR part 404. Also, “Government-Owned” was substituted for “NASA” in paragraph (b), and “in accordance with applicable regulations in” was substituted for “under the Licensing of NASA Inventions” in order to clarify the sentence in paragraph (c).

A. Summary of Significant Changes

No changes were made as a result of public comments.

B. Analysis of Public Comments

No public comments were submitted.

III. Direct Final Rule

NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves adopting a proposed rule amending its patent waivers regulations to update citations and the patent waiver policy, and to clarify and update the patent waiver procedures, so they are more in line with the National Aeronautics and Space Act (Space Act), the authorizing statute. This rule has one additional update to correct an outdated citation. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if NASA receives significant adverse comments, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

IV. Regulatory Analysis Section Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This rule does not contain an information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule sets forth policies and procedures for submitting and reviewing petitions for waiver of the Government's rights to certain inventions made under government funded contracts, pursuant to section 20135(b)(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20135(b)(1). The provisions do not apply to inventions made under any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a nonprofit organization or small business firm that are afforded the disposition of rights as provided in 35 U.S.C. 200-204 (Pub. L. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3019, 3020, 3022 and 3023; and Pub. L. 98-620, 98 Stat. 3364-3367). Therefore, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1245

Inventions, Patents and waivers.

Accordingly, 14 CFR part 1245 is amended as follows:

PART 1245—PATENTS AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Subpart 1—Patent and Waiver Regulations 1. The authority citation for Part 1245, Subpart 1, is revised to read as follows: Authority:

51 U.S.C. 20135, 35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.

2. Section 1245.100 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1245.100 Scope.

This subpart prescribes regulations for the waiver of rights of the Government of the United States to inventions made under NASA contract in conformity with section 20135 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. Chapter 201).

3. Section 1245.101 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1245.101 Applicability.

The provisions of the subpart apply to all inventions made or which may be made under conditions enabling the Administrator to determine that the rights therein reside in the Government of the United States under section 20135(b)(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20135(b)(1). The provisions do not apply to inventions made under any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a nonprofit organization or small business firm that are afforded the disposition of rights as provided in 35 U.S.C. 200-204 (Pub. L. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3019, 3020, 3022 and 3023; and Pub. L. 98-620, 98 Stat. 3364-3367).

4. Section 1245.102 is amended by revising paragraph (c), redesignating paragraphs (d) through (j) as paragraphs (e) through (k), and adding new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 1245.102 Definitions and terms.

(c) Invention means any, new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any variety of plant, which is or may be patentable under the Patent Laws of the United States of America or any foreign country.

(d) Class of inventions means inventions directed to a particular process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or to a narrowly drawn, focused area of technology.

5. Section 1245.103 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 1245.103 Policy.

(a) In implementing the provisions of section 20135(g) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. Chapter 201), and in determining when the interests of the United States would be served by waiver of all or any part of the rights of the United States in an invention or class of inventions made in the performance of work under NASA contracts, the Administrator will be guided by the objectives set forth in the National Aeronautics and Space Act, by the basic policy of the Presidential Memorandum and Statement of Government Patent Policy to the Heads of the Executive Departments and agencies dated February 18, 1983, by the goals and objectives of its current Authorization Act, Strategic Plan, and other pertinent National policies or laws, such as the National Space Policy of the United States of America. Any such waiver may be made upon such terms and under such conditions as the Administrator shall determine to be required for the protection of the interests of the United States. Among the most important goals are to provide incentives to foster inventiveness and encourage the reporting of inventions made under NASA contracts, to provide for the widest practicable dissemination of new technology resulting from NASA programs, and to promote early utilization, expeditious development, and continued availability of this new technology for commercial purposes and the public benefit. In applying this regulation, both the need for incentives to draw forth private initiatives and the need to promote healthy competition in industry must be weighed.

(b) Several different situations arise when waiver of all or any part of the rights of the United States with respect to an invention or class of invention may be requested and are prescribed in §§ 1245.104 through 1245.106. Under § 1245.104, advance waiver of any or all of the rights of the United States with respect to any invention or class of inventions which may be made under a contract may be requested prior to the execution of the contract, or within 30 days after execution of the contract. Waiver of rights to an identified invention made and reported under a contract are to be requested under § 1245.105, and may be requested under this provision even though a request under § 1245.104 was not made, or if made, was not granted. Waiver of foreign rights under § 1245.106 may be requested concurrently with domestic rights under § 1245.104 or § 1245.105, or may be made independently.

6. Section 1245.104 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, (b)(2), (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(3)(v), (c), and (d); b. Removing paragraph (e); and c. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (e).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1245.104 Advance waivers.

(a) The provisions of this section apply to petitions for waiver of domestic rights of the United States with respect to any invention or class of inventions which may be made under a contract.

(b) The NASA Inventions and Contributions Board normally will recommend grant of a request for advance waiver of domestic rights submitted prior to execution of contract or within 30 days after execution of the contract unless the Board finds that the interests of the United States will be better served by restricting or denying all or part of the requested rights in one or more of the following situations:

(2) When a determination has been made by Government authority which is authorized by statute or Executive order to conduct foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence activities that the restriction or denial of the requested rights to any inventions made in the performance of work under the contract is necessary to protect the security of such activities; or

(3) Where the Board finds that exceptional circumstances exist, such that restriction or denial of the requested rights will better promote one or more of the following objectives:

(v) Ensuring that the Government retains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet the needs of the Government and protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions.

(c)(1) An advance waiver, when granted, will be subject to the reservations set forth in § 1245.107. Normally, the reservations of § 1245.107(a), License to the Government, and § 1245.107(b), March-in rights, will apply. However, should one or more of the situations set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3), of this section exist, rather than denying the advance waiver request, the Board may recommend granting to the contractor only part of the requested rights, to the extent necessary to address the particular situation, consistent with the policy and goals of § 1245.103. In that event, the waiver grant will be subject to additional reservations as provided for in § 1245.107(c).

(2) To meet the National Aeronautics and Space Act standard of “any invention or class of inventions,” for advance waivers, the petition shall identify the invention(s) and/or class(es) of inventions that the Contractor believes will be made under the contract and for which waiver of rights is being requested. Therefore, the petition must be directed to a specific invention(s) or to inventions directed to a particular process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or to a narrowly drawn, focused area(s) of technology.

(3) An advance waiver, when granted, will apply only to inventions reported to NASA under the applicable terms of the contract and a designation made within 6 months of the time of reporting (or a reasonable time thereafter permitted for good cause shown) that the contractor elects title to the invention and intends to file or has filed a U.S. patent application. Such election will be made by notification in writing to the patent representative designated in the contract. Title to all other inventions made under the contract are subject to section 20135(b)(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20135(b)(1). The granting of the advance waiver does not otherwise relieve a contractor of any of the invention identification or reporting requirements set forth in the applicable patent rights clause in the contract.

(4) The advance waiver shall extend to the invention claimed in any patent application filed on the reported invention, including any subsequent divisional or continuation application thereof, provided the claims of the subsequent application do not substantially change the scope of the reported invention.

(d) When a petition for waiver is submitted under paragraph (b) of this section, prior to contract execution, it will be processed expeditiously so that a decision on the petition may be reached prior to execution of the contract. However, if there is insufficient time or insufficient information is presented, or for other reasons which do not permit a recommendation to be made without unduly delaying execution of the contract, the Board will inform the contracting officer that no recommendation can be made prior to contract execution and the reasons therefor. The contracting officer will then notify the petitioner of the Board's action.

7. Section 1245.106 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 1245.106 Waiver of foreign rights.

(c) The Board will normally recommend the waiver of foreign rights be granted under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this section in any designated country unless:

(1) The Board finds that exceptional circumstances exist, such that restriction or denial of the requested foreign rights will better promote one or more of the objectives set forth in § 1245.104(b)(3)(i) through (v); or

(2) The Board finds that the economic interests of the United States will not be served thereby; or unless

(3) In the case of an individual identified invention under paragraph (b) of this section, NASA has determined, prior to the request, to file a patent application in the designated country.

(d) If, subsequent to the granting of the petition for foreign rights, the petitioner requests and designates additional countries in which it wishes to secure patents, the Chairperson may recommend such request, in whole or in part, without further action by the Board.

8. Section 1245.107 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1245.107 Reservations.

(b) March-in rights. For any invention for which waiver of rights has been granted under this subpart, NASA has the same right as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 203 and 210, with the procedures set forth in § 1245.117 and 37 CFR 401.6, to require the contractor, an assignee, or exclusive licensee of the invention to grant a nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license in any field of use to a responsible applicant or applicants, upon terms that are reasonable under the circumstances, and if the contractor, assignee, or exclusive licensee refuses such a request, NASA has the right to grant such a license itself if NASA determines that:

9. Section 1245.108 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) and the last sentence of paragraph (c).
§ 1245.108 License to contractor.

(b) The contractor's domestic license may be revoked or modified by the Administrator to the extent necessary to achieve expeditious practical application of the invention pursuant to an application for an exclusive license submitted in accordance with the Licensing of Government-Owned Inventions (37 CFR part 404). * * *

(c) * * * The contractor shall have the right to appeal, in accordance with applicable regulations in 37 CFR part 404, any decision concerning the revocation or modification of its license.

10. Section 1245.110 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d), and by adding new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1245.110 Content of petitions.

(b) Advance waiver petitions shall also identify the invention(s) and/or class(es) of inventions that the Contractor believes will be made under the contract and for which waiver of rights is being requested, in accordance with § 1245.104(c)(2).

11. Section 1245.112 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1245.112 Notice of proposed Board action and reconsideration.

(a) Notice. Except as provided by § 1245.104(d), the Board will notify the petitioner, through the contracting officer, with respect to petitions for advance waiver prior to contract execution, and directly to the petitioner for all other petitions:

(1) When it proposes to recommend to the Administrator that the petition be:

(i) Granted in an extent different from that requested; or

(ii) Denied.

(2) Of the reasons for the recommended action adverse to or different from the waiver of rights requested by the petitioner.

12. Section 1245.116 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1245.116 Miscellaneous provisions.

(b) Statement of Government rights. The waiver recipient shall include, within the specification of any United States patent application and any patent issuing thereon for a waived invention, the following statement:

The invention described herein was made in the performance of work under NASA Contract No. lll, and is subject to the provisions of Section 20135 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. Chapter 201).

13. Section 1245.117 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1245.117 March-in and waiver revocation procedures.

(a) The exercise of march-in procedures shall be in conformance with 35 U.S.C. 203 and the applicable provisions of 37 CFR 401.6, entitled “Exercise of march-in rights for inventions made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms.”

Nanette Jennings, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-08145 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 29 CFR Parts 101, 102, and 103 RIN 3142-AA08 Representation—Case Procedures AGENCY:

National Labor Relations Board.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

On Monday, December 15, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule regarding representation case procedures, 79 FR 74307. Since the publication of the rule, a number of minor errors have been noted throughout the Supplementary Information preceding the amendatory language. The errata sheet below corrects those errors.

DATES:

These corrections will be effective on April 14, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-3737 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Errata

On Monday, December 15, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule in the above-captioned proceeding. This errata sheet makes the following corrections to the supplementary information preceding the amendatory language of the final rule:

1. On p. 74308:

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 17, correct “proceeding” to read “proceedings”.

2. On p. 74311:

In the third column, line 1, correct “51735” to read “3822”.

In the third column, lines 2-3, correct “[b]efore issuing a proposed regulation” to read “[b]efore issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking”.

In the third column, lines 13-14, correct “76 FR 36829” to read “76 FR 36817, n.34”.

3. On page 74332:

In the third column, second full paragraph, line 12, add “a” before “review”.

4. On page 74337:

In the first column, first full paragraph, line 49, add a period after “representation”.

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 13, correct “dissenting” to read “concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part”, and in line 3 of the block quotation from Denver Area Telecommunications Consortium, Inc., correct “most” to read “more”.

5. On page 74346:

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 13, “practice” should be in internal quotation marks.

6. On page 74351:

In the second column, line 6, correct “employees' workplace” to read “employee”, and in line 7 remove “(emphasis added)”.

7. On page 74359:

In the third column, first full paragraph, line 11, correct “8(b)(a)” to read “8(b)(1)”.

8. On page 74372:

In the first column, second paragraph, line 4, delete “in any event”.

9. On page 74385:

In the third column, lines 19-20, correct “rules” to read “Rules” and correct “Procedures” to read “Procedure”.

10. On page 74391:

In the second column, line 6, correct “slip op. at 2” to read “slip op. at 1”.

In the second column, line 13, correct “petition” to read “proceeding”.

11. On page 74402:

In the second column, line 29, add an open quotation mark before “[a]rgument”.

12. On page 74423:

In the first column, in the continuation of footnote 513, line 10, add “slip op. at 10” after “No. 76”.

In the first column, in the continuation of footnote 513, line 13, add “slip op. at 8” after “No. 72”.

In the first column, in the continuation of footnote 513, line 14, correct “purposes” to read “purpose”.

13. On page 74432:

In the second column, line 16 of footnote 542, remove “National Labor Relations”.

14. On page 74433:

In the second column, line 9 of footnote 550, correct “102-103” to read “102”.

In the second column, line 9 of footnote 550, correct “[I]n” to read “In”.

15. On page 74440:

In the first column, line 6 of footnote 591, correct “processses” to read “processes”.

16. On page 74446:

In the third column, line 10 of footnote 623, correct “Hanover” to read “Hannover”.

17. On page 74452:

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 22, add “abstract” before “law”.

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 27, remove “s” from “communication”.

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 28, correct “Employer” to read “employer.”

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 30, correct “363-64” to read “364”.

18. On page 74460:

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 12, add quotation mark after “practice”.

19. On page 74461:

In the third column, second full paragraph, line 29, remove “proposed” before “rule”.

In the third column, second full paragraph, line 35, correct “5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4)” to read “5 U.S.C. 604(a)(5)”.

20. On p. 74465:

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 3, correct “2480” to read “2823” and correct “2,777” to read “2,974”.

In the second column, first full paragraph, lines 4 and 8, correct “89.3%” to read “94.9%”.

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 7, correct “2,239” to read “2,379”.

21. On p. 74467:

In the second column, first full paragraph, line 14, correct “29” to read “30”.

In the second column, line 4 of footnote 729, correct “29” to read “30”.

By direction of the Board.

Dated: Washington, DC, April 6, 2015. William B. Cowen, Solicitor.
[FR Doc. 2015-08159 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0122] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the I-695 Bridge across Curtis Creek, mile 1.0, Baltimore, MD. This temporary deviation allows the drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position to facilitate an interim structural inspection and an in-depth electrical/mechanical inspection.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on April 13, 2015 to 5 p.m. on May 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0122] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Kashanda Booker, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6227, email [email protected] If you have questions on reviewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Maryland Transportation Authority, who owns and operates this drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.557 to facilitate an interim structural inspection and an in-depth electrical/mechanical inspection.

Under the regular operating schedule, the I-695 Bridge draw must open on signal if at least one hour notice is given. The bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 58 feet above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed to navigation position daily between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. but will be able to open for navigation with a 2 hour advance notice by contacting (410) 354-1374 or utilizing VHF Channel 13/16.

The bridge will operate under the normal operating schedule at all other times. Emergency openings can be provided with advance notice by contacting (410) 354-1374 or utilizing VHF Channel 13/16. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Curtis Creek.

Curtis Creek is used by a variety of vessels including military, tugs, commercial, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with these waterway users. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation. Mariners able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. However, mariners are advised to proceed with caution.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: March 30, 2015. James L. Rousseau, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-08343 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0137] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Naval Helicopter Association (NHA) Red Bull Helicopter Demonstration; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of San Diego Bay for a helicopter aerial demonstration sponsored by the Naval Helicopter Association (NHA). This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of the helicopter aircrew, spectators, safety vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Unauthorized persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. The Coast Guard requests public comments on the temporary safety zone.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015. Public comments must be received by May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments using one of the listed methods, and see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information on public comments.

Onlinehttp://www.regulations.gov following Web site instructions.

Fax—202-493-2251.

Mail or hand deliver—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. Hand delivery hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays (telephone 202-366-9329).

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0137]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego; telephone (619) 278-7656, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Public Participation and Comments

We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on this temporary final rule. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2015-0137 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 2008).

Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 81/2 x 11 inch format suitable for reproduction. The Docket Management Facility will acknowledge receipt of mailed comments if you enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope with your submission.

Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following the Web site's instructions. You can also view the docket at the Docket Management Facility (see the mailing address under ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule safety zone for a planned fifteen minute air show over San Diego Bay without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable, because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the participants and the public during the event. Furthermore, the necessary information to determine whether the marine event poses a threat to persons and vessels was provided March 12, 2015, less than 60 days before the event, which is insufficient time to publish an NPRM. The Coast Guard requests new marine event permit applications at least 165 days in advance for proper environmental and administrative review of the event.

Nevertheless, we are providing an opportunity for subsequent public comment and, should public comment show the need for modifications to the safety zone during the event, we may make those modifications during the event and will provide actual notice of those modifications to the affected public.

C. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis and authorities for this temporary rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones.

The Coast Guard believes a temporary safety zone is needed on the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay to ensure public safety for the NHA Red Bull Helicopter Demonstration. This event involves a planned fifteen minute air show which flies over a portion of San Diego Bay. Because aerial stunt flying over busy waterways poses significant risk to public safety and property and the likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, and low flying could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities, a safety zone is necessary to safe guard spectators, vessels and the event pilots. For the safety concerns noted, it is important to have these regulations in effect during the event and impracticable to delay the regulations.

D. Discussion of the Final Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the helicopter aircrew, event spectators, safety patrol craft and to protect other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or their designated representative. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM). Just prior to the event and during the enforcement of the event, the Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alert via VHF Channel 16.

This temporary safety zone will be bound by the following coordinates (North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984): 32°43.05 N, 117°10.54 W, 32°43.05 N, 117°10.46 W, 32°43.33 N, 117°10.54 W, 32°43.33 N, 117°13.46 W.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size, location and limited duration of the safety zone. This zone impacts a small designated area of the San Diego bay for less than one hour. Furthermore, vessel traffic can safely transit around the safety zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of private and commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the San Diego Bay from 6:30 p.m. through 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone. The Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via VHF Channel 16 before the safety zone is enforced.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.01.

2. Add § 165.T11-689 to read as follows:
§ 165.T11-689 Safety zone; Naval Helicopter Association (NHA) Red Bull Helicopter Demonstration; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA.

(a) Location. The safety zone will encompass the navigable waters encompassed by the following coordinates (North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984): 32°43.05 N, 117°10.54 W, 32°43.05 N, 117°10.46 W, 32°43.33 N, 117°10.54 W, 32°43.33 N, 117°10.46 W.

(b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015. If the event concludes prior to the schedule termination time, the COTP will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section: designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or local, state, or federal law enforcement vessels who have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.

(2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

(3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.

(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies in patrol and notification of the regulation.

Dated: April 1, 2015. J.A. Janszen, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2015-08347 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR PART 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0213] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Barge-Based Fireworks, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Sturgeon Bay in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Sturgeon Bay due to a fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on May 15, 2015, until 9:30 p.m. on May 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0213. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary rule, contact or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, at 414-747-7148 or [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Specifically, the Coast Guard did not receive the final details for this event until March 4, 2015. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the barge-based fireworks display on May 15, 2015, which are discussed further below.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

On May 15, 2015, the Coast Guard anticipates that a tug and barge will be anchored in the vicinity of the Sturgeon Bay Yacht Harbor on the waters of Sturgeon Bay in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin for the purpose of launching a fireworks display. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this fireworks display will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include falling and/or flaming debris, and collisions among spectator vessels.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels during the barge-based fireworks display from the waters of Sturgeon Bay. This zone is effective from 8:30 p.m. on May 15, 2015, until 9:30 p.m. on May 16, 2015. This zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on May 15, 2015. In the case that inclement weather forces a postponement of the fireworks display on May 15, 2015, this rule will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on May 16, 2015. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of Sturgeon Bay Yacht Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 420-foot radius from the fireworks launch site, located on a barge in approximate position 44°49.579′ N., 087°22.384′ W. (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or her designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for only one day. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected portion of Sturgeon Bay on May 15 or May 16, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of this zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0213 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0213 Safety Zone; Barge-based Fireworks, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin.

(a) Location. All waters of Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of Sturgeon Bay Yacht Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 420-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate position 44°49.579′ N., 087°22.384′ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Effective and enforcement period. This zone is effective from 8:30 p.m. on May 15, 2015, until 9:30 p.m. on May 16, 2015. This zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on May 15, 2015. If the scheduled event is postponed due to inclement weather on May 15, 2015, this rule will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on May 16, 2015.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative.

(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on her behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative.

Dated: March 30, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-08345 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 202 Preregistration and Registration of Claims to Copyright CFR Correction

In Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 614, in § 202.2, in paragraph (b)(1), the second copyright symbol, following the words “. . . or, in the case of a sound recording, the symbol”, is corrected to read “℗”.

[FR Doc. 2015-08383 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132; FRL-9925-27-Region-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the attainment demonstration and associated contingency measures and motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MD-VA, moderate ozone nonattainment area (Washington Area) for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) as submitted by the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia as revisions to each of their State Implementation Plans (SIPs). EPA has determined that each of the three SIP revisions including specifically the attainment demonstration, contingency measures and MVEBs meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), and EPA is approving each revision.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia. Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002; the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted formal SIP revisions on June 12, 2007, June 4, 2007, and June 12, 2007, respectively (hereafter the June 2007 SIP revisions). These June 2007 SIP revisions were submitted to address CAA requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and included the 2002 base year emissions inventory, the 15 percent reasonable further progress plan (RFP) (15% RFP plan), RFP contingency measures, an attainment demonstration to show attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2010, a reasonably available control measures (RACM) analysis, and contingency measures for failure to attain. In addition, the submission included the transportation conformity 2008, 2009, and 2010 year MVEBs associated with the RFP plan, the attainment demonstration and contingency measures, respectively. The District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE), the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) (hereafter referred to as the three States) jointly developed the June 2007 SIP revisions.1

1 The three States developed and submitted the “Plan to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA Region, State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Moderate Area SIP” (hereafter the Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan).

These elements of the Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan were required for the Washington Area by sections 172(c), 182(a), and 182(b)(1) of the CAA due to the classification of the Washington Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The boundaries of the Washington Area are defined in the tables for “1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)” in 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321 and 81.347.2

2 Effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012), EPA designated and classified nonattainment areas under the 2008 ozone NAAQS codified at 40 CFR 50.15 for most areas of the country including the Washington Area. The Washington Area was designated as nonattainment and classified as marginal nonattainment. The boundaries of the ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate under the 1997 ozone NAAQS are the same as those of the ozone nonattainment area classified as marginal under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321 and 81.347. Hereafter, when referring to the Washington Area in relation to SIP requirements required solely due to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the term “Washington 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area” will be used.

On September 11, 2011 (76 FR 58116), EPA approved portions of the June 2007 SIP revisions for the three States including the 2002 base year emissions inventory, 15% RFP plan and associated MVEBs for 2008, RFP contingency measures, and the RACM analysis. In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving the remaining portions of the June 2007 SIP revisions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS including the attainment demonstration, the contingency measures, and the associated 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs.3 In a March 20, 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking (the March 20, 2013 NPR), EPA proposed to approve these remaining elements of the June 2007 SIP revisions. 78 FR 17161. The initial comment period closed on May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27160); however, EPA reopened the comment period until June 10, 2013. In this final rule, EPA is approving the portions of the June 2007 SIP revisions which we proposed for approval in the March 20, 2013 NPR: the attainment demonstration, contingency measures, and 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs.

3 The attainment demonstration was required under 40 CFR 51.908 to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010 (the June 2010 attainment date).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

The June 2007 SIP revisions addressed the attainment demonstration required under 40 CFR 51.908, contingency measures, and the associated 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area. Specific requirements for CAA attainment demonstrations, contingency measures and MVEBs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the rationale for EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.

III. Attainment Status Based Upon Recent Air Quality Data

Since the March 20, 2013 NPR, the three States have submitted and certified complete ambient air quality monitoring (AQ data) for the entire 2013 ozone monitoring season. EPA has released the final 2011-2013 design values and posted these at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. The 2011-2013 design values show the Washington Area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Table 1 shows these design values for monitors in the Washington Area in parts per billion (ppb) ozone. These design values in Table 1 demonstrate that the Washington Area continues to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Table 1—Actual Monitored Design Values (DVs) for 2011 to 2013 Period Site data AIRS ID Site name County/City DV (ppb) State 2011-2013 11-001-0041 River Terrace DC 72 11-001-0043 McMillan DC 79 24-009-0010 Calvert Calvert Co MD 77 24-017-0010 Southern MD Charles Co MD 77 24-021-0037 Frederick Municipal Airport Frederick Co MD 74 24-031-3001 Rockville Montgomery Co MD 74 24-033-0030 HU-Beltsville Prince George's Co MD 76 24-033-8003 PG Equestrian Center Prince George's MD 81 24-033-8003 Beltsville Prince George's MD 72 51-013-0020 Aurora Hills Arlington County VA 79 51-059-0030 Franconia Fairfax County VA 79 51-107-1005 Ashburn Loudoun County VA 71 51-153-0009 Long Park Prince William County VA 69

EPA has also examined available 2014 ozone season AQ data. EPA notes that this AQ data is preliminary. EPA examined the data entered into EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) available as of February 10, 2015. It has not undergone all the quality assurance/quality control review and certification necessary to be used for regulatory purposes, and as of February 10, 2015 may not cover the entire 2014 ozone season for the Washington Area which ended October 31, 2014. See Table D-3 “Ozone Monitoring Season by State” in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58.

The highest preliminary design value in the Washington Area for the 2012-2014 period is 76 ppb which is meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Until the 2014 AQ data is quality assured and certified, this design value is preliminary and subject to change. However, the preliminary data indicates that the Washington Area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. For the March 20, 2013 NPR, EPA prepared a technical support document (February 26, 2013 TSD) which is in the docket for this rulemaking and is available online at www.regulations.gov as document number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132-0006.

EPA has also prepared a supplement to the February 26, 2013 TSD, “Supplement to Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment Area,” dated February 12, 2015 (TSD Supplement); 4 this TSD Supplement provides additional analysis of the 2013 and 2014 AQ data. The TSD Supplement and other documents concerning the 2013 and 2014 AQ data have been added to the docket for this action and are available online at www.regulations.gov at docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132.

4 The February 26, 2013 TSD is titled “Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment Area,” dated February 26, 2013 and is in the docket for this rulemaking as document number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132-0006.

IV. Comments Received on the 2010 Attainment Demonstration, MVEBs, and Contingency Measures and EPA's Responses

EPA received comments adverse to the proposed approval of the attainment demonstration, MVEBs and contingency measures from the June 2007 SIP revisions. A summary of these adverse comments and EPA responses follows.

Comment: EPA received comments asserting that EPA must disapprove the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions because the 2010-2012 AQ data demonstrates that the Washington Area is not attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenter asserts that 40 CFR 51.112(a) provides that attainment demonstrations should be done with air quality modeling and with “data bases” such as EPA's ambient air quality monitoring database, AQS. The commenter concludes that the three States' attainment demonstration SIPs are therefore not adequate to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenter cites Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 30-31 (1983) to support its claim that failure to consider the 2010-2012 AQ data would amount to a final rule that is arbitrary and capricious because “[T]he agency must . . . examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” Id. Finally, a commenter stated that the weight of evidence demonstration in EPA's March 20, 2013 NPR is not rational because 2010-2012 AQ data is more representative of real world conditions.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA must disapprove the attainment demonstrations submitted in June 2007 based upon the results of the 2010-2012 AQ data. EPA did in fact consider some air quality data beyond the 1997 ozone NAAQS June 15, 2010 attainment date. EPA considered 2009-2011 air quality data when proposing approval of the three States' June 2007 SIP revisions which are the subject of this rulemaking. See Table 2 “Modeled Predicted 2009 Design Values versus Actual Monitored Design Values” and Table 3 “Actual Monitored Design Values 2009 to 2011” in the February 26, 2013 TSD in the docket for this action (Docket ID#: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132). EPA examined the actual monitored ozone design values through 2011 while evaluating the three States' attainment demonstrations and concluded that the overall trend of ozone air quality in the Washington Area was improving. Because EPA concluded the trend was improving and because the Washington Area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of June 15, 2010, EPA determined that the 3 States' June 2007 SIP revisions adequately demonstrated attainment of the ozone standard by the attainment date and EPA proposed to approve the demonstrations. 78 FR at 17165. As discussed in Section III of this rulemaking action, EPA has examined ozone design values for the Washington Area for 2011-2013 and has examined preliminary monitoring data from 2014 which demonstrate the Washington Area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS and demonstrate the overall ozone design value trend is decreasing from 2003 to 2014. See also the TSD Supplement. Thus, EPA has considered relevant data and disagrees with the commenter that EPA must disapprove the attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions due to the 2010-2012 data for the Washington Area.

The CAA is very prescriptive in section 110(k)(3) concerning under what conditions EPA must approve a SIP revision: “[t]the Administrator shall approve such [SIP revision] submittal as a whole if it meets all of the applicable requirements of this chapter” (with emphasis added). As relevant to the moderate area attainment plan for the Washington Area, section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) requires that: “By no later than 3 years after November 15, 1990, the State shall submit a revision to the applicable implementation plan to . . . provide for such specific annual reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone by the attainment date applicable under this chapter.” (Emphasis added.)

The applicable attainment date for areas classified as moderate like the Washington Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS was no later than June 15, 2010 pursuant to Table 1 of 40 CFR 51.903(a) (i.e., six years after the June 15, 2004 effective date of nonattainment designation for 8-hour NAAQS). See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). Application of 40 CFR 51.908(d) results in a de facto attainment date by the close of calendar year 2009, which included the last complete ozone monitoring season prior to June 15, 2010. See 69 FR at 23951 and 23989 (stating that the determination of attainment for an area with an attainment date in May 2010 would be based on AQ data from 2007, 2008 and 2009). CAA sections 172 and 182 require the SIPs for the Washington Area to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 ozone NAAQS but do not require the plan to address continued maintenance of the standard after the attainment date. That requirement is specified as a component of redesignation in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) and is detailed in section 175A(a). Thus, a state is not required to develop a plan to maintain the standard until such time as it has air quality meeting the NAAQS and is seeking redesignation to attainment.

The attainment demonstrations submitted by the three States addressed all of the applicable requirements for such plans in CAA sections 172 and 182 as explained in the March 20, 2013 NPR. In addition, the Washington Area did in fact attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by its attainment date of June 15, 2010. See 77 FR 11739 (February 28, 2012). A violation of the NAAQS for the period 2010-2012, which is after the attainment date, is not determinative of whether the plan was adequate for showing that the standard would be met by the attainment date, and EPA disagrees with the commenter that the SIP must be disapproved now on the basis of that data. Because EPA based approval of the attainment demonstrations partially on the overall improving ozone air quality trends in addition to the fact that the Area attained by its attainment date, EPA notes that the area continued to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on its design value for 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and 2011-2013. Preliminary data from 2014 also indicate that it is likely that the Washington Area is meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the period of 2012-2014. Thus, EPA disagrees that EPA must disapprove the June 2007 SIP revisions after considering the 2010-2012 data suggested by commenter because the Washington Area's attainment by the attainment date plus overall trend of attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS supports approval.

Comment: EPA received comments asserting that EPA should exercise caution in approving the attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions because the ambient air quality monitoring data through 2012 indicated that air quality has degraded over time as indicated by ozone concentrations in the DC area having steadily increased over time. The commenters assert that such degradation is not consistent with the goal in the CAA of moving towards redesignation to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The comments state that the worsening air quality for the Washington Area after 2009 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS casts doubt about the improvement in air quality through 2009 being due to permanent and enforceable reductions from the implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations which the commenter asserts is necessary for redesignation of the Washington Area to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS pursuant to section 107 of the CAA.5 6 One commenter noted that the design value for the Washington Area rose as follows: 0.080 parts per million (ppm) for 2007 to 2009, 0.081 ppm for 2008 to 2010, 0.082 ppm for 2009 to 2011, and 0.087 ppm for 2010 to 2012.

5 The comments cite section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) which is one of the prerequisites to redesignation to attainment from nonattainment.

6 The comments assert that the violation based upon the 2010 to 2012 AQ data was recorded despite the implementation by the three States of all control programs and contingency measures committed to in the attainment SIP and full implementation of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

Response: The attainment demonstration provisions of the Act do not require the state to demonstrate that the measures adopted to attain the standard will ensure continued maintenance of the NAAQS. Also, as the commenter notes in the comments, the issue of whether reductions are due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions is aligned with redesignation for a specific standard and with one of the redesignation criteria in section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA does note, however, that increased ambient ozone levels are not necessarily associated with the measures in the SIP not being permanent and enforceable. Rather, air quality is based on a complicated mix of factors that include, but go beyond the level of emissions. Other factors include air temperature, wind patterns, and emissions from upwind sources outside of the nonattainment area. For that reason, it is not unusual that an area's design value can vary year-to-year and that for some years it may be higher than for an earlier year. The design value did show a slight increase between the 2009 design value and the 2011 design value and then had a more significant jump for the 2012 design value. However, the 2013 design value was lower than that for 2012 and met the 1997 NAAQS and preliminary data indicates that the 2014 design value will also be lower than that for 2012 and will also meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

If the states choose to submit a request to redesignate the Washington Area, they will need to demonstrate that they have met the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), including the requirement that the improvements in air quality are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; however, as EPA has explained, that issue is not relevant for determining whether the area demonstrated that it would attain the 1997 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

Comment: Another commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve the attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions because neither the SIP submittals nor EPA provide any analysis pursuant to CAA section 110(l). Specifically, the commenters claim there is no analysis of whether or not EPA's approval of the attainment demonstrations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will interfere with any applicable requirements regarding the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS.7 The commenter claims because the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions do not require any additional emission reductions, the attainment demonstrations may interfere with attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; 8 the commenter specifically asserts that requiring additional nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission reductions for the attainment demonstrations will result in more expeditious attainment of and in reasonable further progress for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and result in implementation of RACM. The commenter also asserts that EPA must conduct this analysis and provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on this analysis.

7 These are codified at 40 CFR 50.15 and 40 CFR 50.11, respectively.

8 The commenter cited section 172(a)(2) for the proposition that attainment dates are to be the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable. Because EPA is implementing the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS under “subpart 2” (sections 181 through 185B) by classifying all ozone nonattainment areas under both these NAAQS under section 181, EPA notes that the proper citation for this proposition should be section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1103 (implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS under section 181) which requires attainment of the ozone NAAQS be “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than the date provided in Table 1 of 40 CFR 51.1103.

Response: EPA disagrees that a CAA section 110(l) analysis is required for the purpose suggested by the commenter. Section 110(l) prohibits approval of a SIP revision “if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . and any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” EPA notes that our approval of the June 2007 SIP revisions does not remove any SIP requirements nor reduce any requirements in the three States' SIPs. Thus, EPA disagrees that EPA cannot approve the 2007 SIP revisions without a section 110(l) analysis.

However, even though EPA believes a section 110(l) analysis is not required here as no applicable requirements are being removed or reduced, EPA does note that the volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX reductions achieved to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area will also provide benefits for attaining and/or maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and NOX reductions will provide benefits for attaining and/or maintaining the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Thus, EPA finds our approval of the June 2007 SIP revisions will not interfere with the requirements applicable for those other two NAAQS. EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the three States' attainment demonstrations may interfere with attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS as no additional NOX reductions are required because the pollutants reduced in the Washington Area in its attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS are the same pollutants that need to be regulated for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

The commenter does not make any specific claim regarding the analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, but rather simply asserts that a section 110(l) analysis was not done. EPA notes that no part of the Washington Area has been designated as nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012) and 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321 and 81.347. Therefore, no part of the Washington Area is subject to “Part D” planning requirements (such as sections 172(b), 172(c), 181 or 182) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS because these “Part D” requirements apply only to SIPs required for nonattainment areas. EPA notes that the affected States have all made SIP submissions to address the applicable requirements in section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The commenter does not suggest nor is EPA aware of anything in the attainment demonstration submissions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS that would undercut or undermine the requirements in the section 110 SIPs submitted for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

The commenter's claim regarding interference with the 2008 ozone NAAQS also ignores the structure of the statute. Under the CAA, EPA is required to periodically review and revise as necessary the NAAQS. When EPA revises a NAAQS, a planning cycle begins for that new NAAQS. EPA is first required to designate areas and, for those areas designated nonattainment, a time clock for submission of plans to address nonattainment begins at the time of designation. EPA designated areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective June 2012, and nonattainment area SIPs for that standard are generally due in June 2015. The interpretation set forth by the commenter ignores that structure and instead suggests that once a new NAAQS is promulgated, the state must demonstrate any time it revises its SIP that such revisions will also fulfill requirements applicable for the new standard (e.g., demonstrate attainment, meet RACM). In other words, the commenter is reading section 110(l) to supersede the more prescriptive and descriptive provisions in Part D of title I of the CAA that govern nonattainment area planning. It is untenable to read that much detail and meaning into the word “interfere.” EPA's reasonable interpretation is that this provision means that a plan cannot undermine or impede applicable requirements for the same or other NAAQS.9 And, in this circumstance, the reductions relied on for attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS will not undermine or impede progress toward meeting the newer NAAQS because it regulates the same pollutants that need to be regulated for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Any further reductions needed for attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be addressed through the attainment planning process provided in Part D of title I of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

9See also Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, defining “interfere” as “to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes.”

Comment: Another commenter claims that because the air quality in the Washington Area does not meet either the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, one cost-effective and expeditious method to deal with this problem is to impose an emission limit of 0.07 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmbtu) on each coal-burning electric generating unit (EGU) and each coal fired unit at the Capitol Heat Plant in the Washington Area.10 The commenter claims such a limit is a reasonably available control measure and cited court decisions, EPA preamble text and other documents to support this conclusion.11 The commenter suggests various specifics related to such a limit such as applicability, prohibition of inter-unit averaging, averaging periods, compliance dates and other details. The commenter also suggested limits for “ammonia slip” because states need to assume that ammonia is a fine particulate matter (PM2.5) precursor.

10 EPA assumes the commenter is referring to the Capitol Power Plant which is located in Washington, DC which provides steam and chilled water used to heat and cool buildings throughout the U.S. Capitol campus.

11 Regarding suggested NOX control measures, the commenter cites for support generically to EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48282 (August 8, 2011), which addresses interstate transport of emissions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and to Appalachian Power v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791, 819 (D.C. Cir. 1998) which addressed NOX limits on EGUs under Title IV of the CAA. The commenter also cites to NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (remanding PM2.5 implementation rule) in support of the comment that EPA should require ammonia control measures.

Response: As an initial matter, EPA does not have authority under the CAA to condition approval of the attainment demonstrations in the 2007 June SIP revisions upon adoption of a specific measure such as the NOX limit suggested by the commenter for EGUs or any ammonia slip requirement. Under the cooperative federalism structure of the SIP program designed by Congress, the states have the authority to choose the measures needed for attainment of the NAAQS. See Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975) (stating “so long as the ultimate effect of a State's choice of emission limitations is compliance with the national standards for ambient air, the State is at liberty to adopt whatever mix of emission limitations it deems best suited to its particular situation”); Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 269 (1976) (finding Congress via section 110 “plainly left to the states the power to determine which sources would be burdened by regulations and to what extent”). See also Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1407-08 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (stating EPA cannot question the wisdom of a state's choices of emission limitations for a SIP if the plan satisfies the standards of section 110(a)(2)).

The commenter appears to be claiming that the identified NOX control measures for EGUs and the Capitol Power Plant and an ammonia slip requirement must be adopted by the states in order to meet the RACM requirement in CAA section 172. Because EPA previously approved the States' RACM portions of the June 2007 SIP revisions on September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58116), this issue as raised now by the commenter has not been timely raised and no further response is necessary. However, EPA further notes that EPA's longstanding interpretation of the RACM requirement in CAA section 172 involves an evaluation of whether the measures will advance the attainment date by one year. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744-745 (5th Cir. 2002) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d, 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002). See also 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992); 44 FR 20372, 20374 (April 4, 1979). Notably, the attainment date for the Washington Area (June 15, 2010) has passed and the Area is in fact attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS as mentioned previously. Thus, at this juncture, the NOX or ammonia control measures suggested by the commenter are not ones that could advance the attainment date of the Washington Area and would not qualify as RACM, even if EPA were evaluating RACM for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Area.

Comment: EPA received comments that assert EPA cannot approve the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions because 40 CFR 51.112(a) provides that attainment demonstrations must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national standard that it implements. The commenters also claim that 40 CFR 51.908(d) further supports the claim that the attainment demonstration SIP must provide for maintenance as part of attainment demonstrations because it requires implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. The commenters assert that the language of “no later than” does not allow for this requirement to stop after the attainment year ozone season, and the plain language of this regulation provides for control measures needed for attainment after the attainment year.

Response: For the reasons provided in the March 20, 2013 NPR and in this final rule, EPA has determined that the modeled attainment demonstration in the June 2007 SIP revisions and supporting analyses show that measures, rules and regulations contained in the June 2007 SIP revisions provide for timely attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA cannot approve the attainment demonstrations because the demonstrations do not provide for maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The regulatory provision cited by the commenter, 40 CFR 51.112(a), was first promulgated in 1986, prior to enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990. This provision establishes broad principles applicable to “control strategy” SIPs and both attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans are types of control strategy SIPs. Under the CAA, as amended in 1990, those two SIPs are addressed separately in the Act, and the Act establishes separate timeframes for submission of those two SIPs. Specifically, maintenance SIPs are now specifically required under CAA section 175A as a prerequisite to redesignation of an area to attainment with the NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA and thus are to be submitted after an area has attained the NAAQS. Thus, EPA applies 40 CFR 51.112(a) in the context of the control strategy SIP under review and consistent with the structure of the Act. For example, maintenance plans need not project timely attainment because an area must have actually attained a NAAQS before a maintenance plan can support a redesignation request under section 107(d)(3)(E). Similarly, as discussed in an earlier response to comment, attainment demonstrations are due several years after designation as nonattainment and are for the purpose of demonstrating how an area will attain the NAAQS “by” a specific date but are not required to address air quality after the attainment date. In other words, consistent with the structure of the Act, EPA does not read 40 CFR 51.112(a) to require an attainment demonstration to demonstrate maintenance of a NAAQS nor to require a maintenance plan to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS.

The commenter's interpretation that 40 CFR 51.908(d) supports a requirement that attainment demonstrations must include a demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS beyond the attainment date is also misplaced. The sole purpose of this regulatory provision was to make clear to states the date by which all measures relied on for purpose of demonstrating attainment must be in place. Specifically, they must be implemented by the beginning of the final ozone season before the attainment date. The provision says or implies nothing beyond that simple requirement. This is further supported by the discussion in the preamble to the final rule promulgating this provision to implement the 1997 ozone NAAQS in which EPA consistently spoke only of the analysis needed to demonstrate timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS requirements and never of any need to demonstrate “maintenance” of the ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 71612, 71615, 71626-71627 (November 29, 2005) (“Phase 2” final rule for implementation of 1997 ozone NAAQS). EPA referenced sections 172(c), 182(b), and 182(c) as the applicable CAA provisions regarding attainment demonstrations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and did not cite or discuss the maintenance plan provision in section 175A. Id.

Comment: EPA received comments asserting that the SIP for the Washington Area relies on CAIR to address the “transport” problem and note that CAIR was remanded after the June 2007 SIP revisions were submitted. The commenters assert that because reduction of transported emissions still depend on the remanded CAIR, key modeling assumptions made for the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions are questionable. These comments assert that EPA's own modeling analysis for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) indicates that transported pollution and ozone precursors from upwind jurisdictions play a significant role in the Washington region and that up to 75 percent of the ozone pollution in the Washington Area comes from states outside of the nonattainment area.12 These commenters state that the three States relied on emissions reductions in upwind states to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenters state that despite attempts by EPA, the full benefits of a replacement rule have not been realized and state it is premature to approve the attainment demonstrations without a viable transport strategy in place. The comments conclude that the burden remains on EPA to persevere to replace CAIR so that further reductions are made to minimize contributions from upwind states. The comments suggested EPA could use CAA section 110(k)(5) to initiate a SIP call to merge addressing transport for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with addressing transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The commenters conclude that EPA's proposed action to fully approve the attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions without sufficiently addressing transport should not proceed and that a partial approval should be granted at most of such things as the MVEBs.

12 CSAPR was issued by EPA to replace CAIR and to help states reduce air pollution and attain CAA standards. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final rule). CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the Eastern United States that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that it is premature to approve the attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS due to concerns raised by the commenters regarding CAIR and transport of pollution. CAIR, as relied on for purposes of the attainment demonstration (and as described in more detail below) was being implemented through the attainment date. As provided in our earlier responses to comments, attainment demonstrations are required to demonstrate that an area will attain the NAAQS “by” a specific date, and EPA does not review such SIPs to determine whether they will show continued maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA is unclear about what the commenters are suggesting regarding a SIP Call—i.e., whether they are suggesting that EPA issue a SIP Call for the SIPs for the Washington DC Area or whether they are make a broader suggestion that EPA issue a new SIP Call rule. In either case, the comment is not relevant to the present rule. The issue in this present rulemaking is whether EPA should approve specific SIP submissions pending before the Agency and not whether EPA should issue a SIP Call for the already-approved SIPs for the Washington DC area. Nor, does this rulemaking action purport to address the broader issue of whether EPA should issue a new “SIP Call” rule requiring upwind states to address transported pollution for any NAAQS.

Although not relevant for purposes of whether the attainment demonstration demonstrates attainment by the attainment date, EPA notes that EPA also disagrees with the characterization by the commenter that the transport rules are not reducing transported emissions. Despite the litigation regarding CAIR and CSAPR, the rules are providing a continuous mandate to states to address upwind transport as described in this response.

CAIR was promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) and required 28 states and the District of Columbia to adopt and submit revisions to their SIPs to eliminate sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX emissions from EGUs that contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. The three States developed their attainment demonstrations for the June 2007 SIP revisions after CAIR was promulgated and being implemented in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. CAIR was remanded to EPA in 2008, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but it was not vacated and implementation of the program continued for most areas. EPA subsequently promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and address transport for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.

In 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacating CSAPR and ordering EPA to continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on CSAPR and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). After the Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit's order granting EPA's motion requesting lifting the stay and tolling the rule's deadlines. 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking).

Throughout the litigation described previously in this rulemaking action, EPA continued to implement CAIR which led to significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs. However, on December 31, 2014, EPA sunset CAIR's provisions, and implementation of CSAPR began on January 1, 2015 in accordance with our interim final rule. 79 FR 71663. Now that implementation of CSAPR has begun, the emission reductions in SO2 and NOX from implementation of CAIR at EGUs will continue through CSAPR implementation. See 76 FR 48208.

Comment: One commenter asserts that EPA has changed its position on whether or not EPA could approve the attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions for the Washington Area as well as other ozone nonattainment areas under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenter claims that at one time EPA stated that it could not approve the attainment demonstration portions of the June 2007 SIP revisions because the modeling was based on CAIR; the commenter links the uncertainty about CAIR to doubts about assurances that the 1997 ozone NAAQS would be attained. The commenter asserts that EPA's proposed approval relies upon the same modeling which continues to be based on CAIR (which was remanded to EPA) and claims the change in policy seems to be based on ambient air quality monitoring data which allowed EPA to declare that the Washington Area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenter claims EPA should not approve an attainment demonstration that relies on modeling which was based in part on CAIR.

Response: As explained previously in response to a prior comment, EPA sunset its implementation of CAIR on December 31, 2014 and is now implementing CSAPR pursuant to the Supreme Court's upholding of CSAPR as a means to address transport of pollution for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's lifting the stay on CSAPR, and pursuant to our interim final rule which provided clarification that CSAPR would be implemented as of January 1, 2015. During the litigation in the D.C. Circuit over CAIR and CSAPR, EPA continued to review and evaluate SIPs such as the June 2007 SIP revisions in accordance with CAA requirements. EPA disagrees that it “changed its position” on the approvability of the attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions. During the pendency of litigation concerning CAIR and CSAPR, EPA merely exercised caution in reviewing data which relied upon CAIR, and EPA proposed approval of the June 2007 SIP revisions when EPA concluded reliance upon data related to CAIR was appropriate given the litigation in the D.C. Circuit. However, as mentioned previously, EPA continued to implement CAIR during the litigation in the D.C. Circuit, and emission reductions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs occurred through CAIR. The States appropriately relied on CAIR and CAIR emission reductions in the June 2007 SIP revisions. EPA believes that continued and further reductions will occur with CSAPR. While the air quality data for the Washington Area has changed and improved generally over time, the air quality data presently indicates the Washington Area is attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the Washington Area did attain by its attainment date of June 15, 2010 when EPA was implementing CAIR.

As explained in the March 20, 2013 NPR, in the February 26, 2013 TSD, in the TSD Supplement, and in response to prior comments, EPA based our decision to approve the attainment demonstrations upon the fact that the Washington Area did in fact attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the required June 15, 2010 attainment date and upon our evaluation that the Area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA believes the attainment demonstrations are in accordance with CAA requirements in sections 172 and 182 and believes the improving air quality data supports our decision to approve these attainment demonstrations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Thus, for the reasons detailed in the March 20, 2013 NPR and in this rulemaking action, EPA finds the attainment demonstration in accordance with CAA requirements, and EPA disagrees with commenters that any concerns with CAIR prevent our approval of these attainment demonstrations.

Comment: One commenter noted that although speedy approval of SIPs is desirable, at this juncture, approval of the attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions sends the wrong message to states and the public. The commenter claims that approval will not force state actions to address the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS and therefore will result in continuation of unhealthy air for citizens of the Washington Area.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that action on the SIP “sends the wrong message” to the public. Under the CAA, states are required to develop plans for each NAAQS and EPA is required to act on such submittals. Thus, to the extent the commenter is suggesting that EPA not act on the submission, such inaction is not allowed under the CAA. See CAA section 110(k)(1)-(3). The commenter's claim that action on an attainment SIP for the 1997 NAAQS will not force action by the state on a SIP for the 2008 NAAQS or will “continue” unhealthy air is misguided. The 2008 ozone NAAQS is a separate NAAQS with a separate statutory schedule for state adoption and submission of SIPs. EPA's action on a SIP required to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS has no effect on the obligation of the state to adopt rules and plans to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are not yet due. Although, the attainment SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS is not intended to demonstrate how the state will meet the tighter 2008 ozone NAAQS, the reductions achieved by the attainment SIP will also provide benefits for that newer 2008 ozone standard.

Comment: One commenter asserted that if the proposed 2008 SIP Requirements Rule moves forward as currently written and the 1997 ozone NAAQS is entirely revoked, EPA could consider a process similar to that conducted during transition from the 1-hour standard to the 1997 8-hour standard. Under such process, the Washington Area's “moderate” area requirements under the 1997 standard could be continued under the 2008 standard, at least until the region is designated “attainment” for the 1997 standard, as suggested in CAA section 172(e).

Response: This comment addresses the substance of a separate rule for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS and is not related to whether EPA should approve the attainment demonstration addressed in this action rulemaking. EPA will address in the final action on that separate rule concerning implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the issue of how long the requirements applicable for the 1997 NAAQS remain in place as areas transition to implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

Comment: Several commenters noted that because of the determination of attainment by the attainment date and clean data determination for the Washington Area issued on February 28, 2012, EPA will not have to reclassify the Washington Area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS and that the three States are not required to submit any planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS standard unless a violation of the standard occurs. The commenters assert that violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS has occurred and called for action by EPA. These commenters asserted that section 110(k)(5) requires EPA to issue a SIP call because the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions are inadequate to maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Washington Area. EPA received other comments that suggested EPA merge the SIP call requirement in section 110(k)(5) under the 1997 ozone NAAQS with requirements under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. One commenter asserted that in addition to section 110(k)(5), EPA could use section 110(k)(6) to correct prior actions when EPA finds a previously approved SIP inadequate. One commenter speculated that EPA has not moved with an action under section 110(k)(5) perhaps because the area has been designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard.

Response: The comments do not address EPA's action on the attainment demonstration, but instead suggest that EPA take additional rulemaking pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5) or 110(k)(6) and thus are outside the scope of this rulemaking action. EPA notes that although the 2012 design value was violating the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the area is attaining that NAAQS based on the 2013 design value and preliminary data from 2014 indicates that it is continuing to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Comment: EPA received comments claiming that EPA should promptly revoke the determination of attainment EPA issued for the Washington Area on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739) based on the 2010 to 2012 air quality data showing a violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Response: The comments do not address this action on the attainment demonstration, but instead suggest that EPA take additional rulemaking action to revoke our prior clean data determination for the Washington Area; thus the comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking action. As discussed previously, EPA notes that based on air quality data from 2011 to 2013 and on preliminary data from 2012 to 2014, the Washington Area is attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS and thus currently has clean data for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Comment: EPA received comments claiming that EPA explained in its proposed approval of the Washington Area attainment demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP revisions that the actual monitored values from the attainment year confirm the model over-predicted ozone concentrations by 0.002 ppm (2 ppb) and also claiming that the actual design values upon which EPA based these findings of model over-prediction are from years that are not representative of the same kind of meteorology chosen for the modeling. The commenter claims that the attainment year period was cooler and wetter and would be expected to generate less ozone. The commenter asserts that the design values for the Washington Area have increased for four straight years now that data from 2009 is not included in the design value calculation. The commenter notes that the most recent air quality data indicates the model-predicted ozone values are just as likely to be correct rather than an over-prediction. In addition, the commenter notes that EPA also cited a descending trend in ozone values as weight of evidence that the modeling over-predicts ozone for the region. Now that design values no longer include 2009 ozone season data, the commenter claims design value trends are increasing and do not show continued attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. These comments conclude that EPA must disapprove the attainment demonstration based on the current values.

Response: As EPA has explained previously, the issue for approving the attainment demonstration is not whether the area has continued to maintain the NAAQS several years following the attainment date, but rather whether the modeled attainment demonstration demonstrated that the area would attain by its attainment date. For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and this final rule, EPA has determined that the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions show attainment by the Area's attainment date of June 15, 2010. Furthermore, monitored attainment, including the 2009 design value, support that the Washington Area attained the standard by its attainment date.

EPA notes that in the March 20, 2013 NPR, EPA stated that the modeling conducted by the three States for the June 2008 SIP revisions over predicted 2009 ozone design values relative to the actual monitored 2009 to 2011 design values for most cases and always for four monitors for which the modeled design values were in the range of 82 to 87 ppb. See 78 FR at 17164. EPA also stated in the March 20, 2013 NPR that the modeling in the three States' June 2007 SIP revisions over predicted 2009 predicted design values when compared to actual monitored design values since 2009. Id. EPA compared the modeled design values to the actual design values based upon air quality data in Table 2, “Modeled Predicted 2009 Design Values versus Actual Monitored Design Values” in the February 26, 2013 TSD. This comparison showed that the actual attainment year design values were below the model predicted values, but more significantly were below the 1997 ozone NAAQS of 84 ppb.13

13 The 1997 ozone NAAQS as codified at 40 CFR 50.10 is 0.08 ppm, but EPA's interpretation (and under the interpretation in Appendix I to 40 CFR part 50) of the 1997 ozone NAAQS after considering the number of significant figures requires a design value equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm (85 ppb) to be a violation.

At the time EPA issued the March 20, 2013 NPR, EPA did not have certified 2012 or 2013 data. When EPA proposed in 2013 to approve the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions, EPA considered the overall downward trend in monitored ozone air quality in the Washington Area and that the Area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date applicable under section 181 of the CAA. While the 2010-2012 air quality design value does show an increase over the design values EPA previously considered, EPA continues to believe the air quality data for the Washington Area supports our approval of the June 2007 SIP revisions as the 2011-2013 AQ data (and the 2012-2014 AQ data based upon the preliminary 2014 data) shows the Washington Area is attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

EPA agrees with the commenters that weather plays an important role in ozone formation. However, EPA believes that these considerations do not require EPA to disapprove the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions. None of the design values predicted in the modeling from the three States in the June 2007 SIP revisions were above 87 ppb. Therefore, as explained in the February 26, 2013 TSD, a weight of evidence demonstration could be considered and was considered by EPA. The three States presented downward trends in design values (through 2006 as the States submitted the SIP in 2007), in numbers of exceedances, in nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide levels, and in emissions levels, as well as a decrease in the spatial extent of nonattainment in the Washington area and a decrease in the number of days the 1997 ozone NAAQS was exceeded when the maximum temperature exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit. For the proposed approval in the March 20, 2013 NPR, EPA also considered monitored ozone design values for years after 2006 which declined from an area-wide maximum 91 ppb for the 2004-2006 period to 80 ppb for the 2007-2009 (the effective applicable attainment period). At best, EPA believes that a modeled attainment demonstration with a supporting weight of evidence demonstration is a prediction about future events. For attainment demonstrations, EPA has recommended using model predictions in a relative rather than absolute sense and using weight of evidence to lessen the problems posed by less than ideal model performance on individual days by anchoring the future predicted concentrations to real ambient values and to address associated uncertainties in model results and projections.14 In addition, EPA believes that the form of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS necessitates such an attainment test.15

14See “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,” EPA-454/B-07-002, dated April 2007 (2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze), which is available at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf and is also included in the docket for this action and available online at www.regulations.gov in docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132.

15See 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze.

In general, EPA does not consider the monitored ambient air quality data for periods after the attainment date to be particularly dispositive when acting on an attainment demonstration due under section 182(b). As explained previously in response to prior comments, EPA must approve a SIP submission such as an attainment SIP if the SIP submission meets applicable requirements in CAA sections 172 and 182. If an area does attain by its applicable attainment date, EPA has no authority to reclassify the area even if the area subsequently violates the ozone NAAQS.16 EPA believes this evinces a preference for actual air quality results over modeled predictions, and we believe that EPA must place great weight upon monitored attainment by the statutorily required attainment date when evaluating an attainment demonstration for compliance with CAA requirements.

16 As noted previously, when an area does not attain by its applicable attainment date, the area is subject to reclassification or other provisions pursuant to section 182(b) of the CAA.

As noted in response to other comments, EPA believes that an attainment demonstration required under sections 172 and 182(b) need not demonstrate maintenance of the ozone NAAQS after the applicable attainment date and need only demonstrate timely attainment by the attainment date. While the commenters raise concerns for maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on the 2010-2012 design value for the Washington Area, the 2011-2013 design values (and preliminary data for 2012-2014) show attainment with the 1997 ozone NAAQS as mentioned previously. EPA did not in the March 20, 2013 NPR propose any sort of finding regarding sufficiency of any state's SIP with regards to maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Washington Area. In addition, maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS is not a requirement for our approval of an attainment SIP required by CAA sections 172 and 182 as discussed previously in response to a prior comment and will be addressed in a separate SIP if the Washington Area seeks redesignation.

Finally, EPA believes that section 110(k)(5) provides a separate remedy, outside the scope of this rulemaking action, via a “SIP call” which provides the necessary authority to require remedial action through additional measures for a SIP where an ozone nonattainment area attains the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date under section 181 but later violates that ozone NAAQS. See 64 FR 70205, 70206 (December 16, 1999) (final SIP call rule for Birmingham, Alabama marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to address inadequacy of a SIP) and 79 FR 27830, 27832 (May 15, 2014) (proposed SIP call for the New York-New Jersey-Long Island moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area).

Comment: EPA received a comment that it is arbitrary and capricious for the attainment demonstration modeling to only model for design values at monitoring stations. The commenter states that the whole metropolitan DC area is designated nonattainment, not just the tiny area covered by the monitoring stations. The commenter states that the NAAQS apply everywhere and that people are located throughout the Washington Area, not just at the monitoring stations. The commenter claims the model is capable of having a receptor grid that provides design values for the entire Washington Area and that by looking at design values at the monitoring station, EPA is deliberately ignoring an important aspect of the problem, that is whether the SIP provides people throughout the Washington Area with air that contains ozone below the health-based limit in the NAAQS.

Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that it was arbitrary and capricious for the attainment demonstration modeling to only model for design values at monitoring stations and not for the entire Washington Area. The three States' attainment demonstration modeling was in accordance with EPA's 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze and considered appropriate data. As an initial matter, the performance of the air quality model used in a SIP submission can only be assessed by comparison of the model predicted ozone concentrations for the baseline year in the vicinity of any air quality monitors in place with the actual monitored ozone concentrations recorded at air quality monitors in place during the baseline year. EPA's 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze in section 2.0 provides for using the modeling results in a relative sense, that is, the ratio, called a “relative response factor” (RRF), of the model's future to current (baseline) predictions at monitors is used to determine if attainment is predicted.17 In section 2.4 of that guidance, EPA explained its reasons for using the models in a relative sense. These RRFs are used to estimate concentrations at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled RRF at locations “near” each monitor by the observation-based, monitor-specific, “baseline” design value. The resulting predicted “future concentrations” are compared to the NAAQS as part of the modeled attainment test and attainment demonstration.

17 The 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze is included in the docket for this action as an attachment to docket item EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132-0006.

While the 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze recommends a test, the “unmonitored area analysis,” which provides estimates of future year values in unmonitored areas, the guidance notes this test is particularly needed in nonattainment areas where the ozone monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the network required to report data to AQS. EPA asserts that the Washington Area's monitoring network is not such a network.

The air quality monitoring network in the Washington Area far exceeds the minimum required under 40 CFR part 58. The Washington Area is part of the larger Washington-Arlington-Alexandria (DC-VA-MD-WV) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (known as the Washington-A-A MSA). Under Table D-2 of appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, the absolute minimum monitoring network for the Washington-A-A MSA based upon its population would be 3 ozone monitors, but the Washington-A-A MSA in fact contains 15 ozone monitors of which 13 are in the designated nonattainment area. Consistent with the factors found in section 4.1(b) of appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, the additional monitors in the Washington Area are located based on a variety of reasons such as providing for more than one maximum concentration site within the MSA, characterizing population exposure, and addressing factors including geographic size, population density, and complexity of terrain and meteorology in the MSA as well as air pollution transport.18 Given the extensive size and coverage of the Washington Area monitoring network and the factors considered for the size of the network, EPA disagrees with the comment that it was arbitrary and capricious for the attainment demonstration modeling to only model for design values at monitoring stations and not consider the entire Washington Area. The three States' attainment demonstration modeling considered appropriate data from monitors in the Washington Area, which EPA reviewed in accordance with the 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. EPA has explained in the March 20, 2013 NPR and in this rulemaking that the June 2007 SIP revisions including the attainment demonstration modeling meet CAA requirements for attainment plans in sections 172 and 182.

18 Additionally, the monitors in the Washington Area are located to measure areas of expected highest concentration downwind of urban cores, to “background” concentrations entering an area, and to represent some spatial scale to reflect neighborhoods.

Comment: EPA received comments that it is arbitrary and capricious to approve the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions because, the commenter claims, the Area actually attained because of the “recession” or weather. A commenter also stated that recent 2010 and 2012 AQ data shows that 2009 was perhaps an “outlier year” with regards to ozone formation and that the attainment demonstration must model 2012 meteorological conditions (and not 2002 conditions), or model even warmer meteorological conditions to demonstrate that the emission limits and other nonattainment SIP provisions will attain the NAAQS. The commenter also stated that the attainment demonstration must consider climate change.

Response: EPA disagrees that these comments provide a basis to disapprove the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions. The overarching concerns that seem to be raised by the commenter are that meteorology less conducive to ozone formation in 2009 resulted in attainment and that the attainment demonstration did not adequately account for meteorological variability.19

19 The commenter also cites to “climate change” without any explanation, but EPA presumes it is being raised as part of the more general argument regarding meteorological variability.

First, meteorological variability is addressed in the form of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In choosing the form of the 1997 ozone NAAQS as the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration, the EPA Administrator adopted the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's recommendation that “a more robust, concentration-based form would minimize . . . instability and provide some insulation from the impacts of extreme meteorological events that are conducive to [ozone] formation.” See 62 FR 38856, 38868 (July 18, 1997). The form of the 1997 ozone NAAQS is intended to minimize the effect of not only those years with more extreme meteorological events conducive to ozone formation but also those years with more meteorological events not conducive to ozone formation. Thus, EPA does not agree that meteorological conditions for any one year are the basis for an area meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.

Second, EPA notes that as an adjunct to the modeled attainment demonstration, the three States did assess for the June 2007 SIP revisions the potential effects of meteorological variations on the results of the modeled attainment test. The future year model-predicted ozone design value was determined by the three States by multiplying a baseline ozone design value derived from ambient air quality monitoring by the model-derived RRF.20 21 This future year model-predicted ozone design value therefore directly depends upon the value of the baseline design value. The three States assessed the performance of air quality modeling by inputting meteorological data such as wind patterns and temperatures for 2002 and relevant emissions for 2002 and comparing the results to the actual monitored ozone concentrations for each day modeled.

20 Attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS is determined using a design value, which is the 3-year annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at each monitoring location. For modeling for attainment demonstrations, EPA has concluded that modeled RRFs should be applied to an average of annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations including those of the baseline modeling year, which is 2002 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area.

21 EPA discusses RRFs in the 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. EPA also discussed the use of RRFs in response to another comment in this rulemaking.

EPA believes that, in practice, the choice of the “baseline design value” can be critical to the determination of the estimated future year design values. EPA's 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze noted several possible methods for computing a baseline design value and recommended using the average of the three design values for three successive three-year periods which include the baseline inventory year, which was 2002 for the Washington Area. According to information in the June 2007 SIP revisions, the three States were concerned that weighting the 2002 concentrations three times in the calculation could place too much (or too little) weight on that individual year's meteorology and would not necessarily reflect climate variability which has a significant impact on future design value projections. The three States used two additional methods for computing a baseline design value in order to assess the effect on future design value projections. These computations and the resulting future model-predicted attainment year design values are discussed in section 10.5.9 “Alternative Design Value Calculation Techniques” of the three States' 2007 attainment demonstration plan document dated May 23, 2007 (hereafter the May 23, 2007 plan document) and Section III. C. “Weight of Evidence Demonstration” and Appendix A of the February 26, 2013 TSD.22 For most, but not all, monitoring sites, a baseline design value computed as the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration over the period 2001 to 2003 produced the highest baseline design value for each monitor and therefore the highest future year model-predicted design value.23 24 By considering these alternate baseline design values, the three States assessed meteorological variability as reflected in ozone design values or other averaged annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations that included monitoring data for the 2002 baseline modeling year.

22 The May 23, 2007 plan document and the February 26, 2013 TSD are included in the docket for this rulemaking action and are available online at www.regulations.gov.

23 EPA used monitored design values based upon 2001 to 2003 monitoring data to classify the Washington Area as moderate ozone nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858, 23864 (April 30, 2004).

24 EPA's recommended method for determining baseline design value was to average the monitored design values determined for three successive periods: 2000 to 2002; 2001 to 2003, and 2002 to 2004 which weights the 2002 data by a factor of 3, 2001 and 2003 data each by a factor of 2, and 2000 and 2004 data each by a factor of one. The last method computed a simple average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations over the period 2000 through 2004 (inclusive) which weights each year's value equally.

Thus, EPA concludes the three States considered meteorological variability in conducting its attainment demonstrations, and we assessed the three States' modeling when reviewing and proposing to approve the June 2007 SIP revisions because the revisions meet CAA requirements. EPA therefore disagrees with the commenter that our approval of the attainment demonstrations is arbitrary or capricious because attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS may have occurred due to influences from meteorological variability not otherwise addressed by the standard and the attainment demonstrations.25

25 The commenter also claims that attainment is due to “the recession,” but provides no support for this claim and therefore EPA provides no further response to the unsupported claim.

Furthermore, to the extent the commenters are suggesting that the modeled attainment demonstration is defective because it was based on 2002 meteorological conditions and not those from 2009 or a later year, EPA disagrees. Congress set explicit deadlines for submission of the attainment demonstration SIP due under section 182(b)(1), and the attainment demonstrations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS were required to be submitted by June 15, 2007. Thus, it was not feasible nor possible for the states to use meteorological conditions from future years for purposes of the attainment demonstration.

The States' choice of 2002 meteorological conditions was inherently reasonable and is well supported in Chapter 10 and Appendix G of the three States' May 23, 2007 plan document.26 EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS generally using 2001 to 2003 AQ data. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).27 Thus, the 2002 meteorological data represented meteorological conditions contemporaneous with the data used to designate and classify the Washington Area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Moreover, the 2007 attainment demonstration was based upon modeling the entire 2002 ozone season. For that reason alone, it was reasonable for the States to rely on the meteorological data for the same year.

26 The May 23, 2007 plan document is included in the docket for this rulemaking action and is available online at www.regulations.gov.

27See e.g. 69 FR at 23860 (“In making designations and classifications, we use the most recent 3 years of monitoring data. Therefore, today's designations and classifications are generally based on monitoring data collected in 2001-2003 although other relevant years of data may have been used in certain circumstances”).

However, the States supported their selection of 2002 meteorology based upon a qualitative analysis and a quantitative analysis.28 The quantitative analysis analyzed the entire Ozone Transport Region (OTR) and considered ozone and meteorological data for a seven year period (1997-2003) to capture the full range of OTR ozone episode characteristics and to insure statistical significance of the recent episode characteristics.29 The qualitative analysis describes each 2002 high ozone episode in terms of the weather patterns (movement of warm or cold fronts, air movement patterns—speed and direction of wind), cloud cover, temperature patterns, and locations of higher and lower ozone concentrations for each episode day. The analysis of regional ozone episode conditions over the OTR concluded that regional ozone episode conditions can be reasonably well described by a set of five different episode types each associated with a unique set of distinguishing characteristics. Data from the 2002 ozone season were analyzed within the framework of the five identified episode types with respect to frequencies of occurrence of each type and characteristics of the ozone and meteorological conditions within each type in 2002. The analysis noted one difference between 2002 and the other years in that the frequency of exceedances of the 1997 ozone NAAQS at one or more monitoring sites within the OTR occurred more frequently than the average of the other years, namely 1997-2001 plus 2003. There were 71 exceedance days during the May-September season in 2002 as compared to an average of 55 days per season during these other years. This analysis concluded that while ozone exceedances were more frequent during 2002, this higher than average exceedance rate in 2002 is by itself not an indication of any lack of representativeness of the 2002 exceedance events. In addition, not only did the 2002 ozone season have more days during which the 1997 ozone NAAQS was exceeded, but the fourth highest daily maximum values for the ozone monitors were higher during the 2002 ozone season than in any of the years 2000 through 2004, inclusive. In this time period, monitored fourth highest daily maximum concentrations exceeded 100 ppb (0.100 ppm) only during 2002. Such values over 100 ppb were recorded at nine of 17 monitors then in operation.30 Such values of the fourth highest daily maximum concentrations have not been recorded since.31 EPA finds the States' use of data from 2002 reasonable, well documented and supported. In contrast, the commenter has provided no support for the allegation that our approval of the attainment demonstrations is arbitrary or capricious based on the three States' use of 2002 data for the attainment demonstration instead of a subsequent year.

28 These documents are provided in Appendix G of Attachment 2 of the May 23, 2007 plan document and docketed as document item ID# EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132-0005 under “state submittal: Appendix G Attainment Modeling Demonstration and Documentation (Part 1)” in the docket for this rulemaking action.

29See Attachment 2 to Appendix G and Chapter 10 of the May 23, 2007 plan document which is docket item EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132-0005 in the docket for this rulemaking action.

30See the ozone monitor value reports for 2000 through 2004 attached to the TSD Supplement or the column labeled “Annual 4th Highest 8-Hour Ozone (ppm)” in the table titled “Design Value—BY 2002” on page 1, Appendix G Attachment 11, of the May 23, 2007 plan document (the attachment titled “state submittal: Appendix G Attainment Modeling Demonstration and Documentation (Part 4)” under document ID EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132-0005 in the docket available at www.regulations.gov.

31 EPA believes that air quality monitoring data (number of exceedances or highest recorded values) cannot be used as a surrogate for meteorological conditions when comparing years after 2004 to years before 2004 because the NOX SIP call drastically reduced NOX emissions from EGUs in the years after 2004. See 75 FR 45210, 45214, columns 2 and 3 (August 2, 2010) (discussing the change in ozone air quality since the 2001-2003 time period used to designate and classify 1997 ozone nonattainment areas within the rulemaking for the NOX SIP call).

To the extent the commenters are suggesting that the States must remodel using meteorological conditions for years long after the 2007 submittal date (and after the attainment date), EPA notes that is neither mandated by the statute nor reasonable. Congress imposed deadlines on the States that clearly envisioned an end to the preparation of the attainment demonstration and did not establish any requirement for states to submit new, revised attainment demonstrations in the absence of a call from EPA pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6) to do so or to submit a new attainment demonstration for a new, future attainment date based on a failure to attain by the attainment date.32

32 This does not preclude a State by its own choice from updating a previously submitted attainment demonstration.

V. Final Action

EPA is approving the attainment demonstrations, contingency measures, and associated 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs for the Washington Area which were submitted to EPA as SIP revisions by the three States in the June 2007 SIP revisions based on a determination that they meet applicable requirements in the CAA.

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

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

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 9, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the attainment demonstrations, contingency measures, and associated 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs for the Washington Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart J—District of Columbia
2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entries for Attainment Demonstration Contingency Measure Plan and 8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards to reads as follows:
§ 52.470 Identification of plan.

(e)* * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable
  • geographic
  • area
  • State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Attainment Demonstration Contingency Measure Plan Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area June 12, 2007 4/10/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 144.3 tons per day (tpd) NOX. 8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area June 12, 2007 4/10/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 66.5 tons per day (tpd) for VOC and 146.1 tpd of NOX.
    3. Section 52.476 is amended by adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
    § 52.476 Control strategy: ozone.

    (h) EPA approves revisions to the District of Columbia State Implementation Plan consisting of the attainment demonstration required under 40 CFR 51.908 demonstrating attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010 and the failure to attain contingency measures for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Acting Director of the District of Columbia Department of the Environment on June 12, 2007.

    (i) EPA approves the following 2009 attainment demonstration and 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Acting Director of the District of Columbia Department of the Environment on June 12, 2007:

    Transportation Conformity Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) Effective date of adequacy determination or SIP approval Attainment Demonstration 2009 66.5 146.1 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published February 7, 2013. Contingency Measures Plan 2010 144.3 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published February 7, 2013.
    Subpart V—Maryland 4. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entries for Attainment Demonstration Contingency Measure Plan and 8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards . The added text reads as follows:
    § 52.1070 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable
  • geographic
  • area
  • State submittal date EPA Approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Attainment Demonstration Contingency Measure Plan Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area June 4, 2007 4/10/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 144.3 tons per day (tpd) NOX. 8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area June 4, 2007 4/10/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 66.5 tons per day (tpd) for VOC and 146.1 tpd of NOX.
    5. Section 52.1076 is amended by adding paragraphs (aa) and (bb) to read as follows:
    § 52.1076 Control strategy plans for attainment and rate-of-progress: Ozone.

    (aa) EPA approves revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan consisting of the attainment demonstration required under 40 CFR 51.908 demonstrating attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010 and the failure to attain contingency measures for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment on June 4, 2007.

    (bb) EPA approves the following 2009 attainment demonstration and 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MDVA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment on June 4, 2007:

    Transportation Conformity Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) Effective date of adequacy determination or SIP approval Attainment Demonstration 2009 66.5 146.1 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published February 7, 2013. Contingency Measures Plan 2010 144.3 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published February 7, 2013.
    Subpart VV—Virginia
    6. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entries for Attainment Demonstration Contingency Measure Plan and 8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards to reads as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable
  • geographic
  • area
  • State submittal date EPA Approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Attainment Demonstration Contingency Measure Plan Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area June 12, 2007 4/10/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 144.3 tons per day (tpd) NOX. 8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area June 12, 2007 4/10/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 66.5 tons per day (tpd) for VOC and 146.1 tpd of NOX.
    7. Section 52.2428 is amended by adding paragraphs (j) and (k) to read as follows:
    § 52.2428 Control Strategy: Carbon monoxide and ozone.

    (j) EPA approves revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan consisting of the attainment demonstration required under 40 CFR 51.908 demonstrating attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010 and the failure to attain contingency measures for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Director of the Virginia Department of Environment Quality on June 12, 2007.

    (k) EPA approves the following 2009 attainment demonstration and 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MDVA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Director of the Virginia Department of Environment Quality on June 12, 2007:

    Transportation Conformity Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) Effective date of adequacy determination or SIP approval Attainment Demonstration 2009 66.5 146.1 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published February 7, 2013. Contingency Measures Plan 2010 144.3 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published February 7, 2013.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07957 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647; FRL-9923-88-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; Reconsideration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a source-specific revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) that establishes an alternative to best available retrofit technology (BART) for Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at Arizona Electric Power Cooperative's (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station (Apache). Under the BART Alternative, ST2 will be converted from a primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3 will remain as a coal-fired unit and would be retrofitted with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) control technology. The SIP revision also revises the emission limit for nitrogen oxides (NOX) applicable to Apache Steam Unit 1 (ST1), when it is operated in combined-cycle mode with Gas Turbine 1 (GT1). EPA has determined that the BART Alternative for ST2 and ST3 would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART, in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR). Accordingly, we are approving all elements of the SIP revision, with the exception of a provision pertaining to affirmative defenses for malfunctions. In conjunction with this final approval, we are withdrawing those portions of the Arizona Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that address BART for Apache.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This rule is effective May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may not be specifically listed in the index to the docket and may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be available at either locations (e.g., confidential business information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed directly below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at telephone number (415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Definitions

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

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

    • The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

    • The initials AEPCO mean or refer to Arizona Electric Power Cooperative.

    • The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.

    • The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology.

    • The initials CEMS mean or refer to a continuous emissions monitoring system.

    • The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal area.

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

    • The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.

    • The initials GT1 mean or refer to Gas Turbine Unit 1.

    • The initials IWAQM mean or refer to Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling.

    • The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX burners.

    • The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British thermal units

    • The initials NO X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

    • The initials PM 10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.

    • The initials RHR mean or refer to EPA's Regional Haze Rule.

    • The initials SNCR mean or refer to Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction.

    • The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    • The initials SO 2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

    • The initials ST1 mean or refer to Steam Unit 1.

    • The initials ST2 mean or refer to Steam Unit 2.

    • The initials ST3 mean or refer to Steam Unit 3.

    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 September 19, 2014, EPA proposed to approve a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP concerning Apache Generating Station (“Apache SIP Revision”).1 As described in the proposal, the Apache SIP Revision consists of two components: a BART alternative for ST2 and ST3 (“Apache BART Alternative”) and a revised NOX emission limit for ST1 and GT1 when operated in combined-cycle mode. The Apache BART Alternative was submitted pursuant to provisions of the RHR that allow states to adopt alternative measures in lieu of source-specific BART controls, if they can demonstrate that the alternative measures provide greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART.2 Under the Apache BART Alternative, ST2 would be converted from a primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3 would remain as a coal-fired unit and would be retrofitted with SNCR. Emission limits to implement the Apache BART Alternative and the revised limit for ST1 and GT1, as well as associated compliance deadlines and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, are incorporated into an addendum to Apache's Operating Permit, which was submitted as part of the Apache SIP Revision.3 We proposed to approve each of these components because we proposed to determine that they complied with the relevant requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. In particular, we proposed to find that the Apache BART Alternative would provide greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART.4 We also proposed to withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Apache and to find that withdrawal of the FIP would constitute our action on AEPCO's Petition for Reconsideration of the FIP.

    1 79 FR 56322. Please refer to that notice of proposed rulemaking for background information concerning the CAA, the RHR and the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP.

    2 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

    3 Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant Revision No. 59195 to Air Quality Control Permit No. 55412 (“Apache Permit Revision”), issued May 13, 2014.

    4 For purposes of our evaluation, we considered BART for ST2 and ST3 to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ's BART determinations for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), which were approved into the applicable SIP, and (2) EPA's BART determination for NOX in the Arizona RH FIP. See 79 FR 56326.

    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. During this period, we received a comment letter from Earthjustice on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club (collectively, the “Conservation Organizations”). The comments and our responses are summarized below.

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the Apache BART Alternative fails the first prong of the test set forth at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) because it would result in greater total emissions than EPA's BART FIP. They also noted that there appeared to be confusion over whether the “distribution of emissions” under the Apache BART Alternative and EPA's BART FIP are different. In addition, they urged EPA to clarify that “even if a BART alternative applies to the same facility as the underlying BART determination, the distribution of emissions is not the same if NOX, SO2, PM, and other visibility-impairing pollutants will be emitted in different amounts or different proportions.”

    Response: We agree that, compared with BART, the Apache BART Alternative is expected to result in greater total emissions than EPA's BART FIP. In particular, the Alternative would result in greater NOX emissions, but lower emissions of SO2 and PM10. In this situation, where BART and the BART Alternative result in reduced emissions of one pollutant but increased emissions of another, it is not appropriate to use the “greater emissions reductions” test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). As explained below, Arizona chose not to apply the “greater emission reductions” test, but instead to employ a clear weight-of-evidence approach under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) in order to demonstrate that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART.

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the modeling underlying the Apache BART Alternative does not accurately reflect emissions under the Apache BART Alternative or BART. In particular, the commenters noted that the modeling results provided in EPA's proposal were based on AEPCO's petition for reconsideration from May 2013, but the emissions projections summarized in EPA's proposal differed from those in AEPCO's petition. Therefore, the Conservation Organizations asserted that the modeling EPA used to support its approval of the Apache BART Alternative does not accurately reflect visibility benefits of the alternative compared to BART.

    Response: We agree with the commenter that the total annual emission projections summarized in Table 5 of our proposal differ from those reflected in AEPCO's May 2013 petition for reconsideration. However we do not agree that this difference affects the visibility modeling underlying the Apache BART Alternative because the modeling is based on projected maximum short-term (24-hour) emission rates, whereas the differences in annual emission projections are due to different assumptions concerning long-term heat rates and capacity factors. In particular, we note that the emission reduction projections included in AEPCO's May 2013 petition for reconsideration and shown in Table 1.6 of the SIP are based on maximum heat rates and conservative annual capacity factors and therefore represent conservative (high-end) emissions projections.5 By contrast, the emission reductions shown in Table 5 of our proposal and Table 6 of the SIP Technical Support Document are calculated based on 2008-2010 continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) heat rates and annual average days of operation. Accordingly, they reflect lower annual emission projections, both for BART and the BART Alternative.

    5See AEPCO Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration at 4-5 and Apache SIP Revision, Table 1.6 at 11.

    These differing assumptions concerning annual heat rates and capacity factors do not influence the visibility modeling, which is based on maximum 24-hour average emission rates.6 In calculating the emission rates for modeling, AEPCO followed the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines, which provide that post-control 24-hour emission rates should be calculated as a percentage of pre-control 24-hour emission rates.7 We find ADEQ's approach to calculating modeled emission rates is consistent with BART Guidelines and provides a sound technical basis to compare the expected visibility improvement from the BART Alternative to the expected improvement from BART.

    6 See, e.g. BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.5. (“Use the 24-hour average actual emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modeled (for the pre-control scenario). . .”).

    7Id.

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations commented that the modeling underlying the Apache BART Alternative reflects an emission rate for Unit 2 (0.225 lbs/MMBtu) that is lower than the permitted emission limit for the unit (0.23 lbs/MMBtu) and therefore overestimates the Apache BART Alternative's visibility benefits relative to BART.

    Response: AEPCO's petition for reconsideration included modeling for several different control scenarios.8 In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ focused on control scenario 9bv2 PNGt, which included a NOX emission rate of 0.225 lb/MMBtu for ST3, reflecting use of SNCR. As noted by the commenter, this 0.225 lb/MMBtu emission rate is lower than the permitted NOX emission limit for ST3 9 of 0.23 lb/MMBtu. However, contrary to the commenter's assertion this difference does not result in an overestimation of the visibility benefits of the Apache BART Alternative. Rather, the difference reflects the fact that, under the BART Guidelines, emission rates for BART modeling are calculated in a different manner than BART emission limits.10 In particular, the BART Guidelines recommend that modeling be performed using an average 24-hour emission rate,11 excluding periods of startup and shutdown.12 By contrast, emission limits for EGUs are established based on 30-day rolling averages and must be met on a continuous basis, including during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.13

    8 Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to Robert Perciasepe and Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (AEPCO Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration) (May 29, 2013); Attachment, Memorandum from Ralph Morris and Lynsey Parker, Environ, to Michelle Freeark, AEPCO (May 10, 2013), Tables 1 and 2.

    9 The comment referred to “Unit 2.” However, this appears to be a typographical error, as 0.23 lb/MMBtu is the permitted emission limit for ST3, not ST2.

    10 Use of the BART Guidelines is required only for BART determinations at fossil-fuel fired generating stations with a capacity greater than 750 MW. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B). The Apache Generating Station has a total capacity less than 750 MW. However, because the BART Guidelines are a useful resource for performing BART determinations, both ADEQ and EPA have adhered to the requirements of the BART Guidelines in evaluating this better-than-BART alternative.

    11 See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.5 (“Use the 24-hour average actual emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modeled (for the pre-control scenario).

    12 Id. section III.A.3 (recommending that “emissions reflecting periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction” not be used for modeling).

    13 See CAA section 302(k).

    In this case, the SNCR system on ST3 will not be capable of operating during portions of startup and shutdown periods.14 Therefore, the emission rate for startup and shutdown periods will be higher than 0.225 lb/MMBtu, the value that corresponds entirely to SNCR operation. Over a period of 30 days, the emissions from these periods of time could cause the 30-day average emission rate to exceed 0.225 lb/MMBtu. Accordingly, ADEQ set a 30-day emission rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu to account for the emissions from startup and shutdown periods. The upward revision from 0.225 lb/MMBtu to 0.23 lb/MMBtu represents a difference of approximately two percent. We consider this degree of upward revision reasonable to account for startup and shutdown periods.

    14 The SNCR system requires the boiler exhaust gas to be above a certain minimum temperature in order to properly function. During portions of the startup period, the exhaust gas will be below this temperature while the boiler heats up, precluding operation of SNCR controls during these portions of the startup period.

    Furthermore, as explained by ADEQ in its response to comments from the Conservation Organizations, one of the other scenarios modeled by AEPCO and included in its May 2013 petition, a scenario known as 9b PNGt, used more conservative emission factors.15 In particular, 9b PNGt included a NOX emission factor of 0.230 lb/MMBtu for ST3, which is equivalent to the emission limit for this unit in the Apache SIP Revision. In its response to comments, ADEQ compared the results of this modeling run to the baseline results and the BART case. ADEQ found that the Apache BART Alternative (as represented by 9b PNGt) would result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared to the baseline and would result in improved visibility, on average, across all affected Class I areas compared with BART.16 Thus, the results of 9b PNGt confirm ADEQ's determination that the Apache BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART.

    15 Apache SIP Revision, Responsiveness Summary at 13.

    16Id. at 13-14.

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations noted that the modeling cited in EPA's proposal shows that visibility at two Class I areas—the Gila and Mt. Baldy Wilderness Areas—will be worse under the BART Alternative compared to BART. The commenters asserted that EPA should update its modeling to correct the alleged flaws identified by the commenters and confirm whether the BART Alternative will in fact result in less visibility improvement at these two Class I areas. They argued that “EPA's failure to consider measures to improve visibility at every Class I area impacted by Apache is contrary to the intent of the regional haze regulations.”

    Response: We agree that modeling indicates that visibility at two Class I areas—the Gila and Mt. Baldy Wilderness Areas—will be slightly worse under the BART Alternative compared to BART. However, this does not preclude approval of the Apache BART Alternative because, as explained in our proposal, the BART Alternative will result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with baseline conditions 17 and will result in improved visibility, on average, across all Class I Areas, compared with BART. As EPA explained in the preamble to the final BART Alternative Rule:

    17 Here “baseline” refers to controls in place at Apache as of 2013. See 79 FR 56326, footnote 30.

    . . . within a regional haze context, not every measure taken is required to achieve a visibility improvement at every class I area. BART is one component of long term strategies to make reasonable progress, but it is not the only component. The requirement that the alternative achieves greater progress based on the average improvement at all Class I areas assures that, by definition, the alternative will achieve greater progress overall. Though there may be cases where BART could produce greater improvement at one or more class I areas, the no-degradation prong assures that the alternative will not result in worsened conditions anywhere than would otherwise exist. . . .18

    18 71 FR 60612, 60621-22.

    Thus, in promulgating the BART Alternative requirements, EPA clearly contemplated that there could be instances where a BART alternative would result in less progress at a particular Class I area, yet ensure overall greater reasonable progress than BART. This is the case with the Apache BART Alternative.

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations argued that EPA's modeling is flawed because it only considered visibility impacts at Class I areas within 300 kilometers (km) of Apache. Citing a recent evaluation of CALPUFF by EPA,19 they commented that “the model is more accurate at farther distances than previously assumed.” Therefore, they asserted that EPA should have considered Apache's visibility impacts at a radius of 500 km.

    19 “Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long Range Transport Models Using Tracer Field Experiment Data” (2012), is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf.

    Response: We do not agree that we should have considered visibility impacts at Class I areas greater than 300 km from Apache. The report cited by the Conservation Organizations does not support the regulatory use of CALPUFF beyond 300 km, nor does it refute the 1998 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 report, which states that “use of CALPUFF for characterizing transport beyond 200 to 300 km should be done cautiously with an awareness of the likely problems involved.” 20 Consistent with this recommendation, our BART analysis in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP evaluated visibility impacts and improvements at the nine Class I areas within 300 km of Apache.21 It was reasonable for ADEQ and EPA to consider these same Class I areas when assessing the Apache BART Alternative.

    20 “IWAQM Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts,” available at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/phase2.pdf, at 18.

    21See 77 FR 42834, 42857 (“The nine Class I areas within 300 km of Apache were modeled”).

    Comment: Citing the preambles to EPA's proposed and final revisions to the RHR concerning BART alternatives, the Conservation Organizations asserted that the weight-of-evidence alternative to the two-part test is generally appropriate only when a state cannot conduct the two-part test, or when the state has significant confidence that a BART alternative will have greater visibility benefits than BART. They argued that Arizona's weight-of-evidence approach was inappropriate here because the state had sufficient data to conduct the two-part test and “could not have had confidence that the alternative would result in superior visibility benefits.”

    Response: We do not agree with this comment. Nothing in the RHR or in the preamble language cited by the commenters indicates that the weight-of-evidence test is appropriate only when a state cannot conduct the two-part test, or when the state has significant confidence that a BART alternative will have greater visibility benefits than BART. In the preamble to the 2006 final revisions to the RHR, EPA explained that we were adopting a weight of evidence test “as an alternative to the methodology set forth in section 51.308(e)(3).” 22 EPA described the factors that could be considered as part of such test and suggested specific circumstances where a weight of evidence comparison “may be warranted.” 23 However, EPA did not indicate that these were the only circumstances in which this approach could be employed.

    22 71 FR 60612, 60621-22.

    23Id. at 60622.

    In this instance, ADEQ found that the two-prong test as described in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) was not appropriate and therefore chose to apply the clear weight of evidence test. Nonetheless, as explained in our proposal, we applied a modified version of the two-prong test, using the 98th percentile impacts (averaged across three years), rather than the best twenty-percent days and worst twenty-percent days, as provided for in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).24 The Apache BART Alternative meets both prongs of this modified test, which strongly supports the conclusion that the Apache BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART.

    24 79 FR 56328.

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the Apache BART Alternative could be improved to achieve additional emissions reductions. In particular, the commenters suggested that EPA could require AEPCO to install SNCR at ST2 and switch ST3 to gas, rather than switching ST2 to gas and installing SNCR at ST3. They also encouraged EPA to consider capacity limitations or other operational limits to improve the alternative.

    Response: We do not agree that we can amend the Apache BART Alternative to provide greater emission reductions. Under the CAA, if EPA determines that a SIP meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations, we are obligated to approve the SIP.25 For the reasons described in our proposal and elsewhere in this document, we have determined that the Apache SIP revision meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations, and we are therefore required to approve it.

    25See CAA section 110(k)(3).

    III. Final Action

    As explained in our proposal and this document, we have determined that the Apache SIP Revision would provide for greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. We have also determined that the Apache SIP Revision meets all other requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations with one exception: the Apache Permit Revision incorporates by reference certain state regulations that establish an affirmative defense for malfunctions (R-18-2-101, paragraph 65; R18-2-310, sections (A), (B), (D) and (E); and R18-2-310.01).26 In a letter dated February 19, 2015, ADEQ requested that EPA not act on these provisions of the Apache SIP Revision at this time.27 Accordingly, we are taking final action to approve the Apache SIP Revision except for the affirmative defense provisions contained in the Apache Permit Revision. We are also taking final action to revise the Arizona Regional Haze FIP to remove those portions that apply to Apache. The withdrawal of the FIP, as it applies to Apache, also constitutes our final action on AEPCO's petition for reconsideration of the FIP.

    26 See Apache Permit Revision section V.D.

    27 See Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (February 19, 2015).

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

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

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This rule applies to only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

    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 prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. AEPCO sold under 3 million megawatt hours in 2013 and is therefore a small entity.

    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The FIP withdrawal would alleviate economic impacts on AEPCO and therefore would not have a significant adverse impact on any small entity.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

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

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal 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 tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.

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

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

    EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This action addresses regional haze and visibility protection.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. This 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 Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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 has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population, at a lower cost than the FIP.

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability that only applies to a single named facility.

    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 9, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).

    In addition, pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) and (V) of the CAA, the Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Apache is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.” The Administrator determines that the SIP approval portion of this action is also subject to 307(d). While the Administrator did not explicitly make this determination earlier, all of the procedural requirements, e.g., docketing, hearing and comment periods, of section 307(d) have been complied with during the course of this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    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 D—Arizona 2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(165) to read as follows:
    § 52.120 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (165) The following plan was submitted May 13, 2014, by the Governor's designee:

    (i) Incorporation by reference.

    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

    (1) Significant Revision No. 59195 to Air Quality Control Permit No. 55412, excluding section V.D., issued May 13, 2014.

    (ii) Additional materials.

    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

    (1) Arizona State Implementation Plan, Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan for Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Incorporated, Apache Generating Station, excluding the appendices.

    3. Section 52.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(5)(i)(A) and (B) and removing and reserving paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(B) to read as follows:
    § 52.145 Visibility protection.

    (f) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze at Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station—(1) Applicability. This paragraph (f) applies to each owner/operator of the following coal-fired electricity generating units (EGUs) in the state of Arizona: Cholla Power Plant, Units 2, 3, and 4 and Coronado Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. The provisions of this paragraph (f) are severable, and if any provision of this paragraph (f), or the application of any provision of this paragraph (f) to any owner/operator or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other owner/operators and other circumstances, and the remainder of this paragraph (f), shall not be affected thereby.

    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (f):

    ADEQ means the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

    Boiler-operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the unit.

    Coal-fired unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment required by 40 CFR part 75 and this paragraph (f).

    Emissions limitation or emissions limit means any of the Federal Emission Limitations required by this paragraph (f) or any of the applicable PM10 and SO2 emissions limits for Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station submitted to EPA as part of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP in a letter dated February 28, 2011, and approved into the Arizona State Implementation Plan on December 5, 2012.

    Flue Gas Desulfurization System or FGD means a pollution control device that employs flue gas desulfurization technology, including an absorber utilizing lime, fly ash, or limestone slurry, for the reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.

    Group of coal-fired units mean Units 1 and 2 for Coronado Generating Station and Units 2, 3, and 4 for Cholla Power Plant.

    lb means pound(s).

    NO X means nitrogen oxides expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

    Owner(s)/operator(s) means any person(s) who own(s) or who operate(s), control(s), or supervise(s) one or more of the units identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

    MMBtu means million British thermal unit(s).

    Operating hour means any hour that fossil fuel is fired in the unit.

    PM 10 means filterable total particulate matter less than 10 microns and the condensable material in the impingers as measured by Methods 201A and 202 in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.

    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA Region IX or his/her authorized representative.

    SO 2 means sulfur dioxide.

    SO 2 removal efficiency means the quantity of SO2 removed as calculated by the procedure in paragraph (f)(5)(iii)(B) of this section.

    Unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

    Valid data means data recorded when the CEMS is not out-of-control as defined by 40 CFR part 75.

    (3) * * *

    (i) NO X emission limitations. The owner/operator of each coal-fired unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall not emit or cause to be emitted NOX in excess of the following limitations, in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from any group of coal-fired units. Each emission limit shall be based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average, unless otherwise indicated in specific paragraphs.

    Group of coal-fired units Federal
  • emission
  • limitation
  • Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3, and 4 0.055 Coronado Generating Station Units 1 and 2 0.065

    (4) * * *

    (ii) The owners/operators of each unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall comply with the applicable PM10 and SO2 emissions limits submitted to EPA as part of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP in a letter dated February 28, 2011, and approved into the Arizona State Implementation Plan on December 5, 2012, as well as the related compliance, recordkeeping and reporting of this paragraph (f) no later than the following dates:

    Unit Compliance date PM10 SO2 Cholla Power Plant, Unit 2 April 1, 2016 April 1, 2016. Cholla Power Plant, Unit 3 June 3, 2013 June 3, 2013. Cholla Power Plant, Unit 4 June 3, 2013 June 3, 2013. Coronado Generating Station, Unit 1 June 3, 2013 June 3, 2013. Coronado Generating Station, Unit 2 June 3, 2013 June 3, 2013.

    (5) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) At all times after the compliance date specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of each coal-fired unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure SO2, NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each unit. In addition, the owner/operator of Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4 shall calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure SO2 emissions and diluent at the inlet of the sulfur dioxide control device. All valid CEMS hourly data shall be used to determine compliance with the emission limitations for NOX and SO2 in paragraph (f)(3) of this section for each unit. When the CEMS is out-of-control as defined by 40 CFR part 75, that CEMs data shall be treated as missing data, and not used to calculate the emission average. Each required CEMS must obtain valid data for at least 90 percent of the unit operating hours, on an annual basis.

    (B) The owner/operator of each unit shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. In addition to these 40 CFR part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall be calculated for both the NOX and SO2 pounds per hour measurement and the heat input measurement. The CEMs monitoring data shall not be bias adjusted. The inlet SO2 and diluent monitors required by this rule shall also meet the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The testing and evaluation of the inlet monitors and the calculations of relative accuracy for lb/hr of NOX, SO2 and heat input shall be performed each time the 40 CFR part 75 CEMS undergo relative accuracy testing. In addition, relative accuracy test audits shall be performed in the units of lb/MMBtu for the inlet and outlet SO2 monitors at Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4.

    (ii) * * *

    (B) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2015-07987 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756; FRL-9923-64] Secondary (C13-C17) Alkane Sulfonates; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of two secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates (CAS Reg. Nos. 85711-69-9 and 97489-15-1) when used as inert ingredients (surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops at a maximum concentration not to exceed 40% by weight. Exponent, on behalf of Clariant Corporation, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective April 10, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 9, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 21, 2014 (79 FR 9870) (FRL-9904-98), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10630) by Exponent, 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036 on behalf of Clariant Corporation, 4000 Monroe Rd., Charlotte, NC 28205. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of two inert ingredients, collectively referred to as secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates (SAS): Sulfonic acids, C13-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9) and sulfonic acids, C14-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No. 97489-15-1) when used as surfactants in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Exponent, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is limiting the tolerance exemption to pesticide formulations in which the maximum concentration of the secondary alkane sulfonates is 40% by weight. This limitation is based on the Agency's risk assessment which can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Secondary Alkane (C13-C17) Sulfonates (SAS); Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pre-harvest Pesticide Products Under 40 CFR 180.920” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates (also referred to as SAS) as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    The Agency relied on data on CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9 (sulfonic acids (C13-C17 secondary alkane) to assess both inert ingredients. Bridging data in this manner is appropriate because CAS Reg. No. 97489-15-1 (sulfonic acids, C14-C17 secondary alkane) has an alkyl carbon chain length that falls within the carbon chain length range of CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9 (sulfonic acids, C13-C17 secondary alkane) and toxic effects attributable to the C14-C17 secondary alkane sulfonate would be observed in toxicity testing of the C13-C17 secondary alkane sulfonate.

    The acute oral lethal dose (LD50) for SAS in rats is >500 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg). The acute dermal LD50 in mice is >200 mg/kg. Secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonate is not a dermal irritant based on primary skin irritation study in rabbits and it is not a dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs.

    A chronic toxicity study was conducted on SAS in rats and demonstrated a NOAEL of 4,000 parts per million (ppm) (equivalent to 168 milligram/kilogram body weight/day (mg/kg bw/day) in males and 227 mg/kg bw/day in females), and a LOAEL of 20,000 ppm (equivalent to 920 mg/kg bw/day in males and 1,281 mg/kg bw/day in females) based on reduced body weight, body weight gain, and the clinical signs of reduced grooming in males and females.

    In a 2-generation reproduction study in rats dosed with SAS, there was no indication that offspring were more susceptible than the parental adults. The parental systemic LOAEL was 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day in males and 181 mg/kg bw/day in females), based on decreased body weight gain during premating and on reduced organ weight. The parental NOAEL was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day for males and 66 mg/kg bw/day for females). The offspring LOAEL was 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day) based on decreased pre- and post-implantation loss and decreased weight gain in offspring. The offspring NOAEL was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day).

    Secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates were not mutagenic when tested in the in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assay and in the Salmonella typhimurium reverse mutation assay.

    In a combined oral (dietary) chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study of SAS in rats, there were no treatment-related neoplastic or non-neoplastic microscopic findings observed up to 2.0% (equivalent to 805 mg/kg bw/day in males and 1,032 mg/kg bw/day in females), the highest dose tested. A LOAEL was not identified. Although body weight of high-dose males and females were lower by about 20% relative to controls throughout most of the study, decreased body weight was not viewed as an adverse effect since higher survival rates were observed in this group compared to controls.

    In a dermal carcinogenicity study of SAS in mice, no indication of increased incidence relative to controls of malignant neoplasms was observed. No LOAEL was demonstrated. The NOAEL was 1.0% (equivalent to 0.6 mg/treatment), the highest concentration applied to the skin.

    Secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates are rapidly absorbed and excreted in the urine and feces. Secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates have a low potential for dermal absorption based on a dermal penetration study in rats.

    Although no immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity studies on SAS were available in the database, no evidence of immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity was observed in the submitted studies.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    The 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats was selected for oral, dietary, dermal, and inhalation exposure scenarios (all durations) for this risk assessment. The parental systemic NOAEL in this study was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day for males) based on reduced body weight gain during premating and on reduced organ weight seen at the LOAEL of 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day). The rationale for selecting this study for the dietary, dermal, and inhalation exposure scenario is based on the fact that this study provided the lowest and most conservative toxicity endpoint and route-specific studies are available.

    A default 100% inhalation absorption will be used for inhalation exposure scenarios. A 50% dermal absorption rate will be used for dermal exposure scenarios based on the toxicokinetic dermal absorption study.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Secondary Alkane (C13-C17) Sulfonates for Use in Human Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/
  • safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 58.2 mg/kg bw/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.582 mg/kg bw/day
  • cPAD = 0.58 mg/kg bw/day
  • Rat reproductive toxicity study.
  • LOAEL = 177 mg/kg bw/day based on decreased weight gain during premating and reduced organ weight.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Based on the lack of increased incidence of tumor formation compared to controls in multiple carcinogenicity studies and the lack of mutagenicity, SAS is considered not likely to be carcinogenic FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates in food as follows:

    i. Acute Exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide chemical, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for SAS; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. The chronic dietary exposure assessment for this inert ingredient utilizes the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version 3.16, EPA, which includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat In America”, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual residue data, the inert ingredient evaluation is based on a highly conservative model which assumes that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient on a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient (if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.

    iii Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that SAS does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    Based on the use pattern for pesticide products containing SAS as an inert ingredient, there are no residential uses and thus no residential exposures are expected.

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

    EPA has not found secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In a 2-generation reproduction toxicity study, there was no evidence of susceptibility of infants and children to SAS. In this study, the offspring and parental toxicity NOAEL was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day) based decreased pre- and post-implantation loss and decreased weight gain in offspring and decreased body weight gain during premating and on reduced organ weight in parental animals seen at the LOAEL was 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day).

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

    i. The toxicity database for secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates includes a subchronic toxicity study, a 2-generation reproduction study, chronic/carcinogenicity studies, several mutagenicity studies, and two toxicokinetic studies. The Agency concludes that for this ingredient, the results of these studies provide a reliable basis for assessing the range of potential effects to infants and children, such that the Agency has determined that no additional data are necessary at this time to evaluate effects to infants and children.

    ii. There is no indication that SAS is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility due to pre-or post-natal exposure to SAS in infants and children.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions utilizing a 100 ppb default value in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified, therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to SAS from food and water will utilize 97.1% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term/intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, SAS is not used as inert ingredient in any pesticide product registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is no short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for SAS.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two rodent carcinogenicity studies, secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates are not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Although EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of SAS that may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical enforcement methodology is not necessary for this exemption. The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or distribution for use on growing crops with concentrations of SAS exceeding 40% by weight of the formulation.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.920 for sulfonic acids, C13-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9) and sulfonic acids, C14-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No. 97489-15-1) when used as inert ingredients (surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops at not more than 40% by weight of the pesticide formulation.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 10, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.920, add alphabetically the following inert ingredients to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sulfonic acids, C13-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9) Not to exceed 40% by weight in non-residential use pesticide formulation only Surfactant. Sulfonic acids, C14-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No. 97489-15-1) Not to exceed 40% by weight in non-residential pesticide formulation only Surfactant. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-08218 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0798; FRL-9925-02] Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of pyraclostrobin in or on the herb subgroup 19A, dill seed, the stone fruit group 12-12, and the tree nut group 14-12, except pistachio. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective April 10, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0798, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0798 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 9, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0798, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10458) (FRL-9906-77), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3E8216) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenylcarbamate) (BF 500-3), expressed as parent compound, in or on herb, subgroup 19A at 85 ppm; and dill, seed at 100 ppm and by changing the existing entries for “fruit, stone, group 12” at 2.5 ppm to “fruit, stone, group 12-12” at 2.5 ppm; and “nut, tree, group 14” at 0.04 ppm to “nut, tree, group 14-12, except pistachio” at 0.04 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    There are no concerns for reproductive susceptibility, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, or immunotoxicity. The most consistently observed effects resulting from pyraclostrobin exposure across species, genders, and treatment durations were diarrhea and decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption. Pyraclostrobin also causes intestinal disturbances, as indicated by increased incidence of diarrhea or duodenum mucosal thickening. These intestinal effects appeared to be related to the irritating action on the mucus membranes as demonstrated by irritation seen in the primary eye irritation study. In the rat acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, neuropathology and behavior changes were not observed.

    In the rat developmental toxicity study, developmental toxicity including an increased incidence of dilated renal pelvis and cervical ribs occurred at a dose greater than the dose causing maternal toxicity (including decreased body weights and body weight gains and reduced food consumption and reduced food efficiency). The rabbit developmental toxicity study indicates qualitative evidence of increased developmental susceptibility based on increased resorptions per litter, increased post-implantation loss and dams with total resorptions, in the presence of maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain, food consumption, and food efficiency). In a dose range-finding 1-generation reproduction study, systemic toxicity was manifested as decreased body weight and body weight gain in both the parents and offspring. The effects occurred at the same dose levels for both parental and the offspring, but the decrease in pup weight was more than that in the parental animals. However, the body weight effect was not found in the guideline 2-generation reproduction study in either parental or offspring animals at similar dose level. No reproductive toxicity was seen.

    Pyraclostrobin has been classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans based on the lack of treated related increase in tumor incidence in adequately conducted carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. Pyraclostrobin did not cause mutagenicity or genotoxicity in the in vivo and in vitro assays, nor did it cause immunotoxicity in T-cell dependent antibody response assays in mice with preliminary review.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pyraclostrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Pyraclostrobin—Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Registration of New Uses on Herb Subgroup 19A and Dill Seed, Plus Crop Group Conversions on Stone Fruit Group 12-12 and Tree Nut Group 14-12” at page 29 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0798.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

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

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pyraclostrobin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/
  • safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (Females 13-50 years of age) NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • Developmental Toxicity—Rabbit
  • LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day based on developmental toxicity findings of increased resorptions.
  • Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 3.0 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 3.0 mg/kg/day
  • Acute Neurotoxicity—Rat
  • LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain in males.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 3.4 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.034 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.034 mg/kg/day
  • Carcinogenicity—Rat
  • LOAEL = 9.2 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, kidney tubular casts and atrophy in both sexes; increased incidence of liver necrosis and erosion/ulceration of the glandular-stomach and fore-stomach in males.
  • Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) NOAEL = 5.8 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Subchronic Toxicity—Dog
  • LOAEL = 12.9 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of diarrhea, clinical chemistry changes, duodenum mucosal hypertrophy, and decreased body weight and food efficiency.
  • Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) Oral study NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate = 14%)
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental Toxicity—Rabbit
  • LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day based on developmental toxicity findings of increased resorptions and maternal toxicity based on decreased food efficiency.
  • Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) Inhalation study NOAEL = 0.010 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 3x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • fHandler =
  • 16.7 L/min
  • HECHandler =
  • 0.00131 mg/L
  • HECBystander =
  • 0.00023 mg/L
  • HEDHandler =
  • 0.038 mg/kg/day
  • LOC for MOE = 30 Inhalation Toxicity—Rat
  • LOAEL = 6.9 mg/kg/day (air concentration = 0.03 mg/L) based on duodenum mucosal hyperplasia and respiratory system findings including alveolar histiocytosis and olfactory atrophy/necrosis in nasal tissue.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the absence of significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). HEC = Human Equivalent Concentration. HED = Human Equivalent Dose. f = Respiratory frequency.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to pyraclostrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyraclostrobin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.582. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyraclostrobin in food as follows:

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

    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16, which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003 through 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues or highest field trial residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and empirical or default processing factors. Experimentally-derived processing factors were used for fruit juices, tomato, sugarcane, and wheat commodities. For all other processed commodities, DEEM default processing factors were assumed.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2003-2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA included tolerance-level or average field trial residues, average PCT estimates when available, and empirical processing factors. Experimentally-derived processing factors were used for fruit juices, tomato, sugar cane, and wheat commodities. For all other processed commodities, DEEM default processing factors were assumed.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that pyraclostrobin does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

    • Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:

    Almonds 40%; apples 15%; apricots 25%; barley 10%; green beans <2.5%; blueberries 45%; broccoli 5%; cabbage 10%; caneberries 50%; cantaloupes 15%; carrots 35%; cauliflower <2.5%; celery <2.5%; cherries 50%; corn 10%; cotton <2.5%; cotton (seed treatment) 10%; cucumber 10%; dry beans/peas 10%; garlic 10%; grapefruit 30%; grapes 30%; hazelnuts (filberts) 20%; lemons <2.5%; lettuce 5%; nectarines 10%; onions 25%; oranges 5%; peaches 20%; peanuts 25%; pears 15%; green peas 5%; pecans <2.5%; peppers 10%; pistachios 30%; plums/prunes 5%; potatoes 20%; pumpkins 20%; rice <1%; soybeans 5%; soybeans (seed treatment) 5%; spinach 5%; squash 15%; strawberries 65%; sugar beets 45%; sweet corn 5%; tangelos 15%; tangerines 10%; tomatoes 25%; walnuts <1%; watermelons 30%; wheat 5%; wheat (seed treatment) <1%.

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

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

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

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater (PRZM-GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pyraclostrobin for acute exposures are estimated to be 35.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water. Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 2.3 ppb for surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 35.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 2.3 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential handler and post-application exposures: Treated gardens, fruit or nut trees, tomato transplants, and turf. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-term adult handler exposures via the dermal and inhalation routes resulting from application of pyraclostrobin to gardens, trees, and turf. Short-term dermal post-application exposures were assessed for adults, youth 11 to 16 years old, and children 6 to 11 years old. Short-term dermal and incidental oral exposures were assessed for children 1 to <2 years old. Based on the registered uses of pyraclostrobin on residential and golf course turf, intermediate-term post-application exposures are possible. However, since the short- and intermediate-term endpoints and PODs for dermal and oral routes are the same, the short-term exposure and risk estimates are considered to be protective of potential intermediate-term exposure and risk.

    For the aggregate assessment, inhalation and dermal exposures were not aggregated together because the toxicity effect from the inhalation route of exposure was different than the effect from the dermal route of exposure. The scenarios with the highest residential exposures that were used in the short-term aggregate assessment for pyraclostrobin are as follows:

    • Adult short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal post-application exposure via activities on treated turf.

    • Youth (11-16 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal exposure from post-application golfing on treated turf.

    • Children (6-11 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal exposures from post-application activities in treated gardens.

    • Children (1<2 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to treated turf.

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

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

    EPA has not found pyraclostrobin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and pyraclostrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyraclostrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence that pyraclostrobin results in increased susceptibility in rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the prenatal development study in rabbits, the Agency did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of pyraclostrobin. The degree of concern for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity is low.

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

    i. The toxicity database for pyraclostrobin is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that pyraclostrobin is a neurotoxic chemical. Effects seen in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats are considered to reflect perturbations in mitochondrial respiration leading to effects on energy production rather than signs of neurotoxicity; therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that pyraclostrobin results in increased susceptibility in rats in the prenatal developmental study or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. The prenatal rabbit developmental toxicity study showed qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility to prenatal rabbits; however, this study was chosen for endpoint selection for the acute dietary (females 13-49) and short-term dermal exposure scenarios. This study has a clearly defined NOAEL of 5.0 mg/kg/day. EPA did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of pyraclostrobin. The degree of concern for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity is low.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary exposure assessments were performed assuming 100 PCT and tolerance-level or highest field trial residues. The chronic dietary exposure assessments were performed using average PCT estimates, when available, and tolerance-level or highest field trial residues. These data are reliable and are not expected to underestimate risks to adults or children. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pyraclostrobin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pyraclostrobin.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to pyraclostrobin will occupy 87% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to pyraclostrobin from food and water will utilize 27% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of pyraclostrobin is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to pyraclostrobin.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 110 for children 1-2 years old, 380 for children 6-11 years old, 1,600 for youth 11-16 years old, and 230 for adults from post-application exposures. Because EPA's level of concern for pyraclostrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure; however, since the short- and intermediate-term endpoints and PODs for dermal and oral routes are the same, the short-term exposure and risk estimates are considered to be protective of potential intermediate-term exposure and risk and an intermediate-term aggregate assessment was not performed.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, pyraclostrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Two adequate methods are available to enforce the tolerance expression for residues of pyraclostrobin and the metabolite BF 500-3 in or on plant commodities: A liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, BASF Method D9908; and a high-performance LC with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) method, Method D9904. The methods may be found in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume I.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex and U.S. residue definitions for pyraclostrobin residues on plant commodities are different. The Codex definition is pyraclostrobin, whereas the U.S. definition is pyraclostrobin and its desmethoxy metabolite. Codex has not established MRLs for pyraclostrobin on herbs or dill seed, and therefore there are no harmonization issues for those commodities. Codex has established MRLs for some members of the stone fruit group, i.e., cherries (3 mg/kg), peach/nectarine (0.3 mg/kg), and plums (0.8 ppm), but does not have a group tolerance. EPA has decided to issue a single group tolerance as requested for the stone fruit crop group, rather than harmonize with the individual MRLs for cherry, peach/nectarine, and plum, because adequate data supports the crop group tolerance. Codex has established a tree nut group tolerance at 0.02 mg/kg. The U.S. tolerance cannot be lowered, as it includes parent and a metabolite, each at 0.02 ppm, or 0.04 ppm total.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The tolerances being established for the herb subgroup 19A (40 ppm) and dill seed (40 ppm) are different than what the petitioner requested (85 ppm and 100 ppm, respectively). The requested tolerance levels for the herb subgroup 19A and dill seed were based on the use of field trial data without adjustment for the exaggerated application rate (2.7X) represented by those trials. Each of the two applications of pyraclostrobin were conducted at 2.7X the label rate, and the total seasonal rate was 2.7X the label rate. Using the assumption of proportionality, i.e., that the residue levels are proportional to the rate of application, the residue results may be adjusted to the concentrations expected at the 1X rate. The tolerance estimates at the 1X rate are 40 ppm for herb subgroup 19A and 40 ppm for dill seed.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenylcarbamate) (BF 500-3), expressed as parent compound, in or on herb, subgroup 19A at 40 ppm; and dill, seed at 40 ppm. Additionally, the existing entries for “fruit, stone, group 12” at 2.5 ppm is modified to read “fruit, stone, group 12-12” at 2.5 ppm; and “nut, tree, group 14” at 0.04 ppm is modified to read “nut, tree, group 14-12, except pistachio” at 0.04 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.582: a. Add alphabetically the entries for “Dill, seed”, “Fruit, stone, group 12-12”, “Herb subgroup19A”, and “Nut, tree, group 14-12, except pistachio” to the table in paragraph (a)(1). b. Remove the entries for “Fruit, stone, group 12”, and “Nut, tree, group 14” in the table in paragraph (a)(1).

    The amendments read as follows:

    § 180.582 Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Dill, seed 40 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, stone, group 12-12 2.5 *    *    *    *    * Herb subgroup 19A 40 *    *    *    *    * Nut, tree, group 14-12, except pistachio 0.04 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2015-08079 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 41 CFR Part 300-3 [FTR Amendment 2015-02; FTR Case 2014-301; Docket No. 2014-0012; Sequence No. 1] RIN 3090-AJ44 Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for “Marriage”, “Spouse”, and “Domestic Partnership” AGENCY:

    Office of Government-wide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by adding terms and definitions for “Marriage” and “Spouse”, and by revising the definition of “Domestic Partnership”.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective April 10, 2015, subject to retroactivity principles as discussed herein.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For clarification of content, contact Mr. Rick Miller, Office of Government-wide Policy (MA), Travel and Relocation Policy Division, U.S. General Services Administration, at 202-501-3822 or email at [email protected] Contact the U.S. General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FTR Amendment 2015-02, FTR Case 2014-301.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7, provided that, when used in Federal law, the term “marriage” would mean only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and that the term “spouse” referred only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Because of DOMA, the Federal Government had been prohibited from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for all Federal purposes, including travel and relocation entitlements.

    On June 17, 2009, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination stating that “[t]he heads of all other executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, shall conduct a review of the benefits provided by their respective departments and agencies to determine what authority they have to extend such benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees.” As part of its review, GSA identified a number of changes to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) that could be made. Subsequently, on June 2, 2010, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum directing agencies to immediately take actions, consistent with existing law, to extend certain benefits, including travel and relocation benefits, to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees, and where applicable, to the children of same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees.

    GSA published an interim rule and a final rule, respectively in the Federal Register on November 3, 2010, and on September 28, 2011 (75 FR 67629 and 76 FR 59914), that fulfilled the Presidential Memorandum by, among other things, amending the definition of “immediate family” in the FTR to include same-sex domestic partners and their dependents.

    On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. As a result of this decision, GSA is now able to extend travel and relocation entitlements to Federal employees who are legally married to spouses of the same sex. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5707, the Administrator of General Services is authorized to prescribe necessary regulations to implement laws regarding Federal employees who are traveling while in the performance of official business away from their official stations. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 5738 mandates that the Administrator of General Services prescribe regulations relating to official relocation. The overall implementing authority is the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), codified in Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapters 300-304 (41 CFR Chapters 300-304).

    GSA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on June 26, 2014 (79 FR 36279). The proposed rule recommended adding a definition for the terms “Marriage” and “Spouse”, and revising the definition of the term “Domestic Partnership”.

    B. Summary of Comments Received

    In response to the proposed rule, GSA received comments from six different entities (one Federal agency, one Federal employee, two individuals, and two associations). Some comments received were generally supportive as to the implementation of the changes to the FTR and some comments opposed the changes as written. All comments were carefully considered in the development of this final rule.

    Two commenters supported the proposed rule without any additional changes made. One commenter requested a minor editorial change in section 300-3.1 in the revised definition for “Domestic Partner”, noting that the parenthetical “or foreign country” is not used in the term “Domestic Partnership”. The parenthetical “or foreign country” was used in the proposed rule for Supplementary Information under “A. Background” in explaining “Domestic Partnership”, and is used in the new term “Marriage”. They recommended further amending the term “Domestic Partnership” to add the term “or foreign country” after the word “state” in proposed paragraph 10 of the definition. GSA made the minor editorial change.

    One commenter suggested that the effective date of the final rule be retroactive prior to the date of the Windsor decision (June 26, 2013). The comment stated this would allow employees who relocated prior to the Windsor decision, and who were legally married in states that recognized same-sex marriages, to be allowed to claim relocation entitlements for their same-sex spouses. This rule is effective from the date of publication, subject to retroactivity principles as discussed herein. As to retroactive application, if an employee or former employee amends a claim for reimbursement based upon application of the Windsor decision for expenses incurred prior to the effective date of this rule or prior to the date of the Windsor decision, the agency that authorized the travel or relocation should make a determination based upon the relevant circumstances of each individual case, in light of governing legal principles and agency regulations.

    The two associations submitted comments opposing the changes in the proposed rule as written. Those comments are addressed herein together. One comment opposed adding to the definition of domestic partnership in section 300-3.1, the requirement that employees “certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state of residence to permit same-sex marriage” for those employees who reside in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws do not permit same-sex marriage. In the same comment, the association also opposed requiring domestic partners, who reside in states or jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex, to marry to be eligible for relocation entitlements as an immediate family member, if the employee is relocating to a foreign country.

    The commenters stated that the changes would apply to Americans officially assigned to, or in transit to, foreign locations, and these individuals and their families would be at risk of losing existing legal protections and support provided to legally recognized partners. They also stated that by requiring employees to marry or certify their intent to do so, may put these employees and their partners and families at risk of persecution, incarceration, and execution while assigned abroad.

    GSA recognizes that the legal landscape is rapidly changing, and certain states and other jurisdictions, as well as foreign countries, currently do not allow same-sex marriages. However, the proposed definition for the term “domestic partnership” in the FTR is in accordance with the definition used for other Federal employees benefit programs, and therefore, will not be changed. Employees with same-sex domestic partners living in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that allow them to marry have access to many, if not all, of the protections that married opposite-sex couples enjoy. Therefore, a separate category under the FTR's term “immediate family member” will not be created for employees and their domestic partners who live in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that allow them to marry but choose not to marry.

    One comment suggested that GSA should make clear that agencies retain the authority to assign personnel abroad and afford staff and family assigned abroad the protections and support that will best promote the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of their operation overseas. Since recruitment and assignment procedures are outside of the scope of the FTR, GSA did not address this issue.

    Another comment suggested that the proposed changes would promote illegal discrimination and invidious state or other jurisdiction practices towards same-sex couples with regard to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, property, tax filing, and spousal benefits. The changing of state or other jurisdiction benefit laws for marriage and/or domestic partners is outside the scope of the FTR, and therefore, is not addressed by GSA.

    The associations strongly opposed GSA “abolishing” domestic partner benefits already extended. The associations stated that, given the limited access to marriage and other forms of non-marital relationship recognition for same-sex couples, along with the aforementioned issues associated with requiring couples to marry or certify an intent to marry, the proposed change would add further burdens for same-sex couples. Therefore, they suggested GSA should expand the terms for “spouse”, “marriage”, and “domestic partnership” to apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners, thus extending travel and relocation benefits to partners in all relationships.

    GSA is not abolishing already extended travel and relocation benefits. Rather, GSA is limiting benefits moving forward for same-sex domestic partners who choose not to marry, despite residing in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) whose laws authorize same-sex marriage. Same-sex domestic partners who reside in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) whose laws do not authorize same-sex marriage will still be permitted to claim travel and relocation benefits based upon the FTR and agency procedures for immediate family members. At this time, GSA is not including opposite-sex domestic partners as part of an employee's immediate family.

    C. Major Changes in This Final Rule

    Based upon the comments received and suggested changes, the final rule updates the FTR by adding the definitions “Marriage” and “Spouse”, and revises the definition of “Domestic partnership”.

    The term “marriage” is added to include any marriage, including a marriage between individuals of the same sex, that was entered into in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws authorize the marriage, even if the married couple is domiciled in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) that does not recognize the validity of the marriage. The term also includes common law marriage in states or other jurisdictions where such marriages are recognized, so long as they are proven according to the applicable state/jurisdiction laws. The term “spouse” is added to include any individual who has entered into such a marriage.

    The term “marriage” will not include registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships recognized under state or other jurisdiction (or foreign) law that are not denominated as a marriage under that state's or other jurisdiction's (or foreign country's) law, and the terms “spouse”, “husband and wife”, “husband”, and “wife” do not include individuals who have entered into such a relationship. This conclusion will apply regardless of whether individuals who have entered into such relationships are of the opposite sex or the same sex.

    At the time the definition of “immediate family” in the FTR was amended to include same-sex domestic partners and their dependents, Section 3 of DOMA prohibited GSA from recognizing same-sex marriages. Thus, the availability of same-sex marriage in a particular state or other jurisdiction was not relevant to the determination of coverage eligibility for travel and relocation benefits. Now that FTR coverage is available to the same-sex spouses of Federal employees, pursuant to Windsor and the amendments finalized by this rule, GSA has reconsidered the need and scope of the extension of FTR coverage to same-sex domestic partners. When the proposed rule was published on June 26, 2014, only a minority of states recognized same-sex marriages. However since then, a majority of states currently permit same-sex marriage; therefore many same-sex couples have the same access to marriage that is available to opposite-sex couples. However, until marriage is available to same-sex couples in all fifty states and other jurisdictions, the extension of benefits to same-sex domestic partners will continue to play an important role in bridging the gap in legal treatment between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Therefore, GSA is tailoring FTR coverage to those same-sex couples who would marry, but live in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) where same-sex marriage is prohibited.

    Same-sex couples living in states or other jurisdictions that allow them to marry have access to many, if not all, of the protections that married opposite-sex couples enjoy. Therefore, for employees living in states or other jurisdictions where they are able to marry, there is less need to create a separate path by which same-sex domestic partners are eligible for FTR benefits. For those employees unable to marry under the laws of the states or other jurisdictions in which they live, however, it is appropriate to extend FTR coverage to same-sex domestic partners in the form described in this regulation.

    The term “domestic partnership” is updated to read that same-sex domestic partners that have a documented domestic partnership, and reside in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws do not permit same-sex marriage or recognize their validity, will still be considered an immediate family member, under the FTR and agency policy, only if they certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) of residence to permit same-sex marriage. For those individuals who reside in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex, the individuals will no longer be considered domestic partners or immediate family members due to the certification requirement.

    Due to current statutory restrictions, however, this final rule does not apply to the relocation income tax allowance or the income tax reimbursement allowance for state taxes when the applicable state law does not recognize same-sex marriage.

    This case is included in GSA's retrospective review of existing regulations under Executive Order 13563. Additional information is located in GSA's retrospective review (2015), available at www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations.

    D. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This final rule is also exempt from Administrative Procedure Act per 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), because it applies to agency management or personnel.

    F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the Federal Travel Regulation do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

    G. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This final rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.

    List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 300-3

    Government employees, Relocation, Travel, and Transportation expenses.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Denise Turner Roth, Acting Administrator of General Services.

    For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701-5709, 5721-5738, and 5741-5742, GSA amends 41 CFR part 300-3, as set forth below:

    PART 300-3—GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 300-3 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 5741-5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353; E.O. 11609, as amended; 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586, OMB Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992.

    2. Amend § 300-3.1 by— a. In the definition “Domestic partnership” by— 1. Removing from paragraph (8) the word “and” at the end of the sentence; 2. Removing from paragraph (9) the period at the end of the sentence and adding “; and” in its place; and 3. Adding paragraph (10); and b. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions “Marriage” and “Spouse”.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 300-3.1 What do the following terms mean?

    Domestic Partnership— * * *

    (10) Certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) of residence to permit same-sex marriage.

    Marriage—A legal union between individuals that was entered into in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws authorize the marriage, even if the married couple is domiciled in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) that does not recognize the validity of the marriage. The term also includes common law marriage in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) where such marriages are recognized, so long as they are proven according to the applicable state, other jurisdiction, or foreign laws. The term marriage does not include registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships recognized under state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) law that are not denominated as a marriage under that state's or other jurisdiction (or foreign country's) law.

    Spouse—Any individual who is lawfully married (unless legally separated), including an individual married to a person of the same sex who was legally married in a state or other jurisdiction (including a foreign county), that recognizes such marriages, regardless of whether or not the individual's state of residency recognizes such marriages. The term “spouse” does not include individuals in a formal relationship recognized by a state, which is other than lawful marriage; it also does not include individuals in a marriage in a jurisdiction outside the United States that is not recognized as a lawful marriage under United States law.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08193 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8377] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4133.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/
  • cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community
  • Current effective map date Date certain Federal
  • assistance no
  • longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region III Maryland: Cecil County, Unincorporated Areas 240019 June 15, 1973, Emerg; April 4, 1983, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp May 4, 2015 May 4, 2015. Charles County, Unincorporated Areas 240089 March 30, 1973, Emerg; June 5, 1985, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do *   Do. Charlestown, Town of, Cecil County 240021 February 20, 1975, Emerg; November 17, 1982, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Chesapeake City, Town of, Cecil County 240099 December 5, 1974, Emerg; October 15, 1981, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Elkton, Town of, Cecil County 240022 November 7, 1973, Emerg; March 18, 1980, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Indian Head, Town of, Charles County 240091 January 28, 1974, Emerg; October 15, 1985, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. La Plata, Town of, Charles County 240092 January 21, 1974, Emerg; April 17, 1985, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. North East, Town of, Cecil County 240023 July 24, 1975, Emerg; October 15, 1981, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Perryville, Town of, Cecil County 240024 April 23, 1974, Emerg; March 1, 1977, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Port Deposit, Town of, Cecil County 240025 March 16, 1973, Emerg; February 16, 1977, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Rising Sun, Town of, Cecil County 240158 September 17, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1986, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Virginia: Claremont, Town of, Surry County 510158 February 26, 1975, Emerg; October 16, 1990, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Essex County, Unincorporated Areas 510048 March 15, 1974, Emerg; December 16, 1988, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Surry County, Unincorporated Areas 510157 March 25, 1974, Emerg; November 2, 1990, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Tappahannock, Town of, Essex County 510049 June 3, 1974, Emerg; August 4, 1987, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Region V Indiana: Columbia City, City of, Whitley County 180300 July 29, 1975, Emerg; January 5, 1979, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. South Whitley, Town of, Whitley County 180301 October 2, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 1985, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Whitley County, Unincorporated Areas 180298 December 29, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1988, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Region VI Texas: Anahuac, City of, Chambers County 480120 June 27, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1981, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Baytown, City of, Chambers and Harris Counties 485456 July 17, 1970, Emerg; July 1, 1974, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Beach City, City of, Chambers County 480121 August 8, 1979, Emerg; January 19, 1983, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Chambers County, Unincorporated Areas 480119 July 10, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1983, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Cove, City of, Chambers County 481510 N/A, Emerg; August 11, 2006, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Mont Belvieu, City of, Chambers and Liberty Counties 480122 August 1, 1979, Emerg; August 16, 1982, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Old River-Winfree, City of, Chambers County 481637 N/A, Emerg; August 10, 1999, Reg; May 4, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. *......do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: March 16, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08320 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 130312235-3658-02] RIN 0648-XD734 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the commercial sector for vermilion snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects that commercial landings for vermilion snapper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the January 1 through June 30, 2015, fishing period on April 15, 2015. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ on April 15, 2015, and it will remain closed until the start of the July 1 through December 31, 2015, fishing period. This closure is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, April 15, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Britni LaVine, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes vermilion snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The commercial quota for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into separate quotas for two 6-month time periods, January through June and July through December. For the January 1 through June 30, 2015, fishing season, the commercial quota is 394,829 lb (179,091 kg), gutted weight (438,260 lb (198,791 kg), round weight), as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(i)(C).

    On February 26, 2015, NMFS published a temporary rule in the Federal Register to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper in or from the EEZ of the South Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 2, 2015, until July 1, 2015, or until the quota is reached and the commercial sector closes, whichever occurs first (80 FR 10392).

    In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(f)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for vermilion snapper when the commercial quota for that portion of the fishing year has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for South Atlantic vermilion snapper for the January-June fishing period will have been reached by April 15, 2015. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic vermilion snapper is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, April 15, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2015. The commercial quota for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is 394,829 lb (179,091 kg), gutted weight (438,260 lb (198,791 kg), round weight), for the July 1 through December 31, 2015, fishing period, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(ii)(C).

    The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having vermilion snapper onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such vermilion snapper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, April 15, 2015. During the closure, the bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(5) and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c)(1), apply to all harvest or possession of vermilion snapper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. During the closure, the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. As specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(i), the prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, April 15, 2015, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for vermilion snapper would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(f)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for vermilion snapper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect vermilion snapper since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would likely result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08174 Filed 4-6-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 69 Friday, April 10, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0482; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-06-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain serial number GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601E-11, M601E-11A, and M601F turboprop engines. This proposed AD was prompted by the determination that wear or cracking, and subsequent misalignment of the quill shaft of the engine and the power turbine (PT) shaft, may lead to rupture of the quill shaft, overspeed of the PT, and uncontained engine failure. This proposed AD would require inspection of the reduction gearbox and supporting cone. We are proposing this AD to prevent misalignment and rupture of the quill shaft, which could lead to overspeed of the PT, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0482.

    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-2015-0482; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The 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:

    Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0482; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-06-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0014, dated January 30, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been identified that misalignment between the quill shaft of the engine and the Power Turbine (PT) shaft may lead to a rupture of the quill shaft.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to overspeed of the PT and consequent uncontained engine failure, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants and/or persons on the ground.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0482.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. M601E-11/28, M601E-11A/15, M601F/26, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the M601 reduction gearbox and supporting cone. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the Czech Republic, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspection of the reduction gearbox and supporting cone.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 16 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 112 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $21,376 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $494,336. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type Certificate previously held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.): Docket No. FAA-2015-0482; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-06-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 9, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain serial number (S/N) GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601E-11, M601E-11A, and M601F turboprop engines, as follows:

    (1) Model M601E-11: S/N 833244, 841289, 852239, 861007, 881217, 884021, 892046, 892219, 894018, 903028, 913038, and 912023.

    (2) Model M601E-11A: S/N 902004 and 883046.

    (3) Model M601F: S/N 912001 and 924002.

    (d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the determination that wear or cracking, and subsequent misalignment of the quill shaft of the engine and the power turbine (PT) shaft, may lead to rupture of the quill shaft, overspeed of the PT, and uncontained engine failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent misalignment and rupture of the quill shaft, which could lead to overspeed of the PT, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Actions and Compliance

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

    (1) Within 300 flight hours, or six months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the reduction gearbox and supporting cone. Use Appendix 2, paragraph 4., Inspection, of GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. M601E-11/28, M601E-11A/15, M601F/26, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, to do your inspection.

    (2) If any crack is detected on the quill shaft, PT shaft, or the supporting cone, or if the quill shaft or PT shaft involute spline wear exceeds 0.12 mm, then before further flight, replace each cracked or worn part with a part eligible for installation.

    (f) Credit for Previous Actions

    If you performed the actions of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD before the effective date of this AD using GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. ASB No. M601E-11/28, M601E-11A/15, M601F/26, Revision 1, dated December 23, 2014, or Initial Issue, dated June 27, 2014, you have met the requirements of this AD.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0014, dated January 30, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-0482.

    (3) GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. ASB No. M601E-11/28, M601E-11A/15, M601F/26, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, is co-published as one document with M601D/44, M601D-1/29, M601D-11NZ/18, M601E/59, and M601E-21/26, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this proposed AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222.

    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 27, 2015. Thomas A. Boudreau, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07865 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0682; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-074-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by new occurrences of certain cracked main landing gear (MLG) rear hinge pins. This proposed AD would require identifying the serial number and part number of the MLG rear hinge pins, and replacement of pins or the MLG if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracked rear hinge pins, which could lead to MLG structural failure, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG and consequent injury to the occupants of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this proposed AD, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.aerochain.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0682; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0682; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-074-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0074, dated March 21, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by cases of rupture of Main Landing Gear (MLG) rear hinge pin part number (P/N) D61000 encountered in service in 1994 and 1996, DGAC France issued [an] AD * * * for ATR 42 aeroplanes and [another] AD * * * for ATR 72 aeroplanes to require inspection and, depending on findings, corrective action.

    Since those [French] ADs were issued, new occurrences of cracked rear hinge pin P/N D61000 were reported on ATR72 MLG.

    The result of subsequent investigation revealed that the affected pins were subjected to a non-detected thermal abuse done in production during grinding process. Analysis also showed that other MLG pin P/N's could be affected by the same nonconformity.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG structural failure, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG and consequently injury to the occupants of the aeroplane.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires inspection and, depending on findings, replacement of affected pins.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0682.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Messier-Bugatti-Dowty has issued the following service information.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG hinge pin.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG pins.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG pins.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, December 17, 2013, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG hinge pin.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG hinge pin.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG hinge pin.

    The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    Service Information Correction

    Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014, has a typo for the issue month listed in the service bulletin. The month listed for Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014, should read “January” instead of “Juanary.”

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 81 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $16,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,351,080, or $16,680 per product.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional: Docket No. FAA-2015-0682; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-074-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 26, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models; all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by new occurrences of certain cracked main landing gear (MLG) rear hinge pins. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked rear hinge pins, which could lead to MLG structural failure, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG and consequent injury to the occupants of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Hinge Pin Identification and Replacement for Model ATR72 Airplanes

    For Model ATR72 airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect for the serial number of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) MLG rear hinge pins having part number (P/N) D61000. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG rear hinge pins can be conclusively determined from that review. If a rear hinge pin having P/N D61000 has a serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, December 17, 2013; as applicable: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the pin with a serviceable part as identified in paragraph (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable.

    (h) Definition of Serviceable Hinge Pin for Model ATR72 Airplanes

    For Model ATR72 airplanes: For purposes of paragraph (g) of this AD, a serviceable MLG rear hinge pin is a pin that is specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) A hinge pin that is not identified in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable.

    (2) A hinge pin that has been inspected and reconditioned, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable.

    (i) MLG Pin Identification and Replacement for Model ATR72 Airplanes

    For Model ATR72 airplanes: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, inspect all LH and RH MLG pins for a part number and serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG pin can be conclusively determined from that review. If any affected MLG pin is found: At the earlier of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, replace the MLG with a serviceable MLG as identified in paragraph (j) of this AD, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (1) No later than the next MLG overhaul scheduled after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since installation of the MLG on an airplane since new or since last overhaul, as applicable.

    (j) Definition of Serviceable MLG for Model ATR72 Airplanes

    For Model ATR72 airplanes: For purposes of paragraph (i) of this AD, a serviceable MLG is one that incorporates pins specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Pins that are not identified in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (2) Pins that have been inspected and reconditioned in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (k) MLG Pin Identification and Replacement for Model ATR42 Airplanes

    (1) For Model ATR42 airplanes: Within the compliance time identified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect for any LH and RH MLG pins having a part number and serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG pin can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (i) No later than the next MLG overhaul scheduled after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since installation of the MLG on an airplane since new or since last overhaul, as applicable.

    (2) If the MLG pin having a part number and serial number listed in Messier- Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable; is found to be installed during the identification required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, within the compliance time identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, replace the MLG with a serviceable MLG, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA DOA. A serviceable MLG is a part that has pins as identified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Pins that are not listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (ii) Pins that have been inspected and reconditioned, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, dated October 30, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0074, dated March 21, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0682.

    (2) For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.aerochain.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 25, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07801 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0683; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-196-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a finding that certain barrel nuts installed at the vertical fin may be subject to stress corrosion and cracking. This proposed AD would require either repetitive inspections of vertical fin barrel nuts for corrosion or a magnetic check to identify certain barrel nuts, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corroded and loose barrel nuts that attach the vertical fin to body section 48, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the vertical fin attachment joint, loss of the vertical fin, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA 2015-0683.

    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-2015-0683; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0683; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-196-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On May 16, 2003, we issued AD 2003-10-11, Amendment 39-13156 (68 FR 28703, May 27, 2003), to require replacement of H-11 steel barrel nuts with new Inconel barrel nuts, because of possible corrosion and cracking. AD 2003-10-11 applied to Model 767-200 and -300 airplanes, line numbers 1 through 574 inclusive.

    We have received a report of H-11 steel barrel nuts installed on an airplane not included in the applicability of AD 2003-10-11, Amendment 39-13156 (68 FR 28703, May 27, 2003). Further investigation has revealed that airplanes with line numbers 575 through 681 had either H-11 steel or Inconel barrel nuts installed at the 16 vertical fin attachment points. Galvanic corrosion can occur on H-11 steel barrel nuts if moisture is present. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the H-11 steel barrel nuts that attach the vertical fin to body section 48, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the vertical fin attachment joint, loss of the vertical fin, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of vertical fin barrel nuts for corrosion or a magnetic check to identify certain barrel nuts, and corrective actions if necessary. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

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

    Explanation of “RC (Required for Compliance)” Steps in Service Information

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 38 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Option 1: Detailed inspections and torque check 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 per inspection cycle 1 Up to $482,661 per inspection cycle Up to $18,341,118. Option 2: Magnetic check 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 $340 Up to $12,920. 1 For the torque check, operators may choose to rent a special tool, with rental costs up to $482,321.

    We estimate that replacing any barrel nut would take 1 work-hour, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the cost of replacement parts. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0683; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-196-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 26, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a finding that certain barrel nuts installed at the vertical fin may be subject to stress corrosion and cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked, corroded, or broken barrel nuts that attach the vertical fin to body section 48, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the vertical fin attachment joint, loss of the vertical fin, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014. Signs of corrosion include, but are not limited to, sealant cracks, sealant bulging, powder residue, and cracked barrel nuts.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do internal and external detailed inspections of the barrel nuts and sealant for signs of corrosion, and do a torque check of the vertical stabilizer attachment bolts for loose barrel nuts.

    (i) If corrosion or any loose barrel nut is found at any attachment point location, before further flight, replace the barrel nut with a new Inconel barrel nut.

    (ii) If no corrosion or loose barrel nut is found at any attachment point location, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Repeat the inspections and torque check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD is done at that attachment point location.

    (B) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all barrel nuts with new Inconel barrel nuts.

    (2) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a magnetic check to identify H-11 steel barrel nuts.

    (i) If any H-11 steel barrel nut is found at any attachment point location, before further flight, do an internal and external detailed inspection of the barrel nut holes and sealant for signs of corrosion, and do a torque check of the vertical stabilizer attachment bolts for loose barrel nuts.

    (A) If corrosion or any loose barrel nut is found, before further flight, replace the barrel nut with a new Inconel barrel nut.

    (B) If no corrosion or loose barrel nut is found, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)(B)(1) and (g)(2)(i)(B)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Repeat the inspections and torque check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B)(2) of this AD is done at that attachment point location.

    (2) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all H-11 steel barrel nuts with new Inconel barrel nuts.

    (ii) If no H-11 steel barrel nut is found at all attachment point locations, no further work is required by this paragraph.

    (h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Original Issue date of this Service Bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an H-11 steel barrel nut on the vertical stabilizer of any airplane.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 24, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08072 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 121 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0881] Interpretation of the Flight Time Limitations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Interpretation

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to interpret our regulations to not apply to flight segments that are flown by a flightcrew consisting of only two pilots and no other flight crewmembers.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0881 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

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

    Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations 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.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alex Zektser, Attorney, Regulations Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8018; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments, data, or views concerning this proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time.

    The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposal. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments and any late-filed comments if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of comments received.

    Availability of This Proposed Interpretation

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—

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

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

    (3) Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this proposal.

    Background

    The FAA has been asked to provide two legal interpretations regarding the application of 14 CFR 121.521. Specifically, both interpretation requests present scenarios involving supplemental all-cargo part 121 operations that contain at least one international segment and make an election, under 14 CFR 121.513, to operate under the flight time limitations of § 121.515 and §§ 121.521 through 121.525.

    Both scenarios involve, in part, at least one segment in which the aircraft would be flown by a flightcrew consisting solely of two pilots and no other flight crewmembers. Both interpretation requests then ask the FAA to determine which specific flight, duty, and rest regulations would apply to these scenarios. Accordingly, the FAA must determine whether 14 CFR 121.521 applies to a flightcrew consisting solely of two pilots. For the reasons discussed below, the FAA proposes to find that § 121.521 does not apply to any flight segment that is flown by a flightcrew consisting only of two pilots and no other flight crewmembers.

    Discussion of the Proposal

    Normally, air carriers conducting all-cargo supplemental operations under part 121 must operate pursuant to the flight, duty, and rest provisions of §§ 121.503 through 121.509. However, supplemental air carriers conducting overseas and international all-cargo operations may elect, pursuant to § 121.513, to comply with the flight time limitations of § 121.515 and §§ 121.521 through 121.525 (commonly referred to as the “international rules”).1

    1 14 CFR 121.513.

    Section 121.521 governs the smallest-size flightcrew that can operate under these international rules. The regulatory text of § 121.521 unambiguously states that this section applies only to a “crew of two pilots and at least one additional flight crewmember.” 2 Thus, the plain text of § 121.521 states that there must be at least three flight crewmembers in order for § 121.521 to apply: (1) two pilots; and (2) at least one additional flight crewmember. The FAA reaffirmed this plain-text reading of § 121.521 in a 2012 interpretation in which it found that a flightcrew consisting of three pilots would be subject to the provisions of § 121.521.3

    2 14 CFR 121.521(a) (emphasis added).

    3 Letter to Timothy Slater from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Sept. 7, 2012) (answer to Question 1).

    Because § 121.521 governs the smallest-size flightcrew that can operate under the international part 121 flight, duty, and rest rules for supplemental all-cargo operations and because § 121.521 only applies to a flightcrew that has at least three flight crewmembers, the FAA proposes to find that § 121.521 does not apply to a flightcrew of only two pilots and no other flight crewmembers. Under the proposed interpretation and consistent with the FAA's precedent, a flightcrew of only two pilots in a supplemental part 121 all-cargo operation would be subject to the provisions of § 121.503 and § 121.505, which, among other things, apply to a flightcrew consisting solely of two pilots.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 1, 2015. Mark W. Bury, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07991 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2014-0358] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Missouri River, Atchison, KS AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is proposing to change the operating schedule that governs the Atchison Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 422.5, across the Missouri River at Atchison, KS. Under the proposed rule, the drawbridge will open on signal if at least a two-hour notification is given. This proposed rule allows the bridge to operate under the customary schedule that has been adopted by the waterway users.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-0358 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Eric Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Bridge Branch, the Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking §  Section Symbol U.S.C. United States Code A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

    1. Submitting comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this proposed rulemaking (USCG-2014-0358), 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 (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a 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, type the docket number [USCG-2014-0358] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing comments and documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-0358) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

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

    4. Public Meeting

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

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Missouri River drawbridge operation regulations contained in 33 CFR 117.411 and 117.687 state that the draws of the bridges across the Missouri River shall open on signal; except during the winter season between the date of closure and the date of opening of the commercial navigation season as published by the Army Corp of Engineers, the draw need not open unless at least 24 hours advance notice is given.

    The Union Pacific Railroad on April 29, 2009 requested the current operation regulations be changed from the open on signal requirement to a three-hour advance notice for drawspan openings for the Atchison Railroad Drawbridge, mile 422.5, in Atchison, KS. The request was denied by the Coast Guard because inconsistencies would be created with other drawbridges on the Missouri River resulting in an adverse effect to the waterway users.

    On April 29, 2014 the Union Pacific Railroad requested to change the operation regulations on the Atchison Railroad Drawbridge, mile 422.5, across the Missouri River to a two-hour advance notice to open the drawspan. The Coast Guard was still concerned that a two-hour advance notice may still create an inconsistency with the other drawbridge openings on the Missouri River.

    The Coast Guard and the Union Pacific Railroad further reviewed the request, along with the opening schedules for the other drawbridges on the Missouri River and concluded that a two-hour advance notice on drawspan openings of the Atchison Railroad Drawbridge would not create a consistency issue or not adversely affect navigation.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The Atchison Railroad Drawbridge crosses the Missouri River at mile 422.5 in Atchison, Kansas. Due to very limited drawspan openings and to codify the operating schedule that has been adopted by the waterway users, the Union Pacific Railroad requested a two-hour advance notice of opening the bridge's drawspan during the commercial navigation season.

    The Union Pacific Railroad has documented the limited number of vessel openings per year at this bridge. This information is available at the Coast Guard Western Rivers, Bridge Branch; see the aforementioned contact information.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule proposes to add special operating requirements codifying the customary advance notice for openings of the Atchison Railroad Bridge under 33 CFR 117, Subpart B as required under 33 CFR 117.8. The proposed change will add a paragraph (b) to 33 CFR 117.411, a reference to this paragraph in 33 CFR 117.687, and allow for bridge drawspan openings to take place provided at least a two-hour advance notice is given. This change is based on the very limited requests for openings during the commercial navigation season.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action and does not require a full assessment. As a matter of custom in the area, commercial mariners already provide advance notice; therefore this rule proposes little, if any, impact on current navigation. Additionally, all vessels will be able to transit the bridge with advance notification.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This proposed rule is neutral to all business entities operating on the waterway. As proposed, the rule simply requires a two-hour advance notice to open the bridge. As stated above, it is custom in the area to provide advance notice for a requested opening. This rule simply proposed to codify such notice already given as a customary practice. Therefore, this action will not have a significant impact on 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 (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under Section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.)

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise § 117.411 to read as follows:
    § 117.411 Missouri River.

    (a) The draws of the bridges across the Missouri River shall open on signal; except during the winter season between the date of closure and the date of opening of the commercial navigation season as published by the Army Corps of Engineers, the draw need not open unless at least 24 hours advance notice is given.

    (b) The draw of the Atchison Railroad Bridge, Mile 422.5, Missouri River need not open unless a two-hour advance notice is given during the commercial navigation season.

    3. Revise § 117.687 to read as follows:
    § 117.687 Missouri River.

    The draws of the bridges, except for the Atchison Railroad Bridge, Mile 422.5, see § 117.411(b) for further details, across the Missouri River shall open on signal; except during the winter season between the date of closure and date of opening of the commercial navigation season as published by the Army Corps of Engineers, the draws need not open unless at least 24-hours advance notice is given.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Kevin S. Cook, Rear Admiral, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08328 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS U.S. Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2014-07] Notice of Public Hearings: Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies AGENCY:

    U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Copyright Office will be holding public hearings as part of the sixth triennial rulemaking proceeding under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) concerning possible exemptions to the DMCA's prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The public hearings will be held in May 2014 in Los Angeles, California and Washington, DC. Parties interested in testifying at the public hearings are invited to submit requests to testify pursuant to the instructions set forth below.

    DATES:

    The public hearings in Los Angeles are scheduled for May 19, 20 and 21, 2015, on each day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The public hearings in Washington, DC are scheduled for May 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2015, on each day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Requests to testify must be received by Monday, April 20, 2015. Once the schedule of hearing witnesses is finalized, the Office will notify all participants and post the times and dates of the hearings at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Los Angeles hearings will be held in Room 1314 of the UCLA School of Law, 385 Charles E. Young Drive East, Los Angeles, CA 90095. The Washington, DC hearings will be held in the Mumford Room of the James Madison Building of the Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20540. Requests to testify should be submitted through the request form available at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/hearing-request/. Any person who is unable to send a request via the Web site should contact the Office using the contact information below to make an alternative arrangement for submission of a request to testify. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below includes additional instructions on submitting requests to testify.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarang V. Damle, Deputy General Counsel, at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-707-8350; or Stephen Ruwe, Assistant General Counsel, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-707-8350.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 17, 2014, the Copyright Office published a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register to initiate the sixth triennial rulemaking proceeding under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), which provides that the Librarian of Congress, upon recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, may exempt certain classes of copyrighted works from the prohibition against circumventing a technological measure that controls access to a copyrighted work. 79 FR 55687 (Sept. 17, 2014). On December 14, 2014, the Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting forth proposed exemptions for twenty-seven classes of works and requesting responsive comments. 79 FR 73857 (Dec. 14, 2014). The responsive comments received thus far have been posted on the Office's Web site. See http://www.copyright.gov/1201/.

    At this time, the Office is announcing public hearings to be held in Los Angeles and Washington, DC to further consider the exemptions. The Office plans to convene panels of witnesses for the proposals to be considered, and may combine certain panels if the witnesses and/or key issues substantially overlap. The Office will schedule panels for particular exemptions in either Los Angeles or Washington, DC unless compelling circumstances require that a proposed class be considered in both cities. Limiting the discussion of each proposed class to one city or another will better ensure that witnesses can respond to the points made by others and avoid duplicative discussion. If no request to testify is received for a proposed exemption, the Office will consider the class based on the written submissions.

    Submitting requests to testify: A request to testify should be submitted to the Copyright Office using the form on the Office's Web site indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. Anyone wishing to testify with respect to more than one proposed class must submit a separate form for each request. If multiple people from the same organization wish to testify on different panels, each should submit a separate request for each panel. If multiple people from the same organization wish to testify on the same panel, each should submit a request for that panel, and explain the need for multiple witnesses in the comment field of the request form.

    Depending upon the number and nature of the requests to testify, and in light of the limited time and space available for the public hearings, the Office may not be able to accommodate all requests to testify. The Office will give preference to those who have submitted substantive evidentiary submissions in support of or opposition to a proposal. To the extent feasible, the Office encourages parties with similar interests to select a common representative to testify on their behalf.

    All requests to testify must clearly identify:

    • The name of the person desiring to serve as a witness.

    • The organization or organizations represented, if any.

    • Contact information (address, telephone, and email).

    • The proposed class about which the person wishes to testify.

    • A two- to three-sentence explanation of the testimony the witness expects to present.

    • If the party is requesting the ability to demonstrate a use or a technology at the hearing, a description of the demonstration, including whether it will be prepared in advance or presented live, the approximate time required for such demonstration, and any presentation equipment that the person desires to use and/or bring to the hearing.

    • The city in which the person prefers to testify (Los Angeles or Washington, DC). The Office will try to take this preference into account in scheduling the hearings, but cannot guarantee that the relevant panel will be convened in the preferred city. Participants who are unable to testify in a particular city or on a particular date should so indicate in the comment field of the request form.

    To facilitate the process of scheduling panels, it is essential that all of the required information listed above be included in a request to testify.

    Following receipt of the requests to testify, the Office will prepare agendas for the hearings listing the panels and witnesses, which will be circulated to hearing participants and posted at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/. Although the Office currently anticipates three days of hearings in Los Angeles and four days of hearings in Washington, DC, the Office may adjust this schedule depending upon the number and nature of requests to testify.

    Format of public hearings: There will be time limits for each panel, which will be established after receiving all requests to testify. The Copyright Office plans to allot approximately one to two hours for each proposed class.

    Witnesses should expect the Office to have carefully studied all written comments, and the Office will expect witnesses to have done the same with respect to the classes for which they will be presenting. Witnesses will be given an opportunity to provide a brief (three- to five-minute) overview of their position at the outset of the panel. After that, the hearings will focus on legal or factual issues that are unclear or underdeveloped in the written record, as identified by the Office, as well as demonstrative evidence.

    The Office stresses that factual information is critical to the rulemaking process, and encourages witnesses to provide real-world examples to support their arguments. In some cases, the best way to do this may be to provide a demonstration of a claimed noninfringing use or the technologies pertinent to a proposal. As noted above, a person wishing to make such a demonstration must include a request to do so with his or her request to testify, using the appropriate space on the form described above. To ensure proper documentation of the hearings, the Office will require that a copy of any audio, visual, or audiovisual materials that have been prepared in advance (e.g., slideshows and videos) be provided to the Office at the hearing. Live demonstrations will be recorded by a videographer provided by the Office. The Office may contact witnesses individually ahead of time to ensure that demonstrations can be preserved for the record in an appropriate form.

    In addition to videography equipment, the Office expects to have a PC, projector, and screen in the hearing room to accommodate demonstrations. Beyond this equipment, witnesses are responsible for supplying and operating any other equipment needed for their demonstrations. Persons planning to bring additional electronic or audiovisual equipment must notify the Office at least five days in advance of their scheduled hearing date by emailing Stephen Ruwe, Assistant General Counsel, at [email protected]

    All hearings will be open to the public, but seating will be limited and will be provided on a first-come, first-serve basis. Witnesses and persons accompanying witnesses will be given priority in seating.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08255 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1511 and 1552 [EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478; FRL-9925-99-OARM] EPAAR Clause for Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Contract AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amends the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to update policy, procedures, and contract clauses. The proposed rule updates the EPAAR clause Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Term Contract, modifies the clause title, and updates the corresponding EPAAR clause prescription.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478, by one of the following methods:

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

    • Email: [email protected] epa.gov

    • Mail: EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478, OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of three (3) copies.

    • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center-Attention OEI Docket, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ”anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket, and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 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 www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket, 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1752. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Valentino, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-4522; email address: [email protected] epa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.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 submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Background

    The EPA reviewed EPAAR clause 1552.211-73, Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Term Contract, to make the clause more prescriptive in describing the EPA's responsibilities when the Agency orders less level of effort (LOE) than the maximum LOE specified in the subject clause; e.g., if the clause specifies 100,000 hours for a given period of performance but the contractor only provides 70,000 hours. The clause provides that a downward equitable adjustment will be made to reduce the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended LOE is less than 100% of that specified in the LOE clause; e.g., the fixed fee amount will be reduced by 30% using the same 100,000/ 70,000 hours example. The clause title is also modified so that the clause is now applicable to EPA LOE cost-reimbursement contracts. The EPAAR 1511.011-73 clause prescription is also being updated accordingly.

    III. Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule amends the EPAAR to revise the following:

    1. The EPAAR 1511.011-73 clause prescription is updated.

    2. The clause title is revised as follows: Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Contract.

    3. Paragraph (a) has been revised.

    4. An expositional statement has been added to paragraph (c).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

    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. No information is collected under this action.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action revises a current EPAAR provision and does not impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal governments and the private sector.

    This rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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.”

    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 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 rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

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

    Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution of Use” (66 FR 28335 (MAY 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in it's regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    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 has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This proposed rulemaking does not involve human health or environmental affects.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1511 and 1552

    Describing Agency Needs; Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth below:

    PART 1511—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS 1. The authority citation for part 1511 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).

    2. Revise 1511.011-73 to read as follows:
    1511.011-73 Level of effort

    The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.211-73, Level of Effort—Cost Reimbursement Contract, in cost-reimbursement contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).

    PART 1552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    4. Revise 1552.211-73 to read as follows:
    1552.211-73 Level of effort—cost-reimbursement contract.

    As prescribed in 1511.011-73, the contracting officer shall insert the following contract clause in cost-reimbursement contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).

    Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Contract (__2015)

    (a) The Contractor shall perform all work and provide all required reports within the level of effort specified below. The Contractor shall provide __ direct labor hours for the base period, which represents the Government's best estimate of the level of effort to fulfill these requirements, and is provided for advisory and estimating purposes. The Government is only obligated to pay for direct labor hours used and corresponding fixed fee for labor hours completed.

    (b) Direct labor includes personnel such as engineers, scientists, draftsmen, technicians, statisticians, and programmers, and not support personnel such as company management or data entry/word processing/ accounting personnel even though such support personnel are normally treated as direct labor by the Contractor. The level of effort specified in paragraph (a) includes Contractor, subcontractor, and consultant non-support labor hours.

    (c) If the Contractor provides less than 90 percent of the level of effort specified for the base period or any optional period exercised, an equitable downward adjustment of the fixed fee, if any, for that period will be made. The downward adjustment will reduce the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended level of effort is less than 100% of that specified in paragraph (a). (For instance, if a hypothetical base-period LOE of 100,000 hours is being reduced to 70,000, the fixed fee shall also be reduced by the same 30%. Using a corresponding hypothetical base-period fixed fee pool of $300,000, the reduced fixed-fee amount is calculated as: $300,000 × (70,000 hours/100,000 hours) = $210,000.)

    (d) The Government may require the Contractor to provide additional effort up to 110 percent of the level of effort for any period until the estimated cost for that period has been reached. However, this additional effort shall not result in any increase in the fixed fee, if any. If this is a cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) contract, the term “fee” in this paragraph means “base fee and incentive fee.” If this is a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract, the term “fee” in this paragraph means “base fee and award fee.”

    (e) If the level of effort specified to be ordered during a given base or option period is not ordered during that period, that level of effort may not be accumulated and ordered during a subsequent period.

    (f) These terms and conditions do not supersede the requirements of either the “Limitation of Cost” or “Limitation of Funds” clauses.

    (End of clause)
    [FR Doc. 2015-08183 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket Nos. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0017, FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0018, FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019, FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0020, FWS-R8-ES-2015-0021, FWS-R1-ES-2014-0061, FWS-R8-ES-2015-0022, FWS-R8-ES-2015-0023, FWS-R8-ES-2015-0024, FWS-R7-ES-2015-0025;4500030115] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 10 Petitions AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on various petitions to list eight species, reclassify one species, and delist one species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that these 10 petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we are initiating a review of the status of each of these species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. The status reviews for two species, the golden conure (which appears in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as the golden parakeet) and the northern spotted owl, will also serve as 5-year reviews for those species. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

    DATES:

    To allow us adequate time to conduct the status reviews, we request that we receive information on or before June 9, 2015. Information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit information on species for which a status review is being initiated by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see table below). Then click the Search button. You may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table below]; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

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

    Species Docket No. Clear Lake hitch FWS-R8-ES-2015-0017 Egyptian tortoise FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0018 Golden conure FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 Long-tailed chinchilla FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0020 Mojave shoulderband snail FWS-R8-ES-2015-0021 Northern spotted owl FWS-R1-ES-2014-0061 Relict dace FWS-R8-ES-2015-0022 San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly FWS-R8-ES-2015-0023 Western pond turtle FWS-R8-ES-2015-0024 Yellow-cedar FWS-R7-ES-2015-0025 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Species Contact information Clear Lake hitch Jennifer Norris, telephone (916)-414-6600. Egyptian tortoise Janine Van Norman, telephone (703) 358-2171. Golden conure Janine Van Norman, telephone (703) 358-2171. Long-tailed chinchilla Janine Van Norman, telephone (703) 358-2171. Mojave shoulderband snail Mendel Stewart, telephone (760) 431-9440. Northern spotted owl Paul Henson, telephone (503) 231-6179. Relict dace Edward D. Koch, telephone (775) 861-6300. San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly Jennifer Norris, telephone (916) 414-6600. Western pond turtle Jennifer Norris, telephone (916) 414-6600. Yellow-cedar Steve Brockmann, telephone (907) 780-1181.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:

    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:

    (a) Habitat requirements;

    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;

    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;

    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:

    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);

    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);

    (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);

    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or

    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

    (3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat.

    (4) For the northern spotted owl, we specifically request information on:

    (a) Evidence that any of the factors identified under Factor A are having population-level effects on the northern spotted owl, either singularly or in combination;

    (b) Evidence that the West Nile virus or predation by barred owls have caused population-level impacts on northern spotted owls;

    (c) Identification of shortcoming in existing regulations that are having population-level effects on the northern spotted owl;

    (d) Evidence that competition with barred owls is having population-level effects on the northern spotted owl; and

    (e) Evidence that global climate change is having population-level effects on the northern spotted owl.

    (5) For those domestic (U.S.) species that are not listed, if, after the status review, we determine that listing is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act for those species that fall within the jurisdiction of the United States, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also specifically request data and information for Clear Lake hitch, Mojave shoulderband snail, relict dace, San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, western pond turtle, and yellow-cedar on:

    (a) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range occupied by the species;

    (b) Where these features are currently found;

    (c) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;

    (d) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and

    (e) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.

    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

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

    You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. 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 you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying 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.

    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the appropriate lead U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which we will subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see (2) under Request For Information, above).

    We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither an endangered nor threatened species for one or more of the following reasons:

    (1) The species is extinct;

    (2) The species has recovered and is no longer an endangered or threatened species; or

    (3) The original scientific or commercial data used at the time the species was classified, or the interpretation of such data, were in error.

    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as an “endangered species” or a “threatened species,” as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient for us to find that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an “endangered species” or “threatened species” under the Act.

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Clear Lake Hitch as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0017 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Clear Lake hitch (Lavinia exilicauda chi); California

    Petition History

    On January 13, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife drafted a recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission to list the Clear Lake hitch as threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. On September 25, 2014, we received a petition dated September 25, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Clear Lake hitch be listed as a endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Clear Lake hitch (Lavinia exilicauda chi) based on Factors A, B, C, and E.

    Thus, for the Clear Lake hitch, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Egyptian Tortoise as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0018 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Egyptian tortoise (Testudo kleinmanni); Egypt, Libya, Israel

    Petition History

    On June 9, 2014, we received a petition dated May 2014, from Friends of Animals, requesting that the Egyptian tortoise be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Egyptian tortoise (Testudo kleinmanni) based on Factors A, B, C, D, and E.

    Thus, for the Egyptian tortoise, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Golden Conure Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Golden conure (Guaruba guarouba or Aratinga guarouba); Brazil. (Note: The species is listed as “golden parakeet” (Aratinga guarouba) in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h). However, we refer to the species by the common name “golden conure” in this document.)

    Petition History

    On August 21, 2014, we received a petition dated August 20, 2014, from the American Federation of Aviculture, Inc., requesting that the golden conure be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., “delisted”) pursuant to the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the golden conure (Guaruba guarouba or Aratinga guarouba) based on new population estimates and Fnew information relating to actors A, B, and D.

    Thus, for the golden conure, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Long-Tailed Chinchilla as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0020 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Long-tailed chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera); Chile

    Petition History

    On October 14, 2014, we received a petition dated October 7, 2014, from Friends of Animals, requesting that the long-tailed chinchilla be listed as a endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a November 17, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the long-tailed chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) based on Factors A, B, D, and E.

    Thus, for the long-tailed chinchilla, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List Mojave Shoulderband Snail as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0021 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Mohave shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta (coyote) greggi); California

    Petition History

    On January 31, 2014, we received a petition dated January 31, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Mohave shoulderband snail be listed as a endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an April 4, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Mohave shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta (coyote) greggi)) based on Factors A, C, and E.

    Thus, for the Mojave shoulderband snail, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To Reclassify the Northern Spotted Owl as an Endangered Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0061 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina); California, Oregon, and Washington, U.S.A.; British Columbia, Canada.

    Petition History

    On August 21, 2012, we received a petition dated August 15, 2012, from Environmental Protection Information Center, requesting that the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) be listed as an endangered species under the Act. We published a final rule to list the northern spotted owl as a threatened species under the Act on June 26, 1990 (55 FR 28114); the effective date of that rule was July 23, 1990. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a September 27, 2012, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency uplisting. We also issued a letter to the petitioner on April 17, 2014, informing them of our anticipated timeline for publication of the 90-day and 12-month findings. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) based on Factors A, C, D, and E.

    Thus, for the northern spotted owl, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Relict Dace as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0022 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Relict dace (Relictus solitarius); Nevada

    Petition History

    On June 27, 2014, we received a petition dated June 27, 2014, from Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, requesting that relict dace be listed as an endangered species under the Act on an emergency basis. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an August 25, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the relict dace (Relictus solitarius) based on Factors A, D, and E.

    Thus, for the relict dace, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the San Joaquin Valley Giant Flower-Loving Fly as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0023 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas trochilus); California.

    Petition History

    On June 26, 2014, we received a petition dated June 26, 2014, from Gregory R. Ballmer and Kendall H. Osborne, requesting that San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly be listed as an endangered species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a September 12, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas trochilus) based on Factors A and E.

    Thus, for the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Western Pond Turtle as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0024 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Western pond turtle or Pacific pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata; formerly Clemmys marmorata); California and Washington

    Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we were petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity to list 53 amphibian and reptile species across the United States. The western pond turtle was one of the species petitioned for listing.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) based on Factor A.

    Thus, for the western pond turtle, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List Yellow-cedar as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2015-0025 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    YellowYellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis); Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, U.S.A.; Canada

    Petition History

    On June 24, 2014, we received a petition dated June 24, 2014, from Center for Biological Diversity, The Boat Company, Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community, and Greenpeace, requesting that yellow-cedar be listed as a endangered or threatenedspecies under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis) based on Factors A, B, and E.

    Thus, for yellow-cedar, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

    Conclusion

    On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for Clear Lake hitch, Egyptian tortoise, golden conure, long-tailed chinchilla, Mojave shoulderband snail, northern spotted owl, relict dace, San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, western pond turtle, and yellow-cedar present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Because we have found that the petitions present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue a 12-month finding in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the Service believes listing, reclassification, or delisting, as appropriate, is warranted.

    It is important to note that the “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding as to whether the petitioned action may be warranted differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to the Service's determination in a 12-month finding as to whether a petitioned action is in fact warranted. A 90-day finding is not based on a status review. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.

    5-Year Review

    The status reviews of golden conure and northern spotted owl will also serve as the 5-year reviews for thesetheses species. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species under active review. For additional information about 5-year reviews, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/recovery-overview.html, scroll down to “Learn More about 5-Year Reviews,” and click on our factsheet.

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate lead field offices (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Authority

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

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Robert Dreher, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07837 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0013; FXES11130900000C6-145-FF09E42000] RIN 1018-BA42 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in Wyoming AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in coordination with the State of Wyoming and other partners, propose to reestablish additional populations of the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), a federally listed endangered mammal, into occupied prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) habitat in Wyoming. We propose to reestablish the black-footed ferret under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to classify any reestablished population as a nonessential experimental population (NEP). This approach would provide relaxed management rules to facilitate reintroductions. We are seeking comments on this proposal and on our draft environmental assessment, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed reintroduction.

    We are also notifying the public that we are amending the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) to reflect the scientifically accepted historical range of the black-footed ferret. The revised historical range description includes Mexico. The historical range information in the List is informational, not regulatory.

    DATES:

    We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 9, 2015. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0013, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click the Search button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the box next to Proposed Rules to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”

    By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2015-0013; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    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).

    Copies of Documents: The proposed rule and draft environmental assessment are available on http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed rule will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, WY 82009; telephone 307-772-2374. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Services (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, Telephone: 307-772-2374. Direct all questions or requests for additional information to: BLACK-FOOTED FERRET QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, WY 82009. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Comments

    We want any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as effective as possible. Therefore, we invite Tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed rule. Comments should be as specific as possible.

    To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date specified in the DATES section. We will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.

    We will post your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the 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, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    We are specifically seeking comments concerning:

    • The appropriateness of designating reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets in Wyoming as NEPs;

    • Threats to black-footed ferrets in the proposed NEP area that have not been considered in this proposed rule and that might affect a reintroduced population;

    • The suitability of the proposed boundaries for this NEP;

    • The effects of reintroducing black-footed ferrets on public and private land management activities such as ranching, recreation, energy development, and residential development; and

    • The compatibility of this proposal and ongoing efforts to implement the black-footed ferret safe harbor agreement (SHA) in cooperation with non-federal landowners.

    Peer Review

    In accordance with our Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities, which was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.

    Background Statutory and Regulatory Framework

    The black-footed ferret was listed as endangered throughout its range on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), and again on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491), under early endangered species legislation and was “grandfathered” under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) without critical habitat. The Act provides that species listed as endangered are afforded protection primarily through section 9 prohibitions and the consultation requirements of section 7. Section 9 of the Act, among other things, prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife. “Take” is defined by the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Section 7 of the Act outlines the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and protect designated critical habitat. It mandates that all Federal agencies use their existing authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed species. It also states that Federal agencies must, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act does not affect activities undertaken on private land unless they are authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency.

    Congress amended the Act in 1982, because species' reintroductions were difficult to achieve due to concerns over the rigid protection and prohibitions surrounding listed species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Although the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Secretary) already had authority to conserve a species by introducing it in areas outside its current range, Congress enacted the provisions of section 10(j) to mitigate fears that reintroduced populations would negatively impact landowners and other private parties. Congress recognized that more flexible reintroduction rules could encourage recovery partners to host such populations on their lands (H.R. Rep. No. 97-567, at 8 (1982)). Congress designed section 10(j) to provide the Secretary regulatory flexibility and discretion in managing the reintroduction of endangered species. This flexibility allows the Secretary to better conserve and recover endangered species (H.R. Rep. No. 97-567, at 33 (1982)).

    Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate as an experimental population a population of endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable natural habitat outside the species' current natural range (but within its probable historical range, absent a finding by the Director of the Service in the extreme case that the primary habitat of the species has been unsuitable and irreversibly altered or destroyed). With the experimental population designation, the relevant population is treated as threatened for purposes of section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species' designation elsewhere in its range. This approach allows us to develop tailored take prohibitions under section 4(d) of the Act that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. In these situations, the general regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the 10(j) rule that already exists for the black-footed ferret contains the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species.

    Authorities under section 10(j) of the Act have been successfully used to reintroduce black-footed ferrets in other portions of their range, which historically included portions of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Saskatchewan, Canada, and Chihuahua, Mexico. Eleven of 24 reintroduction efforts, including the first ferret reintroduction at Shirley Basin, Wyoming, were established pursuant to section 10(j); seven reintroduction efforts were authorized via scientific recovery permits issued by the Service under section 10(a)(1)(A); and four sites were established via the SHA. Ferrets reintroduced at sites in Canada and Mexico are regulated under other authorities by their respective governments.

    Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of any population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find, by regulation, that such release will further the conservation of the species. In making such a finding, the Service will use the best scientific and commercial data available to consider the following factors (see 49 FR 33893, August 27, 1984).

    (1) Any Possible Adverse Effects on Extant Populations of a Species as a Result of Removal of Individuals, Eggs, or Propagules for Introduction Elsewhere

    The captive-breeding population of black-footed ferrets is the primary repository of genetic diversity for the species. Ferrets are dispersed among six facilities, protecting the species from a single catastrophic event. Approximately 250 juvenile ferrets are produced annually through the captive breeding program; approximately 80 juveniles are retained annually for future captive breeding purposes, and the remaining juveniles are considered excess and are allocated for reintroduction or occasionally for research (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 81). Ferrets selected for reintroduction under this proposed rule will be genetically redundant to animals maintained for captive-breeding; hence any loss of reintroduced animals will not impact the genetic diversity of the species. Only ferrets that are surplus to the needs of the captive-breeding program are used for reintroduction into the wild. Therefore, any loss of an experimental population in the wild will not threaten the survival of the species as a whole.

    (2) The Likelihood That Any Such Experimental Population Will Become Established and Survive in the Foreseeable Future

    The best available data indicate that reintroduction of black-footed ferrets into occupied prairie dog habitat in Wyoming is biologically feasible and will promote conservation of the species. Currently, we estimate a minimum of 102 breeding adult ferrets at Shirley Basin, Wyoming (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 2). Shirley Basin is one of four currently successful ferret reintroduction sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 22 and 73). We are confident that Wyoming can support additional successful reintroduction sites, based on the amount of available habitat and a history of successful ferret management at Shirley Basin since 1991.

    (3) The Relative Effects That Establishment of an Experimental Population Will Have on the Recovery of the Species

    Participation by as many of the States and Tribes within the black-footed ferret's historical range as possible is important to achieving recovery of the species. We consider occupied prairie dog habitat to be potential habitat for ferrets. Tribes have played an important role in ferret recovery in several areas of the species' historical range. However, we are not aware of any prairie dog complexes suitable for ferret reintroduction on or adjacent to Tribal lands in Wyoming. The nearest potential reintroduction sites are two white-tailed prairie dog complexes--Fifteen-mile Complex near Worland in Hot Springs County and Sweetwater Complex near Sweetwater Station in Fremont County (Luce 2008, pp. 29-30). Both sites are of intermediate potential for ferret reintroduction and are located approximately 19 miles (30 kilometers) from reservation boundaries. Wyoming currently contains more than 3 million acres (ac) (1,215,000 hectares (ha)) of prairie dog occupied habitat (Van Pelt 2013, pp. 8 and 14). Consequently, Wyoming has the potential to play a significant role in recovery of the ferret.

    (4) The Extent To Which the Introduced Population May Be Affected by Existing or Anticipated Federal or State Actions or Private Activities Within or Adjacent to the Experimental Population Area

    We conclude that the effects of Federal, State, and private actions will not pose a substantial threat to black-footed ferret establishment and persistence in Wyoming because the best available information, including the past history of ferret reintroductions at other sites rangewide, indicates that activities currently occurring or likely to occur at prospective reintroduction sites in occupied prairie dog habitat within the proposed NEP area are compatible with ferret recovery (see subsequent discussion on management).

    As set forth in 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations designating experimental populations under section 10(j) must provide: (1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population, including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental population(s); (2) a finding, based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, and the supporting factual basis, on whether the experimental population is, or is not, essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild; (3) management restrictions, protective measures, or other special management concerns of that population, which may include but are not limited to, measures to isolate and/ or contain the experimental population designated in the regulation from natural populations; and (4) a process for periodic review and evaluation of the success or failure of the release and the effect of the release on the conservation and recovery of the species. Detailed information on each of these required elements is provided in the following sections.

    Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate State fish and wildlife agencies, Tribes, local governmental entities, affected Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and implementing experimental population rules. To the maximum extent practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the Service; the affected State, Tribal, and Federal agencies; and persons holding any interest in land which may be affected by the establishment of an experimental population.

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we must determine whether the experimental population is essential or nonessential to the continued existence of the species. The regulations (50 CFR 17.80(b)) state that an experimental population is considered essential if its loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of that species in the wild. All other populations are considered nonessential. We have determined that this proposed experimental population would not be essential to survival of the black-footed ferret in the wild because loss of an experimental population in Wyoming will not affect the 23 reintroduction sites outside of Wyoming in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah; in Chihuahua, Mexico; and in Saskatchewan, Canada. Therefore, loss of an experimental population in Wyoming will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of future survival of the ferret rangewide.

    All reintroduction efforts are undertaken to move a species toward recovery. Recovery of the black-footed ferret will require participation by at least 9 of the 12 States within the species' historical range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 6). Wyoming contains 10 percent of the species' historical range in the United States (Ernst et al. 2006, table 1) and an even higher percentage of habitat that is currently available--more than 3 million ac (1,215,000 ha) of prairie dog occupied habitat (Van Pelt 2013, pp. 8 and 14). Therefore, the State could play a significant role in the species' recovery. However, this does not mean that ferret populations in Wyoming are “essential” under section 10(j) of the Act.

    The potential future loss of black-footed ferrets from Wyoming would not affect the species' survival throughout the remaining 90 percent of its range in the wild, or in captivity. We estimate that there are approximately 418 breeding adult ferrets in the wild, including approximately 102 breeding adults in the reintroduced population at Shirley Basin, Wyoming (24 percent of ferrets in the wild); there are a minimum of 280 breeding adults in captivity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 22 and 68). Animals lost during reintroduction efforts can be readily replaced through captive-breeding, which produces juvenile ferrets in excess of the numbers needed to maintain the captive-breeding population. Captive-breeding and reintroduction of surplus ferrets have occurred since 1991, with no apparent loss of reproductive capability in the wild observed to date. The loss of an experimental population in Wyoming will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of future survival of the ferret rangewide. Therefore, the Service is proposing to designate an NEP for the ferret throughout Wyoming.

    For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened species when the NEP is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park Service, and Federal agency conservation requirements under section 7(a)(1) and Federal agency consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat.

    When NEPs are located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit, then, for the purposes of section 7, we treat the population as proposed for listing and only section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply. In these instances, NEPs provide additional flexibility because Federal agencies are not required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed. The results of a conference are in the form of conservation recommendations that are optional as the agencies carry out, fund, or authorize activities. Because the NEP is, by definition, not essential to the continued existence of the species, the effects of proposed actions affecting the NEP will generally not rise to the level of jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. As a result, a formal conference will likely not be required for black-footed ferrets established within the proposed NEP area in Wyoming. Nonetheless, some agencies voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect a species proposed for listing. Activities that are not carried out, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies are not subject to provisions or requirements in section 7.

    Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not be designated for any experimental population that is determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate critical habitat for a reintroduced species in areas where we establish an NEP.

    Biological Information

    The endangered black-footed ferret is the only ferret species native to the Americas (Anderson et al. 1986, p. 24). It is a medium-sized mustelid, typically weighing 1.4-2.5 pounds (645-1125 grams) and measuring 19-24 inches (479-600 millimeters) in total length; upper body parts are yellowish buff, occasionally whitish, feet and tail tip are black, and a black “mask” occurs across the eyes (Hillman and Clark 1980, p. 30).

    The black-footed ferret depends almost exclusively on prairie dogs for food and on prairie dog burrows for shelter (Hillman 1968, p. 438; Biggins 2006, p. 3). Historical habitat of the ferret coincided with the ranges of the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), white-tailed prairie dog (C. leucurus), and Gunnison's prairie dog (C. gunnisoni), which collectively occupied approximately 100 million ac (40 million ha) of intermountain and prairie grasslands extending from Canada to Mexico (Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25-50; Biggins et al. 1997, p. 420). This amount of prairie dog habitat could have supported 500,000-1,000,000 ferrets historically (Anderson et al. 1986, p. 58). Since the late 1800s, ferret specimens have been collected from Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming in the United States and Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada (Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25-50). We conclude that the ferret's historical range included Mexico, which is within the contiguous range of the black-tailed prairie dog as previously noted (Biggins et al. 1997, p. 420). This inclusion of Mexico in the ferret's historical range is described in more detail in the recovery plan and resulted in a ferret reintroduction initiated in 2001 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 16-17).

    Black-footed ferrets historically occurred throughout Wyoming (except for the extreme northwest corner of the State) within black-tailed prairie dog habitat in the eastern portion of the State and white-tailed prairie dog habitat in the west (Anderson et al. 1986, p. 48). The last wild population of ferrets was discovered near Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1981, after the species was presumed extinct (Clark et al. 1986, p. 8; Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). Following disease outbreaks at Meeteetse, all surviving wild ferrets were removed from the wild between 1985 and 1987, to initiate a captive-breeding program (Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). No wild populations have been found since the capture of the last Meeteetse ferret despite extensive and intensive rangewide searches; it is unlikely that any undiscovered wild populations remain. Therefore, the Service considers the State of Wyoming unoccupied by wild ferrets, with the exception of reintroduced populations, which alleviates the requirement for project proponents to conduct presence/absence surveys for ferrets under section 7 of the Act prior to developing projects (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013c). In Shirley Basin, Wyoming, a reintroduced population of ferrets was established as an NEP in accordance with section 10(j) of the Act. The Wolf Creek, Colorado, reintroduction site was also established as an NEP under section 10(j), and includes a small portion of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, in the experimental population area. However, no evidence of ferrets from this reintroduction effort has been found in Sweetwater County or elsewhere in Wyoming. The map at the conclusion of this proposed rule identifies the existing NEPs in Wyoming.

    Relationship of the Experimental Population to Recovery Efforts

    All currently known black-footed ferrets in the wild are the result of reintroduction efforts. As previously discussed, only ferrets that are surplus to the needs of the captive-breeding program are used for reintroduction into the wild. There have been 24 ferret reintroduction projects, beginning in 1991, at Shirley Basin in the southeastern portion of Wyoming. Shirley Basin contains the only ferret population in Wyoming.

    The downlisting criteria for the black-footed ferret include establishing at least 1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10 or more populations, in at least 6 of 12 States within the historical range of the species, with no fewer than 30 breeding adult ferrets in any population; delisting criteria include establishing at least 3,000 free-ranging breeding adults in 30 or more populations, in at least 9 of 12 States within the historical range of the species, with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 61-62). In our recovery plan for the ferret, we suggest recovery guidelines for the States that are proportional to the amount of prairie dog habitat historically present. A proportional share for Wyoming would include approximately 171 free-ranging breeding adult ferrets to meet their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for downlisting and 341 breeding adults to meet their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for delisting; each ferret population should contain at least 30 breeding adults to be considered viable (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 8).

    Currently, we estimate a minimum of 102 breeding adult black-footed ferrets at Shirley Basin, Wyoming (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 2). Shirley Basin is one of four currently successful ferret reintroduction sites--other successful sites include two in South Dakota and one in Arizona (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 73). We are confident that Wyoming can support additional successful reintroduction sites, based on the amount of available habitat (see the following section) and a history of successful ferret management at Shirley Basin since 1991. Additional viable ferret populations within Wyoming will aid recovery of the species.

    In 2013, the Service developed a programmatic SHA to encourage non-federal landowners to voluntarily undertake conservation activities on their properties that would benefit the black-footed ferret (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). This SHA is applicable across the 12 States in the ferret's historical range, including Wyoming. Landowners are provided assurances that additional restrictions will not be required, as long as the landowner complies with provisions outlined in the SHA and detailed in a Reintroduction Plan developed for the enrolled lands. The goals of the SHA and the proposed 10(j) are similar--achieve recovery of the ferret. However, conservation activities are more tailored to the specific site under the SHA. There are also differences between SHA and 10(j) regarding regulations under the Act (statutory and regulatory framework are discussed in the Background section, above). The decision of whether to use 10(j) or the SHA is at the landowner's discretion.

    Location of the Proposed Nonessential Experimental Population

    The proposed NEP for Wyoming would be Statewide, with the exception of the two areas where an NEP designation for black-footed ferret already exists (see below). Furthermore, suitable habitat for black-footed ferret reintroduction in the proposed NEP would likely be limited to Big Horn, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Hot Springs, Johnson, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Park, Platte, Sheridan, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta, Washakie, and Weston Counties because these counties have sufficient prairie dog habitat to support viable ferret populations. If this rule is finalized as proposed, any ferrets found in Wyoming would be considered part of an NEP. There are many historical records of ferrets within the proposed NEP (Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 36-37). However, the species has been extirpated throughout the State since 1987, with the exception of a reintroduced ferret population in the Shirley Basin. A 10(j) designation already exists for the Shirley Basin ferret population in Albany County and portions of Carbon and Natrona Counties that are east of the North Platte River. A 10(j) designation also exists for the Wolf Creek, Colorado, ferret reintroduction site and includes a very small portion of Sweetwater County in Wyoming. Both of these NEPs would remain outside the boundary of the proposed NEP under 10(j) of the Act, and would continue to operate under their respective management plans. Any new reintroduction sites within the proposed NEP would require development of a management plan specific to that site.

    Several sites in Wyoming are suitable for reintroduction of black-footed ferrets in addition to the Shirley Basin site. The main requirements for ferret reintroduction are: (1) An area of occupied prairie dog habitat that is purposefully managed and of sufficient size to support a viable population of ferrets (a minimum of 1,500 ac (608 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat or 3,000 ac (1,215 ha) of white-tailed or Gunnison's prairie dog occupied habitat); (2) a willing landowner; and (3) a management plan that addresses sylvatic plague. Recent estimates of prairie dog occupied habitat in Wyoming include 2,893,487 ac (1,171,862 ha) in the white-tailed prairie dog range and 229,607 ac (92,991 ha) in the black-tailed prairie dog range (Van Pelt 2013, pp. 8 and 14). Luce (2008, pp. 28-31) identified several sites in Wyoming with potential for ferret reintroduction including one site with potential for reintroduction within less than 3 years, 24 sites with potential for reintroduction within 3-10 years, and two sites with long-term potential for reintroduction.

    Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival

    The Service and its partners have initiated 24 black-footed ferret reintroduction projects since 1991. These projects have experienced varying degrees of success. However, all reintroduction efforts have contributed to our understanding of the species' needs. Recovery of the species is a dynamic process that requires adaptive management.

    Some transfers of individual black-footed ferrets between populations will likely be necessary in perpetuity to maintain genetic diversity in the face of habitat fragmentation and as a management tool for sylvatic plague (until additional plague vaccines can be adapted for field use). Nevertheless, we believe that recovery can be achieved through a combination of expansion of ferret populations at existing reintroduction sites and reintroduction of ferrets at new sites, both of which are possible if conservation of prairie dog occupied habitat and disease management are aggressively pursued.

    Participation by all States within the historical range of the black-footed ferret is important to maximize resilience of ferret populations in the wild and to allow for an equitable distribution of the responsibility for achieving recovery goals. Federal, State, and local agencies in Wyoming have been active participants in ferret recovery since the last wild population was found at Meeteetse in 1981. With an estimated 102 breeding adult ferrets already established at Shirley Basin, suggested numerical recovery guidelines for Wyoming of 171 breeding adults to support rangewide downlisting and 341 breeding adults to support rangewide delisting are achievable. Meeting their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for downlisting would require establishing one additional large reintroduction site similar to Shirley Basin or two to three smaller sites. Meeting their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for delisting would require establishing two large sites, six small sites, or a combination of large, medium, and small sites in addition to the sites previously established for meeting their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for downlisting. The Recovery Plan estimates that 35,000 ac (14,000 ha) of purposefully managed prairie dog occupied habitat will be needed to meet Wyoming's portion of the rangewide habitat goal for downlisting and 70,000 ac (28,000 ha) to meet their portion of the rangewide habitat goal for delisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 8). This equates to purposeful management of approximately 2 percent of prairie dog occupied habitat in Wyoming to meet their portion of the rangewide habitat goal for delisting.

    Sustaining black-footed ferret numbers during periodic outbreaks of sylvatic plague will require ongoing management, potentially including dusting prairie dog burrows with flea control powder and vaccinating ferrets prior to release. Additionally, research is currently underway investigating the potential of supporting ferrets at reintroduction sites by providing vaccine to wild prairie dogs via oral bait.

    The Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and other partners propose to reintroduce the black-footed ferret at one or more additional sites within the species' historical range in Wyoming. These reintroduced populations would be managed as a NEP. If this proposed rule is finalized, the WGFD, in cooperation with the Service, would have primary management responsibilities for ferret reintroductions in Wyoming. Based upon the past history of successful management at Shirley Basin, Wyoming, and the substantial amount of occupied prairie dog habitat available for additional reintroduction of ferrets, we believe there is a high likelihood of population establishment and survival in Wyoming.

    Addressing Causes of Extirpation

    The black-footed ferret rangewide population declined for three principal reasons: (1) A major conversion of native rangeland to cropland, particularly in the eastern portion of the species' range, beginning in the late 1800s; (2) poisoning of prairie dogs to reduce competition with domestic livestock for forage, beginning in the early 1900s; and (3) the inadvertent introduction of sylvatic plague, which causes mortality to both ferrets and prairie dogs, beginning in the 1930s. The combined effects of these three factors resulted in a rangewide decrease in the amount of habitat occupied by prairie dogs from approximately 100 million ac (40.5 million ha) historically to 1.4 million ac (570,000 ha) in the 1960s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 23-24). This habitat loss and fragmentation resulted in a corresponding decrease in ferrets, which require relatively large areas of prairie dog occupied habitat to maintain viable populations. By the 1960s, only two remnant ferret populations remained--in Mellette County, South Dakota, and Meeteetse, Wyoming (Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 7-8).

    Wyoming has had less rangeland converted to cropland than most other States within the historical range of the black-footed ferret (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2005, Table 1). Consequently, prairie dog poisoning and sylvatic plague are likely the two primary reasons for the extirpation of ferrets from the State. Extensive poisoning of prairie dogs had begun in Wyoming by 1916 (Clark 1973, p. 89), and plague was present in Wyoming by 1936 (Eskey and Haas 1940, p. 4). Occupied prairie dog habitat reached a low in Wyoming in the early 1960s, when approximately 64,336 ac (26,056 ha) were reported (U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1961, Table 1). However, large-scale poisoning of prairie dogs no longer occurs, and poisoning is more closely regulated than it was historically. Improved plague management, including dusting prairie dog burrows with insecticide to control fleas (the primary vector for plague transmission) and the development of vaccines that prevent plague in prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets, is also being used.

    The most recent surveys estimate 3,123,094 ac (1,264,853 ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat in Wyoming (Van Pelt 2013, pp. 8 and 14). This considerable increase over the past 50 years indicates that there has been a reduction in threats and improved management of prairie dogs. This increases the likelihood of successful reintroduction of ferrets in Wyoming.

    Release Procedures

    The Service will cooperate with other Federal agencies, WGFD, Tribes, landowners, and other stakeholders to develop, implement, and maintain long-term site management before, during, and after releases. Partners will collect habitat data for site evaluation and documentation of baseline conditions and develop management plans for prairie dogs and plague prior to any release of black-footed ferrets. All applicable laws regulating the protection of ferrets will be followed (see Management, below). Partners will develop annual site-specific reintroduction plans and submit them to the Service by mid-March as part of an annual ferret allocation process (which allocates available captive ferrets for release in specific numbers for specific sites). Reintroduction plans will include current estimates of prairie dog numbers and density, disease prevalence and management, proposed reintroduction and monitoring methods, and predator management. If the reintroduction plan covers years subsequent to the initial releases, it will also include a recent description of the status of ferrets on the site.

    All reintroduction efforts will follow techniques described in Roelle et al. (2006) as appropriate, which presents recommendations for managing captive populations, evaluating potential habitat, reestablishing populations, and managing disease. Captive-reared black-footed ferrets exposed to prairie dog burrows and natural prey in outdoor preconditioning pens prior to their release survive in the wild at significantly higher rates than cage-reared, non-preconditioned ferrets (Biggins et al. 1998, pp. 651-652; Vargas et al. 1998, p. 77). Therefore, all captive-reared ferrets released within the proposed Wyoming NEP will receive adequate preconditioning in outdoor pens at the National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center or at another facility approved by the Service. We will vaccinate all ferrets for canine distemper and sylvatic plague and mark them with passive integrated transponder tags prior to release. We will transport ferrets to the reintroduction site and release them directly from transport cages into prairie dog burrows. In conformance with standard ferret reintroduction protocol, no fewer than 20 captive-raised or wild-translocated ferrets will be released at any reintroduction site in Wyoming during the first year of the project. Twenty or more additional animals will be released annually for the next 2-4 years. Released ferrets will be excess to the needs of the captive-breeding program.

    Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor Populations

    Eighteen black-footed ferrets were captured from the last wild population at Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1985-1987, and used to initiate a captive-breeding program (Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 11-12). Of the 18 captured ferrets, 15 individuals, representing the genetic equivalent of 7 distinct founders, produced a captive population that is the foundation of present recovery efforts (Garelle et al. 2006, p. 4). Extant ferret populations, both captive and reintroduced, descend from these seven founders. The purpose of the captive-breeding program is to provide animals for reintroduction to achieve recovery of the species, while maintaining maximum genetic diversity in the captive population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 81).

    Black-footed ferrets used to establish any experimental population in the proposed Wyoming NEP will either be translocated wild-born kits from another self-sustaining reintroduced population (such as Shirley Basin) or come from one of six captive-breeding populations currently housed at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center near Wellington, Colorado; the Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Park, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the Louisville Zoological Garden, Louisville, Kentucky; the Smithsonian Biology Conservation Institute, Front Royal, Virginia; the Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, Arizona; or the Toronto Zoo, Toronto, Ontario.

    The Service and its partners maintain a captive-breeding population of approximately 280 breeding adult black-footed ferrets in order to provide a sustainable source of ferrets for reintroduction. The captive-breeding facilities produce approximately 250 juvenile ferrets annually. Currently, approximately 80 juveniles are retained annually at these facilities for future captive-breeding purposes. The remaining juveniles are allocated annually for reintroduction, or occasionally for research (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 81). Therefore, there will be no effects on donor populations beyond those which are intended and accounted for in the management of wild or captive populations.

    Status of Proposed Population

    Additional successful reintroductions of black-footed ferrets are necessary for recovery of the species. We propose that any future releases of ferrets in Wyoming be designated as part of an NEP because of the need for increased management flexibility, which will encourage landowner participation and alleviate concerns regarding possible land use restrictions. The existing 10(j) rules for the ferret exempt from the section 9 take prohibitions any take of ferrets that is accidental and incidental to otherwise lawful activities. We provide this exemption to this proposed 10(j) because we believe, based upon experience at previous reintroduction sites, that incidental take associated with otherwise lawful activities such as ranching and energy development will be low. Poisoning of prairie dogs can occur in black-tailed prairie dog habitat and could result in incidental take of ferrets. However, economic constraints have typically minimized the extent of poisoning in recent years compared to what occurred historically. We will ensure, as confirmed through our section 10 permitting authority and the section 7 consultation process, that the use of ferrets from the donor population (either the captive-breeding population or a self-sustaining wild population) for release into the proposed Wyoming NEP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species in the wild.

    This NEP designation is justified because no adverse effects to extant wild or captive black-footed ferret populations will result from release of progeny from either a wild or captive population onto a new reintroduction site. The only potential adverse effect would be to ferrets at a new reintroduction site, if a ferret population proves difficult to establish. However, we expect that reintroduction efforts into the proposed Wyoming NEP will result in the successful establishment of one or more self-sustaining populations, which will contribute to the recovery of the species.

    Management

    If this rule is finalized as proposed, the Service will coordinate closely with WGFD and other partners in the management of any black-footed ferrets in Wyoming that are reintroduced under section 10(j) authorities. Management of ferret populations in the proposed Wyoming NEP area would be guided by provisions in management plans developed in cooperation with partners (WGFD) and stakeholders such as U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, or potentially affected Tribes.

    We conclude that the effects of Federal, State, and private actions will not pose a substantial threat to black-footed ferret establishment and persistence in Wyoming because management activities--primarily ranching and energy development--currently occurring at prospective reintroduction sites in occupied prairie dog habitat within the proposed NEP area are compatible with ferret recovery, provided lethal control of prairie dogs does not reduce prairie dog occupied habitat to the extent that the viability of any potential ferret population is compromised (a minimum of 1,500 ac (608 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat or 3,000 ac (1,215 ha) of white-tailed or Gunnison's prairie dog occupied habitat). This conclusion is based upon our past experience at ferret reintroduction sites in Wyoming and elsewhere throughout the species' range. The best available information indicates that future ranching activities and energy development also would be compatible with ferret recovery. Most of the area containing suitable release sites with high potential for ferret establishment is managed by the BLM, the USFS, or private landowners and is currently protected through the following mechanisms:

    (1) Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)--The BLM's mission is set forth under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which mandates that BLM manage public land resources for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting, while protecting the natural, cultural, and historical resources on those lands. The BLM manages listed and sensitive species under guidance provided in the BLM MS-6840 Manual—Special Status Species Management. The Manual directs BLM to proactively conserve species listed under the Act and the ecosystems upon which they depend, ensure that all actions authorized or carried out by BLM are in compliance with the Act, and cooperate with the planning and recovery of listed species. The BLM has experience in managing the black-footed ferret at four reintroduction sites in four States that occur at least in part on its lands, including Shirley Basin, Wyoming, and Wolf Creek, Colorado, which includes a small portion of Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Therefore, we anticipate appropriate management by BLM on any future ferret reintroduction sites that include BLM lands.

    (2) National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)--The National Forest Management Act instructs the USFS to strive to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities when managing national forest lands. The USFS identifies species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act, including the black-footed ferret, as Category 1 species at risk based on rangewide and national imperilment. The USFS has experience in managing the black-footed ferret at one reintroduction site in South Dakota that occurs at least in part on USFS lands. Therefore, we anticipate appropriate management by the USFS on any future ferret reintroduction sites that include USFS lands.

    (3) Wyoming State Law--The responsibilities of WGFD are defined in Wyoming Statute section 23-1-103, which instructs the WGFD to provide an adequate and flexible system for the control, management, protection, and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. The Statute defines the black-footed ferret as a protected animal. The WGFD also defines the ferret as a “species of greatest conservation need” (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010, pp. IV-2-10-IV-2-13). The Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan states that the current legal designation for the ferret (endangered) precludes the ability to initiate additional reintroduction attempts outside of the existing 10(j) at Shirley Basin; however, cooperative approaches to eliminate legal hurdles that preclude additional reintroduction sites should be developed (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010, pp. IV-2-10—IV-2-11). This proposed rule is being developed in cooperation with the State to address those legal barriers and initiate additional ferret reintroductions in Wyoming. The WGFD has experience in managing the ferret at the Shirley Basin Reintroduction site. Therefore, we anticipate appropriate management by WGFD on any future ferret reintroduction sites in Wyoming.

    Management issues related to the black-footed ferret proposed Wyoming NEP that have been considered include:

    (a) Incidental take: The regulations implementing the Act define “incidental take” as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity (50 CFR 17.3), such as agricultural activities and other rural development, and other activities that are in accordance with Federal, State, Tribal, and local laws and regulations. Experimental population rules contain specific prohibitions and exceptions regarding the taking of individual animals that are developed under section 4(d) of the Act. If this 10(j) rule is finalized, incidental take of black-footed ferrets within the proposed NEP area would not be prohibited, provided that the take is unintentional and is in accordance with the existing 10(j) regulation. However, if there is evidence of intentional take of this species within the proposed NEP area, we would refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement entities for investigation. This would be consistent with how we currently manage lands enrolled in the SHA where intentional take is also not allowed.

    (b) Special handling: In accordance with 50 CFR 17.21(c)(3), any employee or agent of the Service or of a State wildlife agency may in the course of their official duties, handle black-footed ferrets to aid sick or injured ferrets, or to salvage dead ferrets. Employees or agents of other Federal, Tribal, or State agencies would need to acquire the necessary permits from the Service for these activities.

    (c) Coordination with landowners and land managers: This proposed NEP designation under section 10(j) of the Act was discussed with potentially affected State and Federal agencies, Tribes, local governments, and other stakeholders within the expected reestablishment area. These agencies, landowners, and land managers have either indicated support for, or no opposition to, the proposed population establishment, provided an NEP is designated and a 10(j) rule is promulgated to allow incidental take under the section 9 take prohibitions.

    (d) Public awareness and cooperation: We will inform the general public of the importance of this reintroduction project for the overall recovery of the black-footed ferret through this proposed rule and associated public meetings, if requested. Designation of the NEP under a 10(j) for Wyoming would increase reintroduction opportunities and provide greater flexibility in the management of the reintroduced ferret. The NEP designation is necessary to secure needed cooperation of the State, landowners, and other interests in the affected area.

    (e) Potential impacts to other federally listed species: There are several federally listed, proposed for listing (any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed), and candidate (the Service has concluded that they should be proposed for listing) species in Wyoming. These species are identified in the following table.

    Table 1—Federally Listed, Proposed for Listing, and Candidate Species in Wyoming Species Current status in Wyoming under the Act Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) Shirley Basin NEP. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) NEP in Wyoming. Whooping crane (Grus americana) Endangered. Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) Endangered. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Endangered. Wyoming toad (Anaxyrus baxteri) Endangered. Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) Endangered. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Endangered. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Endangered. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Endangered. Kendall Warm Springs dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) Endangered. Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Endangered. Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) Endangered. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened, with critical habitat. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) Threatened. Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Threatened. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Threatened, with critical habitat proposed. Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana coloradensis) Threatened, with critical habitat. Desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) Threatened, with critical habitat. Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) Threatened. Ute Ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Threatened. Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Proposed endangered. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Candidate. Fremont County rockcress (Boechera pusilla) Candidate. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) Candidate.

    Nearly all of the aforementioned species have habitat requirements such as forests, dunes, wetlands, or river systems that differ from the grassland prairie habitat requirements for the black-footed ferret. The only species that may be affected by reintroduction projects for the ferret in the proposed Wyoming NEP, other than the ferret, is the greater sage-grouse. The greater sage-grouse requires large, interconnected expanses of sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-2; Stiver et al. 2006, p. I-2; Knick and Connelly 2011, p. 1). Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the primary threats to the greater sage-grouse. A detailed description of the species' natural history, seasonal habitats, threats, and population trends can be found in the Service's 12-month finding (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). The ferret also requires large expanses of intact habitat; although it is dependent on prairie dogs, not sagebrush. However, some prairie dog habitat, particularly white-tailed prairie dog habitat, contains sagebrush. Prairie dogs may clip shrubs, including sagebrush, within their colonies (Johnson-Nistler et al. 2004, p. 644). Ferrets prey upon prairie dogs; however, in the large prairie dog colonies required to maintain a viable ferret population we do not expect the predator-prey relationship between ferrets and prairie dogs to be altered inasmuch as predators do not limit their prey in a functioning ecosystem. Therefore, we do not expect the ecological dynamics between prairie dogs and sagebrush to be altered. Consequently, we do not expect ferret reintroduction efforts to adversely impact greater sage-grouse.

    (f) Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring is a required element of all black-footed ferret reintroduction projects. The following types of monitoring will be conducted.

    Reintroduction Effectiveness Monitoring--Partners will monitor population demographics and potential sources of mortality, including plague, annually for 5 years following the last release using spotlight surveys, snow tracking, other visual survey techniques, and possibly radio-telemetry of some individuals. Thereafter, demographic and genetic surveys will be completed periodically to track population status. Surveys will incorporate methods to monitor breeding success and long-term survival rates. In general, the Service anticipates that monitoring will be conducted by the lead for each reintroduction site, which in Wyoming will be the WGFD and participating partners. The WGFD will present monitoring results in their annual reports.

    Donor Population Monitoring--Ferrets used for reintroduction will either be from the captive-breeding population or translocated from another viable reintroduction site. Ferrets in the captive-breeding population are managed and monitored in accordance with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Black-footed Ferret Species Survival Plan (SSP®). A breeding population of 280 animals will be maintained to provide a sustainable source of ferrets for reintroduction. The AZA SSP® Husbandry Manual provides up-to-date protocols for the care, propagation, preconditioning, and transportation of captive ferrets and is used at all participating captive-breeding facilities. Ferrets may also be translocated from other reintroduction sites (which also originated from captive sources), provided their removal will not create adverse impacts upon the donor population and provided appropriate permits are issued in accordance with our regulations (50 CFR 17.22) prior to their removal. Population monitoring will be conducted at all donor sites.

    Monitoring Impacts to Other Listed Species--We do not expect impacts to other federally listed species (see section (e) discussion, above). The greater sage-grouse, a candidate species, is the only species with habitat that might overlap with the black-footed ferret. However, we do not expect ferret reintroduction efforts to adversely impact greater sage-grouse for the reasons previously discussed. The WGFD conducts annual monitoring of the greater sage-grouse Statewide. Additional monitoring will occur on non-federal lands enrolled in the Wyoming Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the greater sage-grouse and on Federal lands enrolled in the Wyoming Candidate Conservation Agreement for the greater sage-grouse.

    Findings

    Based on the above information, and using the best scientific and commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find that releasing black-footed ferrets into the proposed Wyoming NEP will further the conservation of the species, but that this population is not essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild.

    Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy on peer review, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will provide copies of this proposed rule to three or more appropriate and independent specialists in order to solicit comments on the scientific data and assumptions relating to the supportive biological and ecological information for this proposed NEP designation. The purpose of such review is to ensure that the proposed NEP designation is based on the best scientific information available. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period and will consider their comments and information on this proposed rule during preparation of a final determination.

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

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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 rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5. U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to 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 effect 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 an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We are certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.

    The area that would be affected if this proposed rule is adopted includes release sites in Wyoming and adjacent areas in Wyoming into which black-footed ferrets may disperse. Because of the regulatory flexibility for Federal agency actions provided by the NEP designation and the exemption for incidental take, we do not expect this rule to have significant effects on any activities on Federal, State, Tribal, or private lands within the NEP. In regard to section 7(a)(2), the population is treated as proposed for listing, and Federal action agencies are not required to consult on their activities, unless the ferret is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park Service. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species. However, because the proposed NEP is, by definition, not essential to the survival of the species, conferring will likely not be required for ferret populations within the NEP area. Furthermore, the results of a conference are advisory in nature and do not restrict agencies from carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities. In addition, section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs to further the conservation of listed species, which would apply on any lands within the NEP area. As a result, and in accordance with these regulations, some modifications to proposed Federal actions within the NEP area may occur to benefit the ferret, but we do not expect projects to be halted or substantially modified as a result of these regulations.

    If adopted, this proposal would broadly authorize incidental take of the black-footed ferret within the NEP area. The regulations implementing the Act define “incidental take” as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity such as agricultural activities and other rural development, camping, hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads and highways, and other activities in the NEP area that are in accordance with Federal, State, Tribal, and local laws and regulations. Intentional take for purposes other than authorized data collection or recovery purposes would not be permitted. Intentional take for research or recovery purposes would require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit under the Act.

    The principal activities on private property near the NEP area are ranching and energy development. We believe the presence of the black-footed ferret would not affect the use of lands for these purposes because there would be no new or additional economic or regulatory restrictions imposed upon States, non-Federal entities, or members of the public due to the presence of the ferret, and Federal agencies would only have to comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the Act in these areas. Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts to activities on private lands within the NEP area.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.):

    (1) If adopted, this proposal would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. We have determined and certify under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed rulemaking would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. As explained above, small governments would not be affected because the proposed NEP designation would not place additional requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities.

    (2) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year (i.e., it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This proposed NEP designation for the black-footed ferret would not impose any additional management or protection requirements on the State or other entities.

    Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule would allow for the take of reintroduced black-footed ferrets when such take is incidental to an otherwise legal activity, such as recreation (e.g., hiking, hunting, bird watching), forestry, agriculture, hydroelectric power generation, and other activities that are in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Therefore, we do not believe that establishment of this NEP would conflict with existing or proposed human activities or hinder public use of ferret habitat in Wyoming.

    A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule (1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of a listed species) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.

    Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered whether this proposed rule has significant Federalism effects and have determined that a federalism summary impact statement is not required. This rule 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. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we requested information from and coordinated development of this proposed rule with the affected resource agencies in Wyoming. Achieving the recovery goals for this species would contribute to its eventual delisting and its return to State management. No intrusion on State policy or administration is expected; roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments would not change; and fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. The proposed rule operates to maintain the existing relationship between the State and the Federal Government and is being undertaken in coordination with the State of Wyoming. Therefore, this rule does not have significant Federalism effects or implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under the provisions of Executive Order 13132.

    Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information from the public. This proposed rule does not contain any new information collections that require approval. OMB has approved our collection of information associated with reporting the taking of experimental populations (50 CFR 17.84) and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0095, which expires on October 31, 2017. We may not collect or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with all provisions of NEPA, we have prepared a draft environmental assessment on this action, which is available for public review: (1) in person at the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) and (2) online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0013, or at http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/.

    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the presidential memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 229511), Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249), and the Department of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have considered possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that Tribal lands overlap the proposed Wyoming NEP in portions of Fremont and Hot Springs Counties. However, participation in black-footed ferret recovery is entirely voluntary. If suitable habitat for ferret recovery is available, non-Federal landowners, including Tribes, may choose to either not participate, or to participate through authorities under 10(j), 10(a)(1)(A), or the SHA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). If ferrets were reintroduced on non-tribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands and subsequently dispersed onto Tribal lands, the aforementioned authorities would provide a more relaxed regulatory situation under the Act through allowances for incidental take. However, as stated previously, we are not aware of any prairie dog complexes suitable for ferret reintroduction on or adjacent to Tribal lands. The nearest potential reintroduction sites are two white-tailed prairie dog complexes--Fifteen-mile Complex near Worland in Hot Springs County and Sweetwater Complex near Sweetwater Station in Fremont County (Luce 2008, pp. 29-30). Both sites are of intermediate potential for ferret reintroduction and are located approximately 19 miles (30 kilometers) from reservation boundaries. We have communicated this information to the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes in Wyoming in letters offering government-to-government consultation.

    Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use because energy development is compatible with black-footed ferret recovery. Because this action is not a significant energy action, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Clarity of This Rule

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

    (1) Be logically organized;

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

    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;

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

    (5) 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 the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections and paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, or the sections where you feel lists and tables would be useful.

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0013, or upon request from the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Authors

    The authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the Service's Mountain-Prairie Region and the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

    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 amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 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; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the entry for “Ferret, black-footed” under MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
    § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

    (h) * * *

    Species Common name Scientific name Historic range Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened Status When
  • listed
  • Critical
  • habitat
  • Special
  • rules
  • Mammals *         *         *         *         *         *         * Ferret, black-footed Mustela nigripes Western U.S.A., Western Canada, Mexico Entire, except where listed as an experimental population E 1, 3, 433, 545, 546, 582, 646, 703, 737 NA NA Ferret, black-footed Mustela nigripes Western U.S.A., Western Canada, Mexico U.S.A. (WY and specified portions of AZ, CO, MT, SD, and UT, see 17.84(g)(9)) XN 433, 545, 546, 582, 646, 703, 737 NA 17.84(g) *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. Amend § 17.84(g) by: a. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(6)(i); b. By adding paragraph (g)(9)(viii); and c. By adding a map entitled “Wyoming Black-footed Ferret NEP” immediately following the map entitled “Rosebud Sioux Tribe ITOPA SAPA KIN (Black-footed Ferret) Experimental Population Area—South Dakota.”

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates.

    (g) * * *

    (1) The black-footed ferret populations identified in paragraphs (g)(9)(i) through (viii) of this section are nonessential experimental populations. We will manage each of these populations, and each reintroduction site within the Wyoming NEP, in accordance with their respective management plans.

    (6) * * *

    (i) Report such taking in Wyoming, including the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow experimental population area, to the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming (telephone: 307/772-2374).

    (9) * * *

    (viii) The Wyoming Experimental Population Area encompasses most of the State of Wyoming. The boundaries of the nonessential experimental population include all areas in the State of Wyoming outside of the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area (see paragraph (g)(9)(i)) and the small portion of Wyoming included as part of the Northwestern Colorado/Northeastern Utah Experimental Population Area (see paragraph (g)(9)(v)). Any black-footed ferret found within the Wyoming Experimental Population Area will be considered part of the nonessential experimental population after the first breeding season following the first year of black-footed ferret release. A black-footed ferret occurring outside of the State of Wyoming would initially be considered as endangered, but may be captured for genetic testing. If necessary, disposition of the captured animal may occur in the following ways:

    (A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from the experimental population, we may return it to the reintroduction area or to a captive-breeding facility.

    (B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the experimental population, we will place it in captivity under an existing contingency plan.

    EP10AP15.004
    Dated: April 2, 2015. Michael J. Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08271 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    80 69 Friday, April 10, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee; and the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees for Trade; Renewal and Nominations; Correction AGENCY:

    Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Foreign Agricultural Service published a notice on April 6, 2015 that gave notice of the intent to renew the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade and the six Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees for Trade. Nominations for persons to serve on these seven committees were requested. The document contained four minor errors.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josephine Liu, 202-720-9292.

    Corrections

    In the Federal Register of April 6, 2015, in FR DOC 2015-07499:

    —On page 18352, first column, correct the “DATES” caption by removing the parenthetical phrase “(i.e., CY 2016)”; —On page 18352, second column, correct the second paragraph under “Re-Chartering of Existing Committees” by deleting the phrase “Show citation box”; —On page 3 delete this sentence “1974, Congress established a private sector advisory committee system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests.”; —On page 18353, second column, in the paragraph titled “Nominations,” replace the sentence “If applicable, a sponsor letter on the non-Federal governmental entity's letterhead that contains a brief description of the manner in which international trade affects the entity and why the applicant should be considered for membership.” and with the following: “If applicable, the application should include a sponsor letter on the non-Federal governmental entity's letterhead containing a brief description of the manner in which international trade affects the entity and why the applicant should be considered for membership.” Dated: April 6, 2015. Josephine Liu, Federal Register Liaison.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08158 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-19-2015] Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Polaris Industries, Inc., Subzone 167B (Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion Engines); Osceola, Wisconsin

    Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris), operator of Subzone 167B, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility located in Osceola, Wisconsin. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 30, 2015.

    Polaris already has authority to produce spark-ignition internal combustion engines (up to 1,050 cc's) for snowmobiles, personal watercraft and all-terrain vehicles, as well as authority to produce engines for motorcycles. The current request would add certain foreign-status components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Polaris from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Polaris would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to spark-ignition internal combustion engines (free) for the foreign status components and materials noted below and in the existing scope of authority.

    Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: Steel pins; input shafts; cylinder heads; cannonball heads; spring retainers; shift forks; compensators; pulleys; gears; metal gaskets; voltage regulators; position crank sensors; engine control units and bases; wiring harnesses; roller followers; gears for engines; shafts for engines; sleeves; sliders; counter shafts; shift forks; main shafts; output shafts; ratchet shifters; retainers; shift drums; pinions; water temperature sensors; and, thermostats (duty rate ranges from free to 2.8%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 20, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08333 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1970] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 23 Under Alternative Site Framework Buffalo, New York

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the County of Erie, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 23, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-82-2014, docketed 11-13-2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area of Erie County, New York, in and adjacent to the Buffalo Customs and Border Protection port of entry, FTZ 23's existing Site 1 would be categorized as a magnet site, existing Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 would be categorized as usage-driven sites, and existing Sites 2, 3, 7 and 8 would be removed from the zone;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 68854, 11-19-2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to reorganize FTZ 23 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites that would terminate authority for Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 if no foreign-status merchandise is admitted for a bona fide customs purpose within three years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of April 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08330 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-520-803] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Huston, Office VII, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.

    Background

    On November 3, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from the United Arab Emirates covering the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014.1 The Department received a timely request from Petitioners 2 for an AD administrative review of two companies: JBF RAK LLC (JBF) and Flex Middle East FZE (Flex).3 In addition, JBF submitted a timely request for an AD review of itself.4 On December 23, 2014, pursuant to the requests from interested parties, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to Flex and JBF.5 On March 23, 2015, Petitioners withdrew their requests for review of JBF and Flex.6

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 79 FR 65176, 65177 (November 3, 2014).

    2 Petitioners are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., and SKC, Inc.

    3See Petitioners' letter, “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from United Arab Emirates: Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated December 1, 2014.

    4See JBF's letter, “JBF RAK LLC/Request for A/D Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from United Arab Emirates,” dated November 24, 2014.

    5See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 76956 (December 23, 2014).

    6See Petitioners' letter “Withdrawal of Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated March 23, 2015.

    Rescission in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department initiated the instant review on December 23, 2014 and Petitioners withdrew their request on March 23, 2015, which is within the 90-day period and thus is timely. Because Petitioners' withdrawal of their requests for review is timely and because no other party requested a review of Flex, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to Flex, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). JBF's request for a review of itself has not been withdrawn. As such, the instant review will continue with respect to JBF.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess ADs on all appropriate entries. Subject merchandise of Flex will be assessed ADs at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated ADs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of ADs 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 the ADs occurred and the subsequent increase in the amount of ADs assessed.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

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

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

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08327 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-843] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On October 7, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain lined paper products (CLPP) from India, and provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. 1 The review covers one mandatory respondent, Super Impex. The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculation for Super Impex. The final results, consequently, differ from the Preliminary Results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for Super Impex is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” In addition, we continue to find that A.R. Printing & Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AR Printing) had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

    1See Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 60450 (October 7, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Robinson or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-6071, respectively.

    Background

    On October 7, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results.

    On November 4, 2014, Super Impex submitted its case brief. On November 7, 2014, Petitioners submitted their case brief.2 On November 12, 2014, Super Impex and Petitioners submitted their rebuttal briefs.

    2 Petitioners are the Association of American School Paper Suppliers (AASPS) and its individual members, which consists of the following companies: ACCO Brands USA LLC, Norcom Inc., and Top Flight, Inc. See, e.g., Petitioners' letter dated September 24, 2014.

    On January 22, 2015, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review to April 6, 2015.3

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013,” (January 22, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the CLPP Order4 is certain lined paper products. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9080, 4820.30.0040, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.5

    4See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products From India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006) (CLPP Order).

    5 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see “Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013,” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as Appendix. The Issues and 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).6 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6 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).

    No Shipment Claim by AR Printing

    Based on AR Printing's assertion of no shipments and no information received to the contrary from CBP, we preliminarily determined that AR Printing had no shipments to the United States during the POR.7 We received no information or arguments from interested parties that warrants a different finding in these final results. Therefore, for these final results, we continue to find that AR Printing had no shipments to the United States during the POR.

    7See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 60451.

    In our Assessment Clarification notice, we explained that, where respondents in an administrative review demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding.8 In accordance with the Assessment Clarification, we have taken this approach with regard to any subject merchandise produced by AR Printing that entered the United States during the POR via resellers without the knowledge of AR Printing. For further information, see the “Assessment” section of this notice below.

    8See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Clarification).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we recalculated Super Impex's weighted-average dumping margin for these final results. Specifically, we revised the constructed value profit and selling expense ratios based on a different source of surrogate financial data. Additionally, we imputed an interest expense with regard to certain interest-free loans that Super Impex received from an affiliate that were outstanding during the POR using interest rate information on prime lending rates from the State Bank of India. We also recalculated the factory rent that Super Impex paid to one of its affiliates using market rental rates provided by Petitioners, and using market rental rates provided by Petitioners we assigned a rental expense with regard to rent-free office space provided to Super Impex during the POR by an affiliate.

    Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department determines the following dumping margin for Super Impex during the POR:

    Producer/exporter Weighted-average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Super Impex 0.00
    Disclosure

    We will disclose calculation memoranda used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice.9

    9See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 and the Final Modification, 10 the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate all appropriate entries for Super Impex without regard to antidumping duties.

    10See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).

    Consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Super Impex for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.11 Similarly, with regard to any subject merchandise produced by AR Printing that entered the United States during the POR via resellers without the knowledge of AR Printing, 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.12

    11See Assessment Clarification.

    12Id.

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Super Impex will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the original antidumping investigation.13 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13See CLPP Order.

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

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

    Administrative Protective Order

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

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. APPENDIX I. Summary II. List of Comments III. Background IV. No Shipment Claim by AR Printing V. Scope of the Order VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Selection of Financial Statements for Constructed Value (CV) Profit and Selling Expenses Rates Calculation Comment 2: Whether Super Impex Reduced its Direct Material Costs by Improper Inventory Adjustments Comment 3: Whether Certain Indirect Selling Expenses Should be Reclassified as General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses Comment 4: Valuation of Super Impex's Affiliated Party Transactions Comment 5: Whether Super Impex Failed to Report Certain Sales to the United States Comment 6: Selection of Proper Interest Rate for Imputed Credit Expense Calculation Comment 7: Whether Super Impex Should Exclude Certain Electricity Bills Paid during the POR VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-08331 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Request for Applicants for the Appointment to the United States-India CEO Forum AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In 2005, the Governments of the United States and India established the U.S.-India CEO Forum. This notice announces membership opportunities for appointment or reappointment as representatives to the U.S. Section of the Forum's private sector Committee.

    DATES:

    Applications should be received no later than 30 days after publication of this Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send requests for consideration to Valerie Dees, Noor Sclafani, and Jed Diemond at the Office of South Asia, U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] or by mail to U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 2310, Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie Dees, Director, Office of South Asia, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-0477.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S.-India CEO Forum, consisting of both private and public sector members, brings together leaders of the respective business communities of the United States and India to discuss issues of mutual interest, particularly ways to strengthen the economic and commercial ties between the two countries, and to communicate their joint recommendations to the U.S. and Indian governments. The Forum will have U.S. and Indian co-chairs; the Secretary of Commerce and the Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs will co-chair the Forum on the U.S. side. The Forum will include a Committee comprising private sector members. The Committee will be composed of two Sections, with the U.S. section consisting of up to 17 members from the private sector representing the views and interests of the private sector business community in the United States. Each government will appoint the members to its respective Section. The Committee will provide recommendations to the two governments and their senior officials that reflect private sector views, needs, and concerns about the creation of an environment in which their respective private sectors can partner, thrive, and enhance bilateral commercial ties to expand trade and economic links between the United States and India. The Committee will work in tandem with, and provide input to, the U.S.-India Strategic and Commercial Dialogue.

    Candidates are currently being sought for membership on the U.S. Section of the Committee. Each candidate must be the Chief Executive Officer or President (or have a comparable level of responsibility) of a U.S.-owned or controlled company that is incorporated in and has its main headquarters located in the United States and is currently doing business in both India and the United States. Each candidate also must be a U.S. citizen or otherwise legally authorized to work in the United States and be able to travel to India and locations in the United States to attend official Forum meetings as well as U.S. Section meetings. In addition, the candidate may not be a registered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

    Evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section by eligible individuals will be based on the following criteria:

    • A demonstrated commitment by the individual's company to the Indian market either through exports or investment.

    • A demonstrated strong interest in India and its economic development.

    • The ability to offer a broad perspective and business experience to the discussions.

    • The ability to address cross-cutting issues that affect the entire business community.

    • The ability to initiate and be responsible for activities in which the Forum will be active.

    • Prior work by the applicant on the U.S. Section of the Committee.

    The evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section will be undertaken by a committee of staff from multiple U.S. Government agencies. Members will be selected on the basis of who best will carry out the objectives of the Forum as stated in the first paragraph under Supplementary Information, above. The U.S. Section of the Committee should also include members who represent a diversity of business sectors and geographic locations. To the extent possible, Section members also should include representation from small, medium, and large firms.

    U.S. Section members will receive no compensation for their participation in Forum-related activities. Individual members will be responsible for all travel and related expenses associated with their participation in the Forum, including attendance at Committee and Section meetings. It is anticipated that the next Forum meeting will be held later in 2015. The U.S. and Indian Sections should be prepared to work together ahead of that time to prepare recommendations to the U.S. and Indian governments. Only appointed members may participate in official Forum meetings; substitutes and alternates will not be designated. U.S. Section members will normally serve for two-year terms but may be reappointed. In the event of a vacancy after members of the U.S. Section are appointed, candidates not previously selected may be considered to fill the vacancy based on material submitted in response to this notice.

    To be considered for membership in the U.S. Section, please submit the following information as instructed in the ADDRESSES and DATES captions above: Name and title of the individual requesting consideration; name and address of company's headquarters; location of incorporation; size of the company; size of company's export trade, investment, and nature of operations or interest in India; and a brief statement of why the candidate should be considered, including information about the candidate's ability to initiate and be responsible for activities in which the Forum will be active. Candidates that have previously been members of the U.S. Section need only provide a letter expressing their interest in re-applying and indicating any changes to the application materials previously supplied. All candidates will be notified of whether they have been selected.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Valerie Dees, Director of the Office of South Asia.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08304 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 02-1A003] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION:

    Notice of Application for Amendment of the Export Trade Certificate of Review for the Corn Refiners Association; Application No. 02-1A003.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”) of the International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application for an Amendment of an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed application and requests comments relevant to whether the amended Certificate should be issued.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct.

    Request for Public Comments

    Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.

    An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 22027-F, Washington, DC 20230.

    Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 02-1A003.”

    A summary of the current application follows.

    Summary of the Application

    Applicant: Corn Refiners Association (CRA); 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 950; Washington, DC 20006.

    Contact: David E. Bond, White & Case LLP, (202) 729-2307.

    Application No.: 02-1A003.

    Date Deemed Submitted: March 26, 2015.

    Summary: The Corn Refiners Association (“CRA”) seeks an amended Certificate of Review to remove a Certificate Member, Roquette America, Inc., which was originally a member of CRA but is no longer a member of CRA as of January 1, 2015. With the amended Certificate, CRA seeks to continue to engage in the Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation described below in the following Export Trade and Export Markets:

    Export Trade

    Products: High fructose com syrup (“HFCS”) in the following two forms: 42 percent fructose and 55 percent fructose and enriched HFCS (greater than 55 percent fructose).

    Export Markets

    HFCS for which tariff-rate quota (TRQ) rights are allocated will be exported only to Mexico.

    Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations Purpose

    The CRA will manage the system as set forth below for allocating rights to ship under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) permitting duty-free entry of U.S. HFCS into Mexico. The CRA shall permit any producer of HFCS in the United States to become a member of the association for purposes of receiving TRQ rights under this system and shall seek an amendment of this Certificate to make such a producer a Member under this Certificate.

    TRQ Administrator

    The CRA will contract with an independent third-party Administrator who will bear responsibility for administering the TRQ System, subject to general oversight and supervision by the Board of Directors of the CRA. The Administrator may not be otherwise related to the CRA or any Member or in any way engaged in the production, distribution or sale of HFCS.

    TRQ System

    The Administrator shall allocate TRQ rights based on the share each Member's U.S. HFCS production capacity represents of total U.S. HFCS production capacity. The Administrator may advise each Member individually of the quantity of TRQ rights allocated to that Member. In accordance with those allocations, the Administrator shall, upon the request of a Member, issue to the Member evidence of TRQ rights to ship a specified quantity of U.S. HFCS duty-free to Mexico up to the outstanding total of the Member's allocation. Evidence of TRQ rights issued by the Administrator shall be freely transferable. Transfers of TRQ rights are subject to the normal application of the antitrust laws.

    Confidential Information

    Each Member may provide to the Administrator information regarding its capacity to produce HFCS in the United States for the purpose of calculating the Member's allocation of TRQ rights. Any non-public, company-specific business information or data submitted by an applicant for membership, by a Member, or by any other person in connection with the TRQ System shall be marked “confidential” and submitted to the Administrator, who shall maintain its confidentiality. The Administrator shall not disclose such confidential information to any Member other than the submitter, or to any officers, agents, or employees of any Member other than the submitter, and shall not disclose such confidential information to any other person except to another neutral third party as necessary to make the determination for which the information was submitted, to allocate TRQ quantities, or in connection with reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce as required by the Certificate or the arbitration of a dispute.

    Cooperation With the U.S. and Mexican Governments

    The CRA will provide to the U.S. Government and the Government of Mexico whatever information and consultations may be useful in order to facilitate cooperation between the governments concerning the implementation and operation of the TRQ System. Furthermore, directly or through the U.S. Government, the CRA will endeavor to accommodate any information requests from the Government of Mexico (while protecting confidential information entrusted to the Administrator), and will consult with the Government of Mexico as appropriate. All such information and consultations shall be subject to the provision on Confidential Information (above) and the Terms and Conditions described in the Certificate.

    The members of CRA that will be Members under the Certificate within the meaning of 15 CFR 325.2(1) after the amendment:

    1. Archer Daniels Midland Company

    2. Cargill, Incorporated

    3. Ingredion, Incorporated (Ingredion acquired Penford Corporation, which was a Member. Ingredion was formerly known as Corn Products International, Inc., which was a Member and which acquired National Starch and Chemical Company, which was a Member.)

    4. Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc.

    Definition

    Neutral third-party, as used in this Certificate of Review, means a party not related to CRA or any Member and who is not engaged in the production, distribution or sale of HFCS.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08240 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-944] Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shane Subler, 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) 482-0189.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 20, 2010, the Department published the CVD order on OCTG from the PRC.1 On December 1, 2014, the Department published a notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the CVD Order on OCTG from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2

    1See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 2010) (CVD Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 79 FR 71091 (December 1, 2014).

    On December 3, 2014, Maverick Tube Corporation (Maverick) timely notified the Department of its intent to participate.3 On December 10, 2014, Boomerang Tube (Boomerang), Energex Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group (Energex Tube), EVRAZ Rocky Mountain Steel (“EVRAZ”), IPSCO Tubulars, Inc. (IPSCO), Tejas Tubular Products, Inc. (Tejas Tubular), Vallourec Star, L.P. (Vallourec), and Welded Tube USA Inc. (Welded Tube) filed their intent to participate.4

    3See Letter to the Department from Maverick, dated December 3, 2014.

    4See Letter to the Department from Boomerang, Energex Tube, EVRAZ, IPSCO, Tejas Tubular, Vallourec, and Welded Tube, dated December 10, 2014.

    On December 15, 2014, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) likewise timely notified the Department of its intent to participate.5 On December 31, 2014, the Department received an adequate substantive response from Boomerang, Energex Tube, EVRAZ, IPSCO, Maverick, Tejas Tubular, U.S. Steel, Vallourec, and Welded Tube within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).6 The Department did not receive substantive responses from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the CVD order on OCTG from the PRC.

    5See Letter to the Department from U.S. Steel, dated December 15, 2014.

    6See Letter from domestic interested parties to the Department, entitled “Oil Country Tubular Goods From China, First Sunset Review: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated December 31, 2014.

    Scope of the Order

    This order covers OCTG. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the order.7

    7See “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China,” from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, 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 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).8 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    8 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).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    In the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have addressed all issues that parties raised in this review. The issues include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net countervailable subsidies likely to prevail if the Department revoked the order.

    Final Results of Sunset Review

    Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following net countervailable subsidy rates:

    Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co. and Jiangsu Changbao Precision Steel Tube Co., Ltd 22.87 Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co., Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd., and TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd 20.90 Wuxi Seamless Pipe Co, Ltd., Jiangsu Fanli Steel Pipe Co, Ltd., and Tuoketuo County Mengfeng Special Steel Co., Ltd 25.36 Zhejiang Jianli Enterprise Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jianli Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Zhuji Jiansheng Machinery Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Jianli Industry Group Co., Ltd 26.19 All Others 23.82
    Administrative Protective Order

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

    We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: March 31, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. History of the Order 5. Discussion of the Issues a. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of a Countervailable Subsidy b. Net Countervailable Subsidy Likely To Prevail 6. Nature of the Subsidies 7. Final Results of Sunset Review 8. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-07979 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD838 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the SSC Socio-Economic Panel. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SSC Socio-Economic Panel will meet from 8 a.m. until 12 noon on Tuesday, April 28, 2015. The SSC will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 28, 2015; from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 29, 2015; and from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Thursday, April 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Airport Hotel, 4831 Tanger Outlet Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418; telephone: (800) 503-5762 or (843) 744-4422; fax: (843) 744-4472.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following items will be discussed and considered by the SSC Socio-Economic Panel and the SSC during this meeting:

    SSC Socio-Economic Panel Meeting—Tuesday, April 28, 2015, 8 a.m. Until 12 Noon

    1. Regulatory Amendment 16 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) addressing modifications to the current seasonal closure and gear modifications for the black sea bass pot fishery

    2. Regulatory Amendment 23 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing management measures for the commercial golden tilefish fishery

    3. The SAFMC System Management Plan for Marine Protected Areas

    4. The SAFMC Vision Blueprint outlining a long-term plan for the snapper grouper fishery

    5. An update/overview of recent and developing SAFMC actions

    6. Administrative issues including term limits for SEP members and upcoming SEP meetings

    SSC Meeting—Tuesday, April 28—Thursday, April 30, 2015

    1. Report from the SSC Socio-Economic Panel

    2. Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) calibration and transition efforts

    3. 2014 South Atlantic landings and Annual Catch Limits (ACLs)

    4. Spiny lobster review panel recommendations

    5. Southeast Reef Fish Survey update

    6. Geographic range of the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 32 blueline tilefish assessment

    7. SEDAR projects update, and recommendations addressing the SEDAR 41 schedule (South Atlantic red snapper and gray triggerfish), red grouper Terms of Reference (TORs), and black grouper approach.

    8. Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) headboat data evaluation efforts and assessment program review

    9. Review assessment of mutton snapper and provide fishing level recommendations

    10. Right whale monitoring and biological opinion approach

    11. Regulatory Amendment 16 to the Snapper Grouper FMP

    12. Amendment 36 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing Spawning Special Management Zones

    13. National Marine Fisheries Service stock status determination process

    14. Revised hogfish stock projections

    15. Use of stock triggers or rumble strips

    16. Draft report of the SSC Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule Workshop of October 2014

    17. 2015 National SSC Workshop

    18. National Standards revisions

    19. SAFMC Visioning Project and Blueprint

    20. Oculina Team Evaluation Report

    21. SAFMC annual research and monitoring plan

    22. Updates and progress reports on other ongoing FMPs and amendments.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Written comment on SSC agenda topics is to be distributed to the Committee through the Council office, similar to all other briefing materials. Written comment to be considered by the SSC shall be provided to the Council office no later than one week prior to an SSC meeting. For this meeting, the deadline for submission of written comment is 12 p.m. Tuesday, April 21, 2015. Two opportunities for comment on agenda items will be provided during SSC meetings and noted on the agenda. The first will be at the beginning of the meeting, and the second near the conclusion, when the SSC reviews its recommendations.

    Special Accommodations

    The meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08267 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD890 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel meeting to review the Pacific mackerel stock assessment.

    DATES:

    The STAR Panel meeting will be held Monday, April 27 through Wednesday, April 29, 2015. That meeting will begin the first day at 9 a.m. and at 8 a.m. each subsequent day. The meeting will conclude each day at 5 p.m. or when business for the day has been completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held in the Pacific Conference Room of the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2409.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the meeting is to review a full stock assessment for Pacific mackerel. The review panel will consist of two members of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee's Subcommittee on Coastal Pelagic Species, plus two independent experts. The Council will use the 2015 assessment to establish Pacific mackerel fishery management measures and harvest specifications for both the 2015-16 and the 2016-17 fishing years. The Pacific mackerel fishing year begins July 1 and ends the following June 30 each year. Representatives of the Council's CPS Management Team and the CPS Advisory Subpanel will also participate in the review, as advisers.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Dale Sweetnam, (858) 546-7170, 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. 2015-08172 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD863 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a workshop in conjunction with a joint meeting of the Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel and Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel. The purpose of the workshop is to refine spatial alternatives for deep sea coral protection zones for inclusion the Council's Deep Sea Corals Amendment.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 through Thursday, April 30, 2015. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at: Doubletree by Hilton BWI, 890 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 859-8060.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org also has details on the meeting location, proposed agenda, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This workshop will address spatial options for discrete coral protection zones proposed under the Council's Deep Sea Corals Amendment to the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. The Council is developing this amendment to address the potential impacts of fishing activity on deep sea corals in the Mid-Atlantic. The Council will solicit the input of the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel, the Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel, members of the Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT), additional deep sea coral experts, and additional fishing industry participants in order to refine the current proposed boundaries and review alternative boundary proposals.

    The workshop will consist of a half-day meeting on Wednesday, April 29, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and continue on Thursday, April 30, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Prior to the meeting, a detailed agenda and briefing materials will be posted on the Council's Web site at: http://www.mafmc.org/. Background information and documents for the amendment can be found at: http://www.mafmc.org/actions/msb/am16.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08268 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD894 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) Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP) will meet to review recent fishery performance and develop Fishery Performance Reports and/or other recommendations for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish fisheries in preparation for the Council's setting of MSB specifications at the June 2015 Council meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be Monday, April 27, 2015 at 12:30 p.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/2015msbap/. 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 purpose of the meeting is to create Fishery Performance Reports by the Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP). The intent of these reports is to facilitate structured input from the Advisory Panel members into the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish specifications process.

    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. 2015-08181 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD893 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Fixed Gear Electronic Monitoring (EM) workgroup will meet by teleconference.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 27, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Alaska time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Avenue, Suite 205, Anchorage, AK.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The agenda is to discuss 2015 fieldwork and data review, and discuss progress on 2016 pre-implementation including developing a strawman deployment plan and establishing funding sources.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working 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. 2015-08180 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD889 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad Hoc Ecosystem Workgroup (EWG) will hold a webinar, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar will begin at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, and is expected to last about two hours.

    ADDRESSES:

    To join the webinar visit this link: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar. Enter the Webinar ID: 159-133-291. Enter your name and email address (required). Once you have joined the webinar, choose either your computer's audio or select “Use Telephone.” If you do not select “Use Telephone” you will be connected to audio using your computer's microphone and speakers (VolP). If you do not have a headset and speakers, you may use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting by dialing this TOLL number +1 (646) 307-1720 (not a toll-free number); then enter the Attendee phone audio access code 956-534-270, then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). A public listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the webinar is for the Workgroup to plan development of a new initiative pursuant to the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan. The Council adopted this initiative, the Coordinated Ecosystem Indicator Review Initiative, at its March 2015 meeting. The Council requested the EWG, in concert with the Scientific and Statistical Committee's Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Subcommittee and NMFS's Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Team, to evaluate ecosystem indicators presented in the Annual State of the California Current Ecosystem Report, identify potential new indicators, and coordinate review of indicators by the Pacific Council's other advisory bodies. The EWG is expected to report back to the Pacific Council with a workload assessment and timeline later this year. Related matters stemming from the Pacific Council's assignment also may be discussed. Public comment will be taken at the discretion of the EWG Chair.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08269 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]. Include “0651-New: Generic Clearance comment” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-8123; or by email to [email protected] with “Paperwork” in the subject line.

    Additional information about this collection can be found at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Executive Order 12862 (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12862.pdf) directs Federal agencies to provide services to the public that matches or exceeds the best services available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that its programs are effective and meet its customers' needs, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereafter “USPTO” or “the Agency”) seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect qualitative feedback on its service delivery. Qualitative feedback refers to information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but is not in the form of statistical surveys which yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

    Collecting feedback will allow for the Agency to have a pulse on customer satisfaction and adjust where necessary to meet and exceed expectations. This feedback collection will provide for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communication between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It also will enable the Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient and timely manner, in accordance with the USPTO's commitment to improving services. The information collected from Agency customers and stakeholders will help ensure users have an opportunity to convey their experience with USPTO programs. This collection will also provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations, which will allow the Agency to focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations may be necessary.

    Improving Agency programs requires ongoing assessment. The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services. Based on feedback received, the Agency will identify operational changes needed to improve programs and services. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. The Agency is committed to hearing feedback from its customers. Responses will be assessed to identify service areas in need of improvement. If this information is not collected, then the Agency will miss opportunities to obtain vital feedback from its customers and stakeholders on ways to improve their program and services.

    The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

    • The collection is voluntary;

    • The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

    • The collection is noncontroversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

    • Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

    • Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

    • Information gathered will only be used internally for general program and service improvement as well as program administrative purposes, and is not intended for release outside the Agency;

    • Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

    • Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections are not designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results nor used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

    As a general matter, these information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature.

    II. Method of Collection

    The USPTO uses surveys, focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and usability testing to collect feedback from its customers. These may be conducted via telephone, through electronic means, or in person. The USPTO expects customers will respond to the questionnaires and surveys primarily through electronic means, and to the focus groups, interviews, and usability testing primarily in person.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651—New.

    IC Instruments and Forms: The individual instruments in this collection, as well as their associated forms, are listed in the table below.

    Type of Review: New.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 27,900 responses per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: Between 5 minutes (0.08 hours) and 120 minutes (2 hours), depending on the instruments used and the item being completed.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 5,059 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $917,348.47. The USPTO expects that attorneys, paralegals and pro se applicants will complete these applications. The professional hourly rate for attorneys is $389, and the hourly rates for paralegals and pro se applicants are $125 and $30, respectively. The average of the combined respondent rate is $181.33. Using this blended hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $917,348.47 per year.

    IC Number Information collection item Estimated time
  • for response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • burden hours
  • Rate
  • (S/hr)
  • (a) (b) (a) x (b) = (c) 1 Customer Surveys 5 20,000 1,667 $181.33 2 Questionnaires/Customer Comment Cards/Complaint Forms 5 300 25 181.33 3 Focus Groups/Interviews 15 6,000 1,500 181.33 4 Small Discussion Groups 120 600 1,200 181.33 5 Usability Tests (In-person observation (i.e., Website/Software) 40 1,000 667 181.33 Total (Three -Year Period) 27,900
  • (83,700)
  • 5,059
  • (15,177)
  • Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: There are no capital start-up, maintenance, postage, or recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection.

    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, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08262 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0031] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DMDC 12 DoD, entitled “Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS)” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system is a DoD enterprise automated system for personnel security, providing a common, comprehensive medium to record, document, and identify personnel security actions within the Department including submitting adverse information, verification of clearance status (to include grants of interim clearances), requesting investigations, and supporting Continuous Evaluation activities.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before May 11, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 1, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DMDC 12 DoD

    Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), (May 3, 2011, 76 FR 24863).

    Changes: Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “All Armed Forces personnel; DoD and U.S. Coast Guard civilian, contractor employees, and applicants; other federal personnel with authorized access to JPAS or for reciprocity purposes; “affiliated” personnel (e.g., Non-Appropriated Fund employees, Red Cross volunteers and staff, USO personnel, and congressional staff members); industry personnel requiring JPAS access for personnel security purposes; and foreign nationals requiring fitness determination, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) access, access to National Security Information (NSI), Sensitive Compartmented Information and/or assignment to a sensitive position.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name (current, former and alternate names); Social Security Number (SSN); DoD Identification Number (DoD ID Number); date of birth; place of birth; country of citizenship; type of DoD affiliation; employing activity; current employment status; position sensitivity; personnel security investigative basis; status of current adjudicative action; security clearance eligibility status and access status; whether eligibility determination was based on a condition, deviation from prescribed investigative standards, or waiver of adjudication guidelines; reports of security-related incidents, to include issue files and information identified through continuous evaluation which may require additional adjudication; foreign travel and contacts; self-reported information; eligibility recommendations or decisions made by an appellate authority; non-disclosure execution dates; indoctrination date(s); level(s) of access granted; debriefing date(s) and reasons for debriefing. Entries documenting the outcomes of investigations and adjudications conducted by Federal investigative organizations (e.g., U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), etc.) or by DoD agencies for continuous evaluation and locator references to such investigations. Entries documenting fitness determinations, HSPD-12 access, and continuous evaluation adverse information flags of the subject.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 9101, Access to Criminal History Information for National Security and Other Purposes; 10 U.S.C. 137, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; DoD Directive 1145.02E, United States Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM); DoD 5200.2R, DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP); DoD 5105.21, Sensitive Compartment Information Administrative Security Manual; DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment and Induction; DoDI 5200.02, DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP); DoDD 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program; DoDI 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program (NISP); Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, Policy for Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “JPAS is a DoD enterprise automated system for personnel security, providing a common, comprehensive medium to record, document, and identify personnel security actions within the Department including submitting adverse information, verification of clearance status (to include grants of interim clearances), requesting investigations, and supporting Continuous Evaluation activities.

    JPAS consists of two applications, the Joint Adjudication Management System (JAMS) and the Joint Clearance and Access Verification System (JCAVS). JAMS, primarily used by the DoD Adjudicative Community, has the primary purpose of recording eligibility determinations. JCAVS, primarily used by DoD Security Managers and Industry Facility Security Officers, has the primary purpose of verifying eligibility, record access determinations, submitting incidents for subsequent adjudication, and visit requests from the field (worldwide).

    These records may also be used as a management tool for statistical analyses, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness and conducting research.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as follows:

    To the White House to obtain approval of the President of the United States regarding certain military personnel office actions as provided for in DoD Instruction 1320.4, Military Officer Actions Requiring Approval of the Secretary of Defense or the President, or Confirmation by the Senate.

    To the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for use in alien admission and naturalization inquiries.

    To a Federal agency and its employees who are eligible to have a security clearance and/or have access to classified national security information in order to ensure that the agency is informed about information that relates to and/or impacts its employees' eligibility to have a security clearance and/or access to classified national security information.

    To a Federal agency with contractor personnel who are eligible to have a security clearance and/or have access to classified national security information in order to ensure that the agency is informed about information that relates to and/or may impact the contractor's eligibility to have a security clearance and/or access to classified national security information.

    To a contractor with employees who are eligible to have a security clearance and/or have access to classified national security information in order to ensure that the employer is informed about information that relates to and/or may impact its employees eligibility to have a security clearance and/or access to classified national security information.

    Law Enforcement Routine Use:

    If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Disclosure When Requesting Information Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to a federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.

    Disclosure of Requested Information Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use:

    Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Office of Personnel Management Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records subject to the Privacy Act and maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning information on pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies.

    Counterintelligence Purpose Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use outside the DoD or the U.S. Government for the purpose of counterintelligence activities authorized by U.S. Law or Executive Order or for the purpose of enforcing laws which protect the national security of the United States.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary, DoD/Joint Staff compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Information is generally retrieved by SSN. However, access to certain functions may require a combination of SSN, DoD ID number, name, date of birth, and/or state and/or country of birth.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Access to personal information is restricted to those who require the records in the performance of their official duties. Access to personal information is further restricted by the use of Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and administrative procedures. All individuals granted access to this system of records are to have taken annual Information Assurance and Privacy Act training; and all have been through the vetting process.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are destroyed no later than 15 continuous years after termination of affiliation with the DoD.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, 4800 Mark Center, Alexandria, VA 22350-4000.

    Deputy Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: Privacy Act Office, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.

    Individuals should provide their full name (and any alias and/or alternate names used), SSN, and date and place of birth.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Information contained in this system is obtained from the individual; DoD personnel systems; Consolidated Adjudication Tracking System (CATS); Continuous Evaluation Records; DoD and federal adjudicative facilities/organizations; DoD and Non-DoD agencies; and security managers, security officers, or other officials requesting and/or sponsoring the security eligibility or suitability determination or visitation of facility. Additional information may be obtained from other sources such as personnel security investigations, security representatives, subject's personal financial records, military service records, medical records, and unsolicited sources.”

    [FR Doc. 2015-08220 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0032] Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the Upgrade and Storage of Beryllium Metal at the DLA Strategic Materials Hammond, IN AGENCY:

    Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the Upgrade and Storage of Beryllium Metal at the DLA Strategic Materials Hammond, IN.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announces the availability of an environmental assessment (EA) for the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action to upgrade and store beryllium at the DLA Strategic Materials Hammond, IN depot. The EA has been prepared as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (1969). In addition, the EA complies with DLA Regulation 1000.22. DLA has determined that the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the human environment within the context of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required.

    DATES:

    Public comments will be accepted on or before May 11, 2015. Comments received by the end of the 30-day period will be considered when preparing the final version of the document. The EA is available electronically at http://www.dla.mil/InstallationSupport/Documents/EA-UpgradeAndStorageOfBeryllium-20141119.pdf.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments to one of the following:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ira Silverberg at 703-767-0705 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST) or by email: [email protected].

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08280 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0029] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DPR 30 DoD, entitled “Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) Records” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

    The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) provides the means to manage and report the readiness of the Department of Defense and its subordinate Components to execute the National Military Strategy as assigned by the Secretary of Defense in the Defense Planning Guidance, Contingency Planning Guidance, Theater Security Cooperation Guidance, and the Unified Command Plan. DRRS builds upon the processes and readiness assessment tools used in the Department of Defense to establish a capabilities-based, adaptive, near real-time readiness reporting system.

    All DoD components will use the DRRS information to identify critical readiness deficiencies, develop strategies for rectifying these deficiencies, and ensure they are addressed in appropriate program/budget planning or other DoD management systems. DRRS will permit commanders to obtain pertinent readiness data on personnel assigned/attached to their units.”

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before May 11, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 1, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DPR 30 DoD System name:

    Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) Records (March 18, 2010, 75 FR 13091).

    Changes:

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Defense Readiness Reporting System Implementation Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “All active duty, National Guard, and Reserve military service members of the Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marine Corps, including DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce personnel.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, date of birth, gender, Social Security Number (SSN), rank/grade, duty status, skill specialty, deployability, related reason codes for readiness posture, unit of assignment, security clearance, occupational skill codes, and linguistic capabilities.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 117, Readiness Reporting System: Establishment; Reporting to Congressional Committees; 10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; DoD Directive 5149.02, Senior Readiness Oversight Council (SROC); DoD Directive 7730.65, Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) provides the means to manage and report the readiness of the Department of Defense and its subordinate Components to execute the National Military Strategy as assigned by the Secretary of Defense in the Defense Planning Guidance, Contingency Planning Guidance, Theater Security Cooperation Guidance, and the Unified Command Plan. DRRS builds upon the processes and readiness assessment tools used in the Department of Defense to establish a capabilities-based, adaptive, near real-time readiness reporting system.

    All DoD components will use the DRRS information to identify critical readiness deficiencies, develop strategies for rectifying these deficiencies, and ensure they are addressed in appropriate program/budget planning or other DoD management systems. DRRS will permit commanders to obtain pertinent readiness data on personnel assigned/attached to their units.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Law Enforcement Routine Use:

    If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use:

    Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary, DoD/Joint Staff compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual's name, unit of assignment, occupational skill codes, and linguistic capabilities.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Access is limited to authorized and appropriately cleared personnel as determined by the system manager. Access is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the record in performance of their official duties, which are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. System users cannot view Social Security Numbers (SSN). Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by use of identification badges, cipher locks, combination locks, security guards, and is accessible only to authorized or cleared personnel. All data is protected in accordance with appropriate procedures and processes and is further protected with additional encryption. Technical controls include passwords, intrusion detection system (IDS), encryption, firewall, virtual private network (VPN), and DoD Public Key Infrastructure Certificates. Administrative controls include periodic security audits, regular monitoring of users' security practices, methods to ensure only authorized personnel access to PII, encryption of backups containing sensitive data, backups are secured off-site.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Director, Defense Readiness Reporting System Implementation Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the local commander. For a complete list of mailing addresses, contact the system manager.

    Signed, written requests should include individual's full name and unit.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should include the individual's full name and unit, and the name and number of this system of records notice.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Information is obtained from the Enlisted Personnel Management Information System (EPMIS), Officer Personnel Management Information System (OPMIS), Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS), Medical Readiness Reporting System (MRRS), Military Personnel Data System, Medical Readiness Reporting System—Marine, Medical Readiness Reporting System—Navy, Defense Manpower Data System, Defense Readiness Reporting System Army, Defense Readiness Reporting System Marine Corps, Defense Readiness Reporting System Navy, Global Combat Support System Air Force, Manpower Programming and Execution System, Aeromedical Services Information Management System, Aerospace Expeditionary Force Reporting Tool, Electronic Joint Manpower and Personnel System, Medical Protection System, Military Personnel and Accounting System, Navy Readiness Reporting Enterprise, Defense Civilian Personnel Data System, Global Force Management Navy Org Server, Integrated Total Army Personnel Database, Global Status of Resources and Training System, Joint Training Information Management System, Aviation Resource Management System, Operational Data Store Enterprise/Marine Corps total Force System.”

    [FR Doc. 2015-08170 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Federal Advisory Committee Meeting Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC). This meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, April 21, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, April 22, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    CENTRA Technology Inc., Ballston, Virginia on April 21 and CENTRA Technology Inc., Ballston, Virginia and the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia on April 22.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency J2/5/8R-AC, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to difficulties beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer, the Department of Defense was unable to finalize the meeting announcement for the scheduled meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee on April 21-22, 2015, to ensure compliance with 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Purpose of Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The TRAC will obtain, review and evaluate classified information related to the TRAC's mission to advise on technology security, combating weapons of mass destruction (CWMD), counterterrorism, and counterproliferation.

    Agenda: On Tuesday, April 21, the meeting will open with classified opening remarks from the TRAC Chairperson. The TRAC will then receive a classified intelligence briefing from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency focused on Russian actions and current events as related to weapons of mass destruction. Following the intelligence update, the TRAC will have a working lunch and the group will discuss classified WMD issues as related to North Korea. The TRAC will then discuss two current TRAC taskings, at the classified level. These taskings include recommended changes to the current DoD role in the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) using the DoD response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa and Nuclear Strategic Stability (NSS) in light of current world events. Following the current taskings, the TRAC will discuss, at the classified level, emerging issues facing the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and U.S. Strategic Command Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction at the request of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. To conclude the day, the TRAC will deliberate on information received about the GHSA and NSS efforts.

    The TRAC will continue to meet on April 22, 2015. The TRAC Chairperson will summarize the previous day's information and discuss the way forward. Subsequently, the group will receive a classified brief from Ambassador Linton Brooks on Russian actions and implications of these actions on U.S./Russian future activities. Following Ambassador Brooks' presentation, the TRAC will hear from experts on the situation in Ukraine, at the classified level. The TRAC will continue discussion over a working lunch where they will review the topics they intend to brief senior leaders at the Pentagon later that afternoon.

    The TRAC will then transition to the Pentagon where the members will provide the DoD senior leaders with an out brief from the meeting.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting of the TRAC on April 21-22, 2015, shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that the public interest requires all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because the discussions and sharing of information will be concerned with classified information and matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). Such classified matters are inextricably intertwined with the unclassified material and cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret material.

    Advisory Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact:

    Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency J2/5/8R-ACP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the TRAC at any time regarding its mission or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the TRAC's Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer's contact information is listed in the section immediately above or it can be obtained from the General Services Administration's FACA Database: http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=1663&aid=41.

    Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the TRAC may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all TRAC members.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08212 Filed 4-9-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0030] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DWHS E04, entitled “Privacy Act Case Files” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. Information is being collected and maintained for the purpose of processing Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals; for participating in litigation regarding agency action on such requests and appeals; and for assisting the Department of Defense in carrying out any other responsibilities under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before May 11, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 1, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DWHS E04 System name:

    Privacy Act Case Files (October 29, 2012, 77 FR 65539)

    Changes: System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Freedom of Information Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff (OSD/JS) Privacy Office, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA), Privacy Act Office, Executive Services Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.

    Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, 1137 Branchton Road, Boyers, PA 16016-0001.

    DoD Consolidated Adjudication Facility (DoD CAF), 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals (and attorneys representing individuals) who have requested documents and/or submitted appeals for denial of access or amendment under the provisions of the Privacy Act (PA) from the OSD/JS, the DODEA, the DMDC (personnel security records), and the DoD CAF.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records created or compiled in response to Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals, individual's name, request number, original and copies of requests and administrative appeals; responses to such requests and administrative appeals; all related memoranda, correspondence, notes, and other related or supporting documentation.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 552a, The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended; 10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; 32 CFR part 310, DoD Privacy Program; 32 CFR part 311, OSD Privacy Program; DoD 5400.11-R, Department of Defense Privacy Program; and Administrative Instruction 81, OSD/Joint Staff Privacy Program.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee, or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in security containers with access only to officials whose access is based on requirements of assigned duties. Access to electronic records requires use of Common Access Card (CAC) login and role-based access by individuals who have a demonstrated need-to-know.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Responses granting access to all the requested records, responses to requests for nonexistent records, to requesters who provide inadequate descriptions, or to those who fail to pay agency reproduction fees: Records are destroyed 2 years after the date of reply.

    Responses denying access to all or part of the records requested which are not appealed are destroyed 5 years after date of reply.

    Appellate files are destroyed/deleted 4 years after final determination by OSD appellate authority.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “OSD/JS initial requests case files: Chief, Freedom of Information Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    OSD/JS access and amendment appellate files: Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    DoDEA case files: Chief, Department of Defense Education Activity, Privacy Office, Executive Services Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.

    DMDC personnel security case files: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: Privacy Act Office, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.

    DoD CAF case files: Privacy Officer, DoD Consolidated Adjudication Facility, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to:

    OSD/JS initial request and appellate case files: Chief, Freedom of Information Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    OSD/JS access and amendment appellate files: Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    DoDEA case files: Chief, Department of Defense Education Activity, Privacy Act Office, Executive Services Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.

    DMDC personnel security case files: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: Privacy Act Office, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.

    DoD CAF case files: Privacy Access Requests, DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.

    Signed, written requests must include the individual's name and address, and this system of records notice name and number.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to access their record should address written inquiries to:

    OSD/JS initial request and appellate case files: Chief, Freedom of Information Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    DoDEA case files: Chief, Department of Defense Education Activity, Privacy Act Office, Executive Services Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.

    DMDC personnel security case files: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: Privacy Act Office, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.

    DoD CAF case files: Privacy Officer, DoD Consolidated Adjudication Facility, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.

    Signed, written requests must include the individual's name and/or request number, and this system of records notice name and number.

    Additional information for DoDEA records: If a parent or legal guardian is requesting records pertaining to his or her minor child or ward, he/she must also provide evidence of that relationship. The parent may provide one of the following: A copy of the child's school enrollment form signed by the parent, a copy of a divorce decree or travel order that includes the child's name, an order of guardianship, or a declaration stating that he/she is the parent or legal guardian of the minor or incapacitated child.

    Additional information for DMDC personnel security and DoD CAF records: When requesting these records, the requester must also provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed without the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.”

    Contesting Record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    [FR Doc. 2015-08195 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0039] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0039 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Lisa Gillette, (202)260-1426.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP).

    OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 37.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,184.

    Abstract: The College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) office staff collects information for the CAMP Annual Performance Report (APR) the data being collected is in compliance with Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Sec. 418A; 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2 (special programs for students whose families are engaged in migrant and seasonal farm work) (shown in appendix A), the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, Section 4 (1115), and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR 75.253. EDGAR states that recipients of multi-year discretionary grants must submit an APR demonstrating that substantial progress has been made towards meeting the approved objectives of the project. In addition, EDGAR requires discretionary grantees to report on their progress toward meeting the performance measures established for the ED grant program. The CAMP office staff requests a customized APR that goes beyond the generic 524B APR to facilitate the collection of more standardized and comprehensive data to inform GPRA, to improve the overall quality of data collected, and to increase the quality of data that can be used to inform policy decisions.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08237 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2014-ICCD-0146] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Plan To Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators; Frequently Asked Questions AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2014-ICCD-0146 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Danielle Smith, (202) 453-5546.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: State Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators; Frequently Asked Questions.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 52.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 116.

    Abstract: In order to move America toward the goal of ensuring that every student in every public school has equitable access to excellent educators, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) asks each State educational agency (SEAA) to submit a plan describing the steps it will take to ensure that “poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers,” as required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08238 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0010] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0010 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Lisa Gillette, (202) 260-1426.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP).

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0689.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 37.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,184.

    Abstract: The College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) office staff collects information for the CAMP Annual Performance Report (APR) the data being collected is in compliance with Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Sec. 418A; 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2 (special programs for students whose families are engaged in migrant and seasonal farm work) (shown in appendix A), the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, Section 4 (1115), and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR 75.253. EDGAR states that recipients of multi-year discretionary grants must submit an APR demonstrating that substantial progress has been made towards meeting the approved objectives of the project. In addition, EDGAR requires discretionary grantees to report on their progress toward meeting the performance measures established for the ED grant program. The CAMP office staff requests a customized APR that goes beyond the generic 524B APR to facilitate the collection of more standardized and comprehensive data to inform GPRA, to improve the overall quality of data collected, and to increase the quality of data that can be used to inform policy decisions.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director<E T="03">,</E> Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08236 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0040] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Leadership Grant Program Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0040 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tyra Stewart, (202) 260-1847.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: School Leadership Grant Program Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1855-0019.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 21.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 840.

    Abstract: Information in the SLP Annual Performance Report (APR) is being collected in compliance with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part A, Subpart 5; 20 U.S.C. 2151(b) (shown in appendix A), the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, Section 4 (1115) (shown in appendix B), and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR 75.253. EDGAR states that recipients of multi-year discretionary grants must submit an APR demonstrating that substantial progress has been made toward meeting the approved objectives of the project. In addition, discretionary grantees are required to report on their progress toward meeting the performance measures established for the U.S. Department of Education (ED) grant program.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08239 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0041] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; An Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals AGENCY:

    Institute of Educations Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0041 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Elizabeth Warner, (202) 208-7169.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: An Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,880.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 745.

    Abstract: This submission requests approval of data collection activities that will be used to support An Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals. The evaluation will estimate the impact of offering professional development to principals that emphasizes instructional leadership strategies in addition to supporting some aspects of improving organizational and human and capital management.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08274 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information: Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNH) Program, Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.031N and 84.031W. DATES:

    Applications Available: April 10, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 9, 2015.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 10, 2015.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The ANNH Program is authorized under section 317 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), to provide grants to eligible institutions of higher education (IHEs) to enable them to improve and expand their capacity to serve Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. Institutions may use these grants to plan, develop, or implement activities that strengthen the institution.

    Background: We encourage applicants to read carefully the Selection Criteria section of this notice. Consistent with the Department's increasing emphasis in recent years on promoting evidence-based practices through our grant competitions, the Secretary will evaluate applications on the extent to which the proposed project is supported by a logic model that meets the evidence standard of “strong theory” (as defined in this notice). Resources to assist applicants in creating a logic model can be found here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014007.pdf.

    Priorities: This notice contains one absolute priority, two competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. The absolute priority is from the Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425). Competitive Preference Priority 1 is from section 320(c)(2)(H) of the HEA. Competitive Preference Priority 2 is from the Supplemental Priorities.

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    Projects that are designed to increase the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for, enroll in, or complete on time college, other postsecondary education, or other career and technical education.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an application up to three additional points for each priority, for a total of up to six additional points, depending on how well the application meets each of these priorities.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1 (up to three additional points).

    Academic tutoring and counseling programs and student support services.

    Competitive Preference Priority 2 (up to three additional points).

    Projects that are designed to leverage technology through implementing high-quality, accessible online courses, online learning communities, or online simulations, such as those for which educators could earn professional development credit or continuing education units through digital credentials (as defined in this notice) based on demonstrated mastery of competencies and performance-based outcomes, instead of traditional time-based metrics.

    Invitational Priority: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

    This priority is:

    Projects that support activities that strengthen Native language preservation and revitalization.

    Definitions: The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities and from 34 CFR 77.1 and apply to the priorities and selection criteria in this notice:

    Digital credentials means evidence of mastery of specific competencies or performance-based abilities, provided in digital rather than physical medium (such as through digital badges). These digital credentials may then be used to supplement or satisfy continuing education or professional development requirements.

    High-minority school means a school as that term is defined by a local educational agency, which must define the term in a manner consistent with its State's Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The applicant must provide the definition(s) of high-minority schools used in its application.

    High-need students means students who are at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners.

    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    Note:

    In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (www.relpacific.mcrel.org/PERR.html or http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544779.pdf) to help design their logic models.

    Regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a General Education Development credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1059d.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR 607. (e) The Supplemental Priorities.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants—Individual Development Grants and Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $10,535,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards:

    Individual Development Grants: $600,000-$800,000 per year.

    Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants: $600,000-$900,000 per year.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards:

    Individual Development Grants: $686,000 per year.

    Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants: $800,000 per year.

    Maximum Award: We will reject any application for an Individual Development Grant that proposes a budget exceeding $800,000 for a single budget period of 12 months and we will reject any application for a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant that proposes a budget exceeding $900,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education may change the maximum amounts through a notice published in the Federal Register.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 16-17.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: (a) An IHE is eligible to receive funds under the ANNH Program if it qualifies as an Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian-Serving Institution. At the time of application: An Alaska Native-Serving Institution must have an enrollment of undergraduate students that is at least 20 percent Alaska Native (34 CFR 607.2(e)); and a Native Hawaiian-Serving Institution must have an enrollment of undergraduate students that is at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian (34 CFR 607.2(f)).

    To qualify as an eligible institution under the ANNH Program, an institution must also be—

    (i) Accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered;

    (ii) Legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a junior or community college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree; and

    (ii) Designated as an “eligible institution” by demonstrating that it has: (A) An enrollment of needy students as described in 34 CFR 607.3; and (B) has low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student, as described in 34 CFR 607.4.

    Note:

    The notice for applying for designation as an eligible institution was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2014 (79 FR 65197) and applications were due on December 22, 2014. Only institutions that submitted applications by the deadline date and that the Department determined are eligible may apply for a grant.

    (b) A grantee under the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Program, which is authorized under title V, part A of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any HEA, title III, part A program, including the ANNH Program.

    (c) A current grantee under the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) Program, Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTI) Program, and the ANNH Program authorized by section 317 of the HEA may not receive a grant authorized under any other title III, part A program.

    (d) A current grantee under the AANAPISI, NASNTI, Hispanic Serving Institutions-STEM and Articulation (HSI-STEM), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI), and the ANNH programs authorized by title III, part F, section 371 of the HEA, may receive a grant authorized under any title III, part A program.

    (e) An eligible IHE that submits applications for an Individual Development Grant and a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant in this competition may be awarded both in the same fiscal year. However, we will not award a second Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant to an otherwise eligible IHE for an award year for which the IHE already has a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant award under the ANNH Program. A grantee with an Individual Development Grant or a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant may be a subgrantee in one or more Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants. The lead institution in a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant must be an eligible institution. Partners or subgrantees are not required to be eligible institutions.

    2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. Grant funds must be used to supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the funds that would otherwise be available for the activities to be carried out under the grant and in no case supplant those funds (34 CFR 607.30 (b)).

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application via the Internet using the following address: www.Grants.gov. If you do not have access to the Internet, please contact Bora Mpinja, for CFDA number 84.031N, or Robyn Wood, for CFDA number 84.031W, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. You may contact these individuals at the following email addresses or telephone numbers: [email protected]; (202) 502-7629; [email protected]; (202) 502-7437.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the applicable program contact person listed in this section.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program.

    Page Limits: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria, the absolute priority, the competitive preference priorities and the invitational priority that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We have established mandatory page limits for Individual Development Grant and Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant applications.

    You must limit the section of the application narrative that addresses:

    • The selection criteria to no more than 50 pages for an Individual Development Grant and 70 pages for a Cooperative Arrangement Grant.

    • The absolute priority to no more than three pages.

    • A competitive preference priority, if you are addressing one or both, to no more than three pages (for a total of six pages if you address both).

    • The invitational priority to no more than two pages, if you address it.

    Accordingly, under no circumstances may the application narrative exceed 61 pages for the Development Grant and 81 pages for the Cooperative Arrangement Grant.

    Please address the priorities in the section of the application narrative titled “Other” and include a separate heading for the absolute priority and for each competitive preference priority and invitational priority that you address.

    For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limits, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margin.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions and all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. These items may be single spaced. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative count toward the page limit.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    The page limit applies to all of the application narrative section, including your complete response to the selection criteria (including the budget narrative), the absolute priority, the competitive preference priorities, and the invitational priority. However, the page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424); the Supplemental Information for SF 424 Form; Part II, the Budget section and the Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524); Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page program abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support.

    If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested in the application package, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative for the purpose of the page-limit requirement.

    We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: April 10, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 9, 2015.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact one of the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 10, 2015.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions: (a) General. We specify unallowable costs in 34 CFR 607.30. We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    (b) Applicability of Executive Order 13202. Applicants that apply for construction funds under the title III, part A, HEA programs must comply with Executive Order 13202, as amended on April 6, 2001. This Executive order provides that recipients of Federal construction funds may not “require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other construction project(s)” or “otherwise discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors for becoming or refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise to adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other related construction project(s).” However, the Executive order does not prohibit contractors or subcontractors from voluntarily entering into these agreements. Projects funded under these programs that include construction activity will be provided a copy of this Executive order and will be asked to certify that they will adhere to it.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the Alaska Native-Serving Institutions Program (CFDA number 84.031N) and the Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program (CFDA number 84.031W) must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for this competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.031, not 84.031N).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact one of the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because--

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Bora Mpinja, for CFDA number 84.031N, or Robyn Wood, for CFDA number 84.031W, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. FAX: (202) 502-7861.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031N or 84.031W), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031N or 84.031W), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The following selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 607.22(a) through (g) and 34 CFR 75.210. We will award up to 100 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion is noted in parentheses.

    (a) Quality of the applicant's comprehensive development plan. (Maximum 20 points) The extent to which—

    (1) The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution;

    (2) The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on comprehensive analysis;

    (3) The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and self-sufficiency of the institution; and

    (4) The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources.

    (b) Quality of activity objectives. (Maximum 15 points) The extent to which the objectives for each activity are—

    (1) Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results; and

    (2) Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals of the comprehensive development plan.

    (c) Quality of implementation strategy. (Maximum 20 points) The extent to which—

    (1) The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive;

    (2) The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies or projects; and

    (3) The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be attained.

    (d) Quality of key personnel. (Maximum 7 points) The extent to which—

    (1) The past experience and training of key professional personnel are directly related to the stated activity objectives; and

    (2) The time commitment of key personnel is realistic.

    (e) Quality of project management plan. (Maximum 10 points) The extent to which—

    (1) Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure efficient and effective project implementation; and

    (2) The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer.

    (f) Quality of evaluation plan. (Maximum 15 points) The extent to which—

    (1) The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly described and appropriate to measure the attainment of activity objectives and to measure the success of the project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan; and

    (2) The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan.

    (g) Budget. (Maximum 8 points) The extent to which the proposed costs are necessary and reasonable in relation to the project's objectives and scope.

    (h) Quality of the project design. (Maximum 5 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice).

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    Awards will be made in rank order according to the average score received from a panel of three non-Federal reviewers.

    3. Tie-breaker. In tie-breaking situations, we award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has an endowment fund of which the current market value, per FTE enrolled student, is less than the average current market value of the endowment funds, per FTE enrolled student, at comparable institutions that offer similar instruction. We also award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has expenditures for library materials per FTE enrolled student that are less than the average expenditures for library materials per FTE enrolled student at comparable institutions that offer similar instruction. We also award one additional point to an application from an IHE that proposes to carry out one or more of the following activities—

    (1) Faculty development;

    (2) Funds and administrative management;

    (3) Development and improvement of academic programs;

    (4) Acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening management and academic programs;

    (5) Joint use of facilities; and

    (6) Student services.

    For the purpose of these funding considerations, we use 2012-2013 data.

    If a tie remains after applying the tie-breaker mechanism above, priority will be given in the case of applicants for: (a) Individual Development Grants, to applicants that have the lowest endowment values per FTE student; and (b) Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants, to applicants in accordance with section 394(b) of the HEA, if the Secretary determines that the cooperative arrangement is geographically and economically sound or will benefit the applicant institution.

    3. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may also notify you informally.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118 and 34 CFR 607.31. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: The Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the ANNH Program:

    a. The percentage change, over the five-year period, of the number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (Note: This is a long-term measure, which will be used to periodically gauge performance);

    b. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institution;

    c. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at two-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institution;

    d. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who graduate within six years of enrollment; and

    e. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who graduate within three years of enrollment.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contacts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bora Mpinja, for CFDA number 84.031N, Robyn Wood, for CFDA number 84.031W, and Don Crews, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. You may contact these individuals at the following email addresses or telephone numbers: [email protected]; (202) 502-7629; [email protected]; (202) 502-7437; [email protected]; (202) 502-7574.

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to one of the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08324 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-2-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-65, FERC-65A, FERC-65B, FERC-585, and FERC-921); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collections [FERC-65 (Notice of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status), FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status), FERC-585 (Reporting of Electric Shortages and Contingency Plans Under PURPA 206), and the FERC-921 (Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional Transmission Organization and Independent System Operators)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 2405, 1/16/2015) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-65/65A/65B, FERC-585, or FERC-921 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0218 (FERC-65/65A/65B), 1902-0138 (FERC-585), or 1902-0257 (FERC-921) should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-4718.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-2-000, by either of the following methods:

    • eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is distinct from the next.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FERC-65 (Notice of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status), and FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status)

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0218.

    Abstract: Pursuant to section 366.4 of the Commission's rules and regulations, persons who meet the definition of a holding company shall provide the Commission notification of holding company status.

    The FERC-65 is a one-time informational filing outlined in the Commission's regulations at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 366.4. The FERC-65 must be submitted within 30 days of becoming a holding company.1 While the Commission does not require the information to be reported in a specific format, the filing needs to consist of the name of the holding company, the name of public utilities, the name of natural gas companies in the holding company system, and the names of service companies. In addition, the Commission requires the filing to include the names of special-purpose subsidiaries (which provide non-power goods and services) and the names of all affiliates and subsidiaries (and their corporate interrelationship) to each other. Filings may be submitted in hardcopy or electronically through the Commission's eFiling system.

    1 Persons that meet the definition of a holding company as provided by § 366.1 as of February 8, 2006 shall notify the Commission of their status as a holding company no later than June 15, 2006. Holding companies formed after February 8, 2006 shall notify the Commission of their status as a holding company, no later than the latter of June 15, 2006 or 30 days after they become holding companies.

    FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status)

    While noting the previously outlined requirements of the FERC-65, the Commission has allowed for an exemption from the requirement of providing the Commission with a FERC-65 if the books, accounts, memoranda, and other records of any person are not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company; or if any class of transactions is not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company. Persons seeking this exemption file the FERC-65A, which must include a form of notice suitable for publication in the Federal Register. Those who file a FERC-65A in good faith will have a temporary exemption upon filing, after 60 days if the Commission has taken no action, the exemption will be deemed granted. Commission regulations within 18 CFR 366.3 describe the criteria in more specificity.

    FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status)

    If an entity meets the requirements in 18 CFR 366.3(c), they may file a FERC-65B waiver notification pursuant to the procedures outlined in 18 CFR 366.4. Specifically, the Commission waives the requirement of providing it with a FERC-65 for any holding company with respect to one or more of the following: (1) Single-state holding company systems; (2) holding companies that own generating facilities that total 100 MW or less in size and are used fundamentally for their own load or for sales to affiliated end-users; or (3) investors in independent transmission-only companies. Filings may be made in §§§ hardcopy or electronically through the Commission's Web site.

    Type of Respondent: Public utility companies, natural gas companies, electric wholesale generators, foreign utility holding companies.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    2 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * 70.50 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The Cost per hour figure is the 2015 FERC average salary plus benefits.

    FERC-65 (Notification of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status), and FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status) Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden & cost
  • per response 2
  • Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • $
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) FERC-65 8 1 8 3
  • $216
  • 24
  • $1728
  • $216
    FERC-65A 1 1 1 1
  • $72
  • 1
  • $72
  • $72
    FERC-65B 0 1 0 1
  • $72
  • 0
  • $0
  • $0
    Total 9 25
  • $1,800
  • FERC-585 (Reporting of Electric Shortages and Contingency Plans Under PURPA 206)

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0138.

    Abstract: The information collected under the requirements of FERC-585, “Reporting of Electric Energy Shortages and Contingency Plans under PURPA”, is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 206 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1979 (PURPA) Public Law 95-617, 92 Stat. 3117. section 206 of PURPA amended the Federal Power Act (FPA) by adding a new subsection (g) to section 202, under which the Commission by rule, was to require each public utility to (1) report to the Commission and appropriate state regulatory authorities of any anticipated shortages of electric energy or capacity which would affect the utility's capability to serve its wholesale customers; and (2) report to the Commission and any appropriate state regulatory authority contingency plan that would outline what circumstances might give rise to such occurrences.

    In Order No. 575,3 the Commission modified the reporting requirements in 18 CFR 294.101(b) to provide that, if a public utility includes in its rates schedule, provisions that: (a) During electric energy and capacity shortages it will treat firm power wholesale customers without undue discrimination or preference; and (b) it will report any modifications to its contingency plan for accommodating shortages within 15 days to the appropriate state regulatory agency and to the affected wholesale customers, then the utility need not file with the Commission an additional statement of contingency plan for accommodating such shortages. This revision merely changed the reporting mechanism; the public utility's contingency plan would be located in its filed rate rather than in a separate document.

    3 60 FR 4859 (25 Jan 1995).

    In Order No. 659,4 the Commission modified the reporting requirements in 18 CFR 294.101(e) to provide that the means by which public utilities must comply with the requirements to report shortages and anticipated shortages is to submit this information electronically using the Office of Electric Reliability's pager system at [email protected] in lieu of submitting an original and two copies with the Secretary of the Commission.

    4 70 FR 35028 (16 Jun 2005).

    The Commission uses the information to evaluate and formulate an appropriate option for action in the event an unanticipated shortage is reported and/or materializes. Without this information, the Commission and State agencies would be unable to: (1) Examine and approve or modify utility actions, (2) prepare a response to anticipated disruptions in electric energy, and (3) ensure equitable treatment of all public utility customers under the shortage situations. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 294.

    Type of Respondent: Public utilities.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    FERC-585 (Reporting of Electric Shortages and Contingency Plans Under PURPA 206) Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden & cost
  • per response 2
  • Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Contingency Plan 1 1 1 73
  • $5,256
  • 73
  • $5,256
  • $5,256
    Capacity Shortage 1 1 1 0.25
  • $18
  • 0.25
  • $18
  • $18
    TOTAL 73.25
  • $5,274
  • $5,274
    FERC-921 (Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data From Regional Transmission Organization and Independent System Operators)

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0257.

    Abstract: The collection of data in the FERC-921 is an effort by the Commission to detect potential anti-competitive or manipulative behavior or ineffective market rules by requiring Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) 5 to electronically submit, on a continuous basis, data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights, internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Individual datasets that the Commission is requesting may be produced or retained by the market monitoring units (MMUs). The Commission directed each RTO and ISO either to: (1) Request such data from its MMU, so that the RTO or ISO can deliver such data to the Commission; or (2) request its MMU to deliver such data directly to the Commission. Any burden associated with the delivery of such data is counted as burden on the RTO or ISO.

    5 Per Final Rule RM-11-17-000 regionally organized markets would not be required to collect any additional data from market participants; requiring regional organized markets to provide data to the Commission that is already collected.

    Type of Respondent: Regional transmission organizations and independent system operators.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    6 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response. * $100.30 per Hour = Average Cost per Response.

    FERC-921 (Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators) Number of respondents Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden & cost
  • per response 6
  • Total annual
  • recurring
  • operating
  • burden hours
  • & cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 6 1 6 98
  • $9,830
  • 588
  • $58,980
  • $9,830
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08233 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ15-11-000] Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 27, 2015, Orlando Utilities Commission submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Order No. 1000 Interregional Further Regional Compliance Filings, to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 14, 2015.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08228 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12796-004] City of Wadsworth, Ohio; Notice of Teleconference

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Ohio Ecological Services Field Office and West Virginia Field Office (FWS) requested a teleconference regarding Commission staff's March 11, 2015, request for formal consultation on the pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta), eastern fanshell mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria), snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra), sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus), and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) for the proposed R.C. Byrd Hydroelectric Project. The FWS requested a discussion of: (1) The Commission's hydropower licensing process; (2) the recent action listing the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act; (3) FWS' information needs to complete section 7 consultation for listed bats and mussels; and (4) possible solutions to gathering the information needed by FWS.

    The teleconference will be held on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please call Andy Bernick at (202) 502-8660 by Monday, April 13, 2015, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08229 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-3-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-567 and FERC-587); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collections and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the requirements and burden 1 of the information collections described below.

    1 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collections of information are due June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC15-3-000) by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in your comments.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is distinct from the next.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FERC-567, [Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity]

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0005

    Abstract: The Commission uses the information from the FERC-567 to obtain accurate data on pipeline facilities and the peak capacity of these facilities. Additionally, the Commission validates the need for new facilities proposed by pipelines in certificate applications. By modeling an applicant's pipeline system, Commission staff utilizes the FERC-567 data to determine configuration and location of installed pipeline facilities; verify and determine the receipt and delivery points between shippers, producers and pipeline companies; determine the location of receipt and delivery points and emergency interconnections on a pipeline system; determine the location of pipeline segments, laterals and compressor stations on a pipeline system; verify pipeline segment lengths and pipeline diameters; justify the maximum allowable operating pressures and suction and discharge pressures at compressor stations; verify the installed horsepower and volumes compressed at each compressor station; determine the existing shippers and producers currently using each pipeline company; verify peak capacity on the system; and develop and evaluate alternatives to the proposed facilities as a means to mitigate environmental impact of new pipeline construction.

    18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260.8(a) requires each major natural gas pipeline with a system delivery capacity exceeding 100,000 Mcf 2 per day to submit by June 1 of each year, diagrams reflecting operating conditions on the pipeline's main transmission system during the previous 12 months ended December 31. These physical/engineering data are not included as part of any other data collection requirement.

    2 “Mcf” is an abbreviation denoting a thousand cubic feet of natural gas.

    Type of Respondent: Applicants proposing hydropower projects on (or changes to existing projects located within) lands owned by the United States.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    FERC-567: Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden hours
  • & cost per
  • response 3
  • Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)÷(1) FERC-567 93 1 93 3 279 $216 Applicants $216 $20,088 3 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $72 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the FERC average salary. Subject matter experts found that industry employment costs closely resemble FERC's regarding the FERC-567 information collection.
    FERC-587, [Land Description (Public Land States/Non-Public Land States [Rectangular or Non-Rectangular Survey System Lands in Public Land States])]

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0145

    Abstract: The Commission requires the FERC-587 information collection to satisfy the requirements of section 24 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The Federal Power Act grants the Commission authority to issue licenses for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from or in any of the steams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction.4 The Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) amends the FPA to allow the Commission the responsibility of issuing licenses for nonfederal hydroelectric plants.5 Section 24 of the FPA requires that applicants proposing hydropower projects on (or changes to existing projects located within) lands owned by the United States to provide a description of the applicable U.S. land. Additionally, the FPA requires the notification of the Commission and Secretary of the Interior of the hydropower proposal. FERC-587 consolidates the information required and identifies hydropower project boundary maps associated with the applicable U.S. land.

    4 16 U.S.C. Section 797d (2010).

    5 Public Law 99-495, 100 Stat. 1243 (1996).

    The information consolidated by the Form No. 587 verifies the accuracy of the information provided for the FERC-587 to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Moreover, this information ensures that U.S. lands can be reserved as hydropower sites and withdrawn from other uses.

    Type of Respondent: Applicants proposing hydropower projects on (or changes to existing projects located within) lands owned by the United States.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    FERC-587: Land Description (Public Land States/Non-Public Land States [Rectangular or Non-Rectangular Survey System Lands in Public Land States]) Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden &
  • cost per
  • response 3
  • Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)÷(1) Hydropower 137 1 137 1 137 $72 Project Applicants $72 $9,864
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08234 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1442-000] Municipal Energy of PA, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Municipal Energy of PA, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is April 23, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08225 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, LLC. (PJM):

    PJM Planning Committee

    April 9, 2015, 9:30 a.m.—12:00 p.m. (EST)

    PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee

    April 9, 2015, 11:00 a.m.—3:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meetings will be held at: PJM Conference and Training Center, PJM Interconnection, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon, PA 19403.

    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders. Further information may be found at www.pjm.com.

    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket Nos. ER15-738 and ER15-739, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER15-596, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER15-33, et al., The Dayton Power and Light Company Docket No. ER15-994, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-639, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-61, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and American Transmission Systems Incorporated Docket No. ER14-2867, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, et al., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-972 and ER14-1485, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-1485, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-2864, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-198, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-1960, ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool Participants Committee Docket No. ER13-1957, ISO New England, Inc. et al. Docket No. ER13-195, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners Docket No. ER13-1947, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-1946, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1945, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1944, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-1943, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1942, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1926, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Duquesne Light Company Docket No. ER13-1924, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Duquesne Light Company Docket No. ER15-1387, PJM Transmission Owners Docket No. EL15-40, Public Service Electric and Gas Company v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-18, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL11-54, Buckeye Power, Inc. v. American Transmission Systems Incorporated Docket EL15-41, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC et al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    For more information, contact the following: Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (202) 502-6604, [email protected]; Alina Halay, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (202) 502-6474, [email protected]

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08235 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1400-000] Erie Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Erie Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is April 23, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08227 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Docket Numbers: EC15-110-000.

    Applicants: Cleco Partners L.P., Cleco Power LLC, Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C., Attala Transmission LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Order Authorizing Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Cleco Power LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5320.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-111-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    Description: Joint Application for Authority to Acquire Transmission Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA of American Transmission Company LLC and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5323.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-112-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    Description: Joint Application for Authority to Acquire Transmission Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA of American Transmission Company LLC and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5324.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-113-000.

    Applicants: FortisUS Energy Corporation.

    Description: Application of FortisUS Energy Corporation Pursuant to FPA Section 203.

    Filed Date: 4/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150403-5090.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2719-020; ER10-2718-020; ER10-2633-018; ER10-2717-018; ER10-3140-017; ER13-55-008; ER10-2570-018.

    Applicants: East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.C., Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., Birchwood Power Partners, L.P., EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P., Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the GE Companies under ER10-2719, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150403-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1874-001; ER14-95-001.

    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status submitted by American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of the AEP East Operating Companies and AEP Generation Resources, Inc.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5748.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-960-000.

    Applicants: CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to February 2, 2015 CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5746.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1443-000.

    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Power Coordination Agreement Amendment to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5302.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1444-000.

    Applicants: Wheeling Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Power Coordination Agreement Concurrence to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5303.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1445-000.

    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): System Integration Agreement Amendment to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5304.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1446-000.

    Applicants: Wheeling Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): System Integration Agreement Concurrence to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5305.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1447-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Georgia Cogen L.P.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 6/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150403-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1448-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2825R3 KMEA and Westar Energy Meter Agent Agreement to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150403-5039.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1449-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(1): Formula Rate Revision Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150403-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1450-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2998 RPM Access and Westar Energy Meter Agent Agreement to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150403-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    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 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08224 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP15-117-000; PF14-10-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 19, 2015, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP15-117-000, an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authority to construct and operate its Dalton Expansion Project. Specifically, Transco request to construct approximately 111.2 miles of new pipeline and install a new 21,830 horsepower compressor station in Carroll County, Georgia. The proposal will provide 448 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day of firm capacity on Transco's system. The estimated cost of the project is $471.9 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call (202) 502-8659 or TTY, (202) 208-3676.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Ingrid Germany, Regulatory Analyst, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251, by phone: (713) 215-4015 or email: [email protected] In addition, Transco has established a toll-free phone number 1-866-455-9103 so that parties can call with questions about the Project and an email support address [email protected]

    On April 11, 2014 (CHECK THE DATE), the Commission staff granted the Transco's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-10-000 to staff activities involved the Dalton Expansion Project. Now as of filing the March 19, 2015 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP15-117-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the environmental assessment (EA) for this proposal. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: April 23, 2015.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08231 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-90-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gulf Markets Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Gulf Markets Expansion Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Lavaca County, Texas; St. Landry, Pointe Coupee, and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana; Scioto, Ohio; Bath County, Kentucky; Giles County, Tennessee; and Monroe and Franklin Counties, Mississippi. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on May 4, 2015.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What do I Need to Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    The purpose of the Project would be to provide 650,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas to the Gulf Coast region of Louisiana and Texas from the natural gas basins in the Northeast and Texas. The Project would consist of the following facility modifications:

    • At the Wheelersburg Compressor Station in Scioto County, Ohio to allow for bi-directional compression on six, existing 2,500 horsepower (HP) compressor units;

    • at the Owingsville Compressor Station in Bath County, Kentucky to allow for bi-directional compression;

    • at the Mt. Pleasant Compressor Station in Giles County, Tennessee to allow for support of bi-directional compression;

    • at the Egypt Compressor Station in Monroe County, Mississippi to allow for support of bi-directional compression;

    • at the existing launchers and receivers at milepost (MP) 231.16, south of the Union Church Compressor Station in Franklin County, Mississippi to allow for bi-directional in-line inspection;

    • at the Gillis County Compressor Station in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana to allow for bi-directional compression;

    • at the existing Opelousas Compressor Station in Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, to allow for bi-directional compression, and installation of an additional 12,500 HP electric-driven compressor unit;

    • at two existing metering and regulating (M&R) locations at Lottie and New Roads Township in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana (M&R 71287 and M&R 71424) additions of gas chromatographs; and

    • at the new Provident City Compressor Station in Lavaca County, Texas, installation of a new 5,280 HP compressor unit.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    The total land requirement for construction and operation of the Project is about 50 acres, of which 21 acres would be permanently affected by the facilities operation.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project under these general headings:

    • geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water bodies, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species; and

    • public safety.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Native American tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the Project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the Project develops. On natural gas projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this Project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status on consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places.

    Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before May 4, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the Project docket number (CP15-90-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected].

    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing;” or

    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental groups and non-governmental organizations; interested Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the compact disc version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-90). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets.

    This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08230 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 349-173] Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 349), located on the Tallapoosa River in Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore Counties, Alabama, and has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (final EIS) for the project. The project occupies 1.39 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

    The final EIS contains staff evaluations of the applicant's proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project. The final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff.

    A copy of the final EIS is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The final EIS also may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “e-Library” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    For further information, please contact Stephen Bowler at (202) 502-6861 or at [email protected]

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08232 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1447-000] Mid-Georgia Cogen L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Mid-Georgia Cogen L.P.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is April 23, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08226 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9020-4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 03/30/2015 Through 04/03/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20150092, Final EIS, BOP, KS,Leavenworth Federal Correctional Institution and Federal Prison Camp, Review Period Ends: 05/11/2015, Contact: Issac Gaston 202-514-6470. EIS No. 20150093, Draft EIS, FERC, CA,Hydropower Licenses—Merced River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2179-043) and Merced Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2467-020), Comment Period Ends: 05/29/2015, Contact: Matt Buhyoff 202-502-6824. EIS No. 20150094, Final EIS, FERC, AL,Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 349-173, Review Period Ends: 05/11/2015, Contact: Stephen Bowler 202-502-6861. EIS No. 20150095, Draft EIS, FTA, WA,Federal Way Link Extension, Comment Period Ends: 05/26/2015, Contact: James Saxton 206-220-7954. EIS No. 20150096, Draft EIS, NPS, HI,Kalaupapa National Historical Park Draft General Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 06/08/2015, Contact: Erika Stein Espaniola 808-567-6802. EIS No. 20150097, Second Final Supplement, USFS, UT,Ogden Ranger District Travel Plan Revision, Review Period Ends: 05/14/2015, Contact: Sendi Kalcic 435-755-3633. EIS No. 20150098, Draft EIS, USMC, DC,Multiple Projects in Support of Marine Barracks in Washington, DC, Comment Period Ends: 05/26/2015, Contact: Katherine Childs 202-685-0164. EIS No. 20150099, Final Supplement, BR, ND,Northwest Area Water Supply Project, Review Period Ends: 05/11/2015, Contact: Alicia Waters 701-221-1206. EIS No. 20150100, Final EIS, AFS, WA,Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment, Review Period Ends: 05/26/2015, Contact: Phyllis Reed 360-436-2332. EIS No. 20150101, Final EIS, BLM, CO,Grand Junction Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 05/11/2015, Contact: Christina Stark 970-244-3027. EIS No. 20150102, Draft EIS, USACE, OH,Western Lake Erie Basin, Blanchard River Watershed Study, Comment Period Ends: 05/26/2015, Contact: Michael Pniewski 1-888-833-6390. Dated: April 7, 2015. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08325 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Submission for OMB Review AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final notice of submission for OMB review.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission announces that it is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension without change of the existing recordkeeping requirements under 29 CFR part 1602 et seq., Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements under Title VII, the ADA, and GINA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR and applicable supporting documentation submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from: Erin N. Norris, Senior Attorney, (202) 663-4876, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Comments on this notice must be submitted to Chad Lallemand in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to Mr. Lallemand's attention at [email protected] Copies of comments should also be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. All comments received through this portal will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide. Copies of comments submitted by the public to EEOC directly or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal will be available for review, by advance appointment only, at the Commission's library between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time or can be reviewed at http://www.regulations.gov. To schedule an appointment to inspect the comments at EEOC's library, contact the library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663-4668, or Erin N. Norris, Senior Attorney, (202) 663-4876, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2015 (80 FR 4917), allowing for a 60-day public comment period. One comment was received; however, it did not address recordkeeping or the specific requirements in 29 CFR part 1602, but rather appeared to concern a federal EEO complaint filed by the commenter. As such, the comment was deemed non-responsive, and its contents were not considered in regards to this information collection. To protect the personal privacy of the commenter, EEOC is electing not to post the non-responsive comment on regulations.gov.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Collection title: Recordkeeping under Title VII, the ADA, and GINA.

    OMB Control number: 3046-0040.

    Description of affected public: Employers with 15 or more employees are subject to Title VII, the ADA, and GINA.

    Number of responses: 914,843.

    Reporting hours: Not applicable.

    Number of forms: None.

    Federal cost: None.

    Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12117(a), and section 207 of GINA, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-6 require the Commission to establish regulations pursuant to which employers subject to those Acts shall make and preserve certain records to assist the EEOC in assuring compliance with the Acts' nondiscrimination in employment requirements. This is a recordkeeping requirement. Any of the records maintained which are subsequently disclosed to the EEOC during an investigation are protected from public disclosure by the confidentiality provisions of section 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII which are also incorporated by reference into the ADA at section 107(a) and GINA at section 207.

    Burden statement: The estimated number of respondents is 914,843 employers. An employer subject to the recordkeeping requirement in 29 CFR part 1602 must retain all personnel or employment records made or kept by that employer for one year, and must retain any records relevant to charges filed under Title VII, the ADA, or GINA until final disposition of those matters, which may be longer than one year. This recordkeeping requirement does not require reports or the creation of new documents, but merely requires retention of documents that an employer has already made or kept in the normal course of its business operations. Thus, existing employers bear no burden under this analysis, because their systems for retaining personnel and employment records are already in place. Newly formed firms may incur a small burden when setting up their data collection systems to ensure compliance with EEOC's recordkeeping requirements. We assume some effort and time must be expended by employers to familiarize themselves with the Title VII, ADA, and GINA recordkeeping requirements and inform staff about those requirements. We estimate that 30 minutes would be needed for this one-time familiarization process. Using 2011 data from the Small Business Administration, we estimate that there are 82,516 firms that would incur this start-up burden. Assuming a 30 minute burden per firm, the total annual hour burden is 41,258 hours.

    OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission'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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    For the Commission.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Jenny R. Yang, Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08278 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1189 and 3060-xxxx] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before May 11, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1189.

    Title: Signal Boosters, Sections 1.1307(b)(1), 20.3, 20.21(a)(2), *5749 20.21(a)(5), 20.21(e)(2), 20.21(e)(8)(I)(G), 20.21(e)(9)(I)(H), 20.21(f), 20.21(h), 22.9, 24.9, 27.9. 90.203, 90.219(b)(l)(I), 90.219(d)(5), and 90.219(e)(5).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not for profit institutions and Individuals or household.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 632,595 respondents and 635,215 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours-40 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, On occasion reporting requirement and Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(I), 303(g), 303(r) and 332.

    Total Annual Burden: 324,470 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: This information collection affects individuals or households; thus, there are impacts under the Privacy Act. However, the government is not directly collecting this information and the R&O directs carriers to protect the information to the extent it is considered Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: On September 19, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopted an Order on Reconsideration in WT Docket No. 10-4, FCC No. 14-138, in which it took the following action, among others: Required that Consumer Signal Boosters certified for fixed operation only be labeled to notify consumers that such devices may only be used in fixed, in-building locations. Therefore, the new labeling requirement which requires OMB review and approval is as follows:

    The labeling requirement is covered under 47 section 20.21(f)(1)(iv)(A)(2). The new requirement is needed in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed about which devices are suitable for their use and how to comply with our rules, the Commission required that all Consumer Signal Boosters certified for fixed, in-building operation include a label directing consumers that the device may only be operated in a fixed, in-building location. The Verizon Petitioners state that this additional labeling requirement is necessary to inform purchasers of fixed Consumer Signal Boosters that they may not lawfully be installed and operated in a moving vehicle or outdoor location. We recognize that our labeling requirement imposes additional costs on entities that manufacture Consumer Signal Boosters; however, on balance, we find that such costs are outweighed by the benefits of ensuring that consumers purchase appropriate devices. Accordingly, all fixed Consumer Signal Boosters, both Provider-Specific and Wideband, manufactured or imported on or after one year from the effective date of the rule change must include the following advisory (1) in on-line point-of-sale marketing materials, (2) in any print or on-line owner's manual and installation instructions, (3) on the outside packaging of the device, and (4) on a label affixed to the device: “This device may be operated ONLY in a fixed location for in-building use.”

    OMB Control Number: 3060-xxxx.

    Title: Section 73.1216, Licensee-Conducted Contests.

    Form Number: None. (Complaints alleging violations of the Contest Rule generally are filed on FCC Forms 2000E, 2000A or 2000F (OMB Control Number 3060 0874)).

    Type of Review: Existing information collection in use without an OMB Control Number.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 20,481 respondents; 20,481 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .25-9 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 209,930 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $6,144,300.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 1, 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission adopted the Contest Rule in 1976 to address concerns about the manner in which broadcast stations were conducting contests over the air. The Contest Rule generally requires stations to broadcast material contest terms fully and accurately the first time the audience is told how to participate in a contest, and periodically thereafter. In addition, stations must conduct contests substantially as announced. These information collection requirements are necessary to ensure that broadcast licensees conduct contests with due regard for the public interest.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08179 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0028, 3064-0097, 3064-0121, 3064-0134, 3064-0151) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collections described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, (202.898.3877), MB-3074 or John Popeo, Counsel, (202.898.6923), MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary A. Kuiper or John W. Popeo, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:

    1. Title: Recordkeeping and Confirmation Requirements for Securities Transactions.

    OMB Number: 3064-0028.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Business or Other Financial Institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4534.

    Estimated Time per Response: 27.91 hours.

    Total Annual Burden: 126,544 hours.

    General Description of Collection: The information collection requirements are contained in 12 CFR part 344. The regulation's purpose is to ensure that purchasers of securities in transactions effected by insured state nonmember banks are provided with adequate records concerning the transactions. The regulation is also designed to ensure that insured state nonmember banks maintain adequate records and controls with respect to the securities transactions they effect.

    2. Title: Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Executive Officer.

    OMB Number: 3064-0097.

    Affected Public: Business or Other Financial Institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 840.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1680 hours.

    General Description of Collection: Certain insured state nonmember banks must notify the FDIC of the addition of a director or the employment of a senior executive officer.

    3. Title: Certification of Compliance with Mandatory Bars to Employment.

    OMB Number: 3064-0121.

    Form Number: FDIC 7300/06.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Business or Other Financial Institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Total Annual Burden: 100 hours.

    General Description of Collection: Prior to an offer of employment, job applicants to the FDIC must sign a certification that they have not been convicted of a felony or been in other circumstances that prohibit person from becoming employed by or providing services to the FDIC.

    4. Title: Customer Assistance.

    OMB Number: 3064-0134.

    Form Number: FDIC 6422/04.

    Affected Public: Individuals, Households, Business or Financial Institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours.

    Total Annual Burden: 7500 hours.

    General Description of Collection: This collection facilitates the collection of information from customers of financial institutions who have inquiries or complaints about service. Customers may document their complaints or inquiries to the FDIC using a letter or an optional form (Form 6422/04). The Form is used to facilitate online completion and submission of the form and to shorten FDIC response times by making it easier to identify the nature of the complaint and to route the customer inquiry to the appropriate FDIC contact.

    5. Title: Notice Regarding Assessment Credits.

    OMB Number: 3064-0151.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: FDIC-insured institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 8 hours.

    General Description of Collection: FDIC-insured institutions must notify the FDIC if deposit insurance assessment credits are transferred, e.g., through a sale of the credits or through a merger, in order to obtain recognition of the transfer.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 6th day of April 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08192 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10014, Ameribank, Inc., Northfolk, West Virginia

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Ameribank, Inc., Northfolk, West Virginia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Ameribank, Inc. on September 19, 2008. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08191 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting; Correction AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Maritime Commission published a document in the Federal Register on April 8, 2015, concerning the April 13, 2015 Sunshine Act Meeting. The document contained incorrect status.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Gregory, (202) 523-5725.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 8, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-08184, on page 18842, in the first column, correct the “Status” caption to read:

    Status: The meeting will be held in Closed Session. Dated: April 8, 2015. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08396 Filed 4-8-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the notices must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 27, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. CITIC Group Corporation, Beijing, People's Republic of China; CITIC Glory Limited and CITIC Polaris Limited, both of Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands; CITIC Limited, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China; and CITIC Corporation Limited, Beijing; to (i) retain CLSA Americas, LLC, New York, New York, and thereby engage in financial and investment advisory activities, and agency transactional services for customer investments, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6) and (b)(7), respectively; and (ii) engage de novo through CITIC Securities International USA, LLC, New York, New York, in financial and investment advisory activities, agency transactional services for customer investments, investment transactions as principal, and community development activities, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8), and (b)(12), respectively.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 7, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08282 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 5, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:

    1. ESB Bancorp, Inc., Easthampton, Massachusetts; to merge with Citizens National Bancorp, Inc. and thereby acquire, The Citizens National Bank, both of Putnam, Connecticut.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

    1. Howard Bancorp, Inc., Ellicott City, Maryland; to acquire all of the voting securities of Patapsco Bancorp, Inc., Dundalk, Maryland, and thereby indirectly acquire The Patapsco Bank, Dundalk, Maryland.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 6, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08176 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 27, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. The Delle Foundation, Susan J. Seestrom, Robert D. Castille, all in Los Alamos, New Mexico; and Jeffrey F. Howell, Austin, Texas; to retain voting shares of Trinity Capital Corporation, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Los Alamos National Bank, both in Los Alamos, New Mexico.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 7, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08283 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Assessing the Impact of the National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS Master Training Program.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Project Assessing the Impact of the National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS Master Training Program

    AHRQ, in collaboration with the Department of Defense's (DoD) Tricare Management Activity (TMA), developed TeamSTEPPS® (“Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety”) to provide an evidence-based suite of tools and strategies for teaching teamwork-based patient safety to health care professionals. In 2007, AHRQ and DoD coordinated the national implementation of the TeamSTEPPS Program. The main objective of this program is to improve patient safety by training a select group of stakeholders such as Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) personnel, High Reliability Organization (HRO) staff, and health care system staff in various teamwork, communication, and patient safety concepts, tools, and techniques. Ultimately TeamSTEPPS will help to build a national and state-level infrastructure for supporting teamwork-based patient safety efforts in health care organizations.

    The National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS Master Training Program includes the training of “Master Trainers” in various health care systems capable of stimulating the utilization and adoption of TeamSTEPPS in their health care delivery systems, providing technical assistance and consultation on implementing TeamSTEPPS, and developing various channels of learning (e.g., user networks, various educational venues) for continuing support and improvement of teamwork in health care. AHRQ has already trained a corps of over 5,000 participants to serve as the Master Trainer infrastructure supporting national adoption of TeamSTEPPS. An anticipated 2,400 participants who are registering for the program will be studied in this assessment. Participants in training become Master Trainers in TeamSTEPPS and are afforded the opportunity to observe the program's tools and strategies in action. In addition to developing a corps of Master Trainers, AHRQ has also developed a series of support mechanisms for this effort including a data collection Web tool, a TeamSTEPPS call support center, and a monthly consortium to address any challenges encountered implementing TeamSTEPPS.

    Participants applied to the program as teams representing their organizations and were accepted as training participants after having completed an organizational readiness assessment. Due to the differences among the types of organizations participating in the program, each participant has a different potential to apply tools and concepts within and/or beyond their home organizations. For example:

    • Health care system staff (or implementers) from hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, large physician practices, and other direct care organizations are more likely than other participants to implement the TeamSTEPPS materials on a daily basis and will be more likely to affect specific work processes being conducted within an organization. As a result, health care system participants are likely to have a focused and specific impact that is limited to their organization.

    • QIO\HRO\Hospital Association\State Health Department participants (or facilitators) will be more likely to have both an in-depth and broad impact if they use the TeamSTEPPS materials to assist a particular organization inits patient safety activities, as well as to provide general patient safety guidance to a large number of organizations.

    To clarify the differences among the participants, a logic model has been developed that highlights the roles of the different types of participants, the types of activities in which they are likely to engage post-training, and the potential outcomes that may stem from these activities. The logic model served as a guide for developing questions for a web-based questionnaire and qualitative interviews to ensure that participant and leadership feedback is captured as thoroughly and accurately as possible.

    AHRQ is conducting an ongoing evaluation of the National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS Master Training Program. The goals of this evaluation are to examine the extent to which training participants have been able to:

    (1) Implement the TeamSTEPPS products, concepts, tools, and techniques in their home organizations and,

    (2) the extent to which participants have spread that training, knowledge, and skills to their organizations, local areas, regions, and states.

    The National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS program is led by AHRQ through its contractor, the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET). This study is being conducted by HRET's subcontractor, IMPAQ International. The work is being conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research, evaluations, and training on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

    Method of Collection

    To achieve the goals of this assessment the following two data collections will be implemented:

    (1) Training participant questionnaires to examine post-training activities and teamwork outcomes as a result of training from multiple perspectives. The questionnaire is directed to all Master Training participants, and will cover post-training activities, implementation experiences, facilitators and barriers to implementation encountered, and perceived outcomes as a result of these activities. Advance notice, invitations to participate, reminder emails, and thank you letters to respondents are included in the participant questionnaire.

    (2) Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with members from organizations who participated in the TeamSTEPPS Master Training Program. Information gathered from these interviews will be analyzed and used to draft a “lessons learned” document that will capture additional detail on the issues related to participants' and organizations' abilities to implement and disseminate TeamSTEPPS post-training. The organizations will vary in terms of type of organization (e.g., QIO or hospital associations versus health care systems) and region (i.e., Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, West Coast). In addition, we will strive to ensure that the distribution of organizations mirrors the distribution of organizations in the Master Training population. For example, if the distribution of organizations is such that only one out of every five organizations is a QIO, we will ensure that a maximum of two organizations in the site visit sample are QIOs. The interviews will more accurately reveal the degree of training spread for the organizations included. Interviewees will be drawn from qualified individuals serving in one of two roles (i.e., implementers or facilitators). The interview protocol will be adapted for each role based on the respondent group and to some degree, for each individual, based on their training and patient safety experience. There is also an informed consent form that each participant will be required to sign prior to beginning the interview.

    The final product for this evaluation will be a report that documents the background, methodology, results (including any patterns or themes emerging from the data), limitations of the study, and recommendations for future training programs and tool development. The results of this evaluation will help AHRQ understand the extent to which participants and participating organizations have been able to employ various TeamSTEPPS tools and concepts and the barriers and facilitators they encountered. This information will help guide AHRQ in developing and refining other patient safety tools and future training programs for patient safety.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the study. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a maximum of 9 individuals from each of 9 participating organizations and will last about one hour each. The training participant questionnaire will be completed by approximately 10 individuals from each of about 240 organizations and is estimated to require 20 minutes to complete. The total annualized burden is estimated to be 881 hours.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in the study. The total cost burden is estimated to be $39,240.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Semi-structured interview 9 9 60/60 81 Training participant questionnaire 240 10 20/60 800 Total 249 NA NA 881
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total burden hours Average
  • hourly wage
  • rate*
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Semi-structured interview 9 81 $44.54 $3,608 Training participant questionnaire 240 800 44.54 35,632 Total 249 881 NA 39,240 * Based upon the mean of the average wages for all health professionals (29-0000) for the training participant questionnaire and for executives, administrators, and managers for the organizational leader questionnaire presented in the National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, May 2013, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm 35.93 53.15.
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 31, 2015. Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07700 Filed 4-09-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier CMS-10141] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</