Federal Register Vol. 80, No.71,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 71 (April 14, 2015)

Page Range19869-20147
FR Document

80_FR_71
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 20043 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 3301(h)PDF
80 FR 20043 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To Specify That Affiliated Exchange ETP Holders May Request That the Exchange Aggregate Its Eligible Activity With Activity of the ETP Holder's Affiliates for Purposes of Charges or Credits Based on VolumePDF
80 FR 19869 - Delegation of Authority To Transfer Certain Funds in Accordance With Section 610 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 19988 - Sunshine Act; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19967 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19980 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 20057 - In the Matter of Triumph Ventures Corp.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 20049 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 20057 - Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 19994 - Injury Prevention Program; Announcement; New and Competing Continuation Cooperative AgreementPDF
80 FR 19956 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing a Marek's Disease Vaccine, Serotype 1, Live VirusPDF
80 FR 19956 - Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health; MeetingPDF
80 FR 19955 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing a Marek's Disease-Newcastle Disease Vaccine, Serotype 3, Live Marek's Disease VectorPDF
80 FR 19974 - Request for Information: Updating and Improving the DOE Methodology for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Building Energy CodesPDF
80 FR 19885 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meeting and WebinarPDF
80 FR 19972 - DOE Participation in Development of the International Energy Conservation CodePDF
80 FR 19991 - Administration for Native Americans; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 20061 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Repatriation/Emergency Medical and Dietary Assistance Loan ApplicationPDF
80 FR 20011 - Addition to the Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract ActionsPDF
80 FR 20060 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evacuee Manifest and Promissory NotePDF
80 FR 20010 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/WashingtonPDF
80 FR 19965 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 19958 - Production Activity Not Authorized; Foreign-Trade Zone 57-Charlotte, North Carolina; Gildan Yarns, LLC; (Cotton, Cotton/Polyester Yarns); Salisbury, North CarolinaPDF
80 FR 19961 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 19958 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 50-Long Beach, California; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Motor Vehicles); Long Beach, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 19982 - Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control ActPDF
80 FR 19889 - Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company, Model HA-420 HondaJet, Lithium-Ion BatteriesPDF
80 FR 19959 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 63 Under Alternative Site Framework; Prince George's County, MarylandPDF
80 FR 19958 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 286; (Expansion of Service Area); Under Alternative Site Framework; Caledonia, Essex and Orleans Counties, VermontPDF
80 FR 20010 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 19964 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 19960 - Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 20020 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
80 FR 19960 - Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 20003 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Office of Training and Workforce Engagement Canine Training and Evaluation Branch End of Course Level 1 Evaluation (Formerly Named: National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program Handler Training Assessment Survey)PDF
80 FR 20017 - University of Michigan's Ford Nuclear Reactor FacilityPDF
80 FR 19959 - Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 19959 - Transportation And Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 19960 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 19971 - Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, 2.0, for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Voting System Testing and Certification ProgramPDF
80 FR 20018 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency ChangesPDF
80 FR 20031 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency ChangesPDF
80 FR 20003 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Security Programs for Foreign Air CarriersPDF
80 FR 20005 - Establishment of the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee: Solicitation of Appointment NominationsPDF
80 FR 20004 - Advance Notice of Digital Opportunity Demonstration; Additional Contact InformationPDF
80 FR 20005 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Service Coordinators in Multifamily HousingPDF
80 FR 20007 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Rent Reform Demonstration (Task Order 2)PDF
80 FR 20009 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Voucher Management System (VMS)PDF
80 FR 19972 - Procedural Manual for the Election Assistance Commission's Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Version 2.0PDF
80 FR 20001 - Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Public InputPDF
80 FR 19967 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 20081 - National Research Advisory Council; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19990 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, SEP; Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 19990 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 19988 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 19989 - Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)PDF
80 FR 19989 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP); Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 19989 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, BSC, OIDPDF
80 FR 19990 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BSC, NIOSHPDF
80 FR 19981 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 19979 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 19970 - Independent Review Panel on Military Medical Construction Standards; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 20012 - Certain Variable Valve Actuation Devices and Automobiles Containing the Same Institution of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 19941 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
80 FR 20013 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification To Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
80 FR 20078 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13382, 13573, and 13582PDF
80 FR 20060 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
80 FR 20061 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for the Update of an Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 20015 - Employment and Training AdministrationPDF
80 FR 19901 - Proposed Establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area and Realignment of the Columbia Valley Viticultural AreaPDF
80 FR 20011 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 20073 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Capital DistributionPDF
80 FR 20074 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Subordinated DebtPDF
80 FR 20075 - Agency Information Collection Requirements; Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Release of Non-Public InformationPDF
80 FR 19908 - Proposed Establishment of the Eagle Foothills Viticultural AreaPDF
80 FR 19895 - Proposed Establishment of the Lamorinda Viticultural AreaPDF
80 FR 20077 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; International RegulationPDF
80 FR 20076 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Investment SecuritiesPDF
80 FR 19991 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 20062 - Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mercedes-Benz Usa, LLCPDF
80 FR 20065 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Maserati North America Inc.PDF
80 FR 19982 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Drug Testing for Contractor Employees (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 19883 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LAPDF
80 FR 19884 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chef Menteur Pass, Lake Catherine, LAPDF
80 FR 19992 - National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19993 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19992 - Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 20015 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Ventilation Plans, Tests and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines [OMB Control No. 1219-0088]PDF
80 FR 20083 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Seismic Survey in the Beaufort Sea, AlaskaPDF
80 FR 20064 - Data Modernization Sampling InformationPDF
80 FR 19957 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19966 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 20066 - Hazardous Materials: Explosive Approvals-Applicant Contact Information and Compliance With Special Provision 347PDF
80 FR 19931 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
80 FR 19932 - Revisions to the California SIP, Ventura & Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control Districts; Permit ExemptionsPDF
80 FR 20001 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 20058 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the ICC Risk Management FrameworkPDF
80 FR 20043 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13-Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and ModifiersPDF
80 FR 20032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to List and Trade Options on the MSCI EAFE Index and on the MSCI Emerging Markets IndexPDF
80 FR 20035 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify NASDAQ Rule 7051 Fees Relating to Pricing for Direct Circuit ConnectionsPDF
80 FR 20041 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Ownership and Control ReportsPDF
80 FR 20053 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and ModifiersPDF
80 FR 20049 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Adopting a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Specialists and e-Specialists by Deleting Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NYPDF
80 FR 20047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Settlement FinalityPDF
80 FR 20038 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of WisdomTree Put Write Strategy Fund Under Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)PDF
80 FR 19985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0186)PDF
80 FR 19985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0179, 3064-0185)PDF
80 FR 19983 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 19984 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 20079 - Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC); NominationsPDF
80 FR 20081 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint CommitteePDF
80 FR 20081 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 20080 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 20079 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 20080 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 20079 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 20080 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects CommitteePDF
80 FR 20014 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
80 FR 20013 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Comments Requested: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)PDF
80 FR 20014 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New Collection; Private Industry Feedback SurveyPDF
80 FR 19986 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19935 - Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standards for the Libby, Montana Nonattainment AreaPDF
80 FR 19876 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19873 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
80 FR 19914 - Standards Governing the Design of Curbside MailboxesPDF
80 FR 19886 - Surety Bond Guarantee Program; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 19941 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead SuckerPDF
80 FR 19953 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final Determination on the Proposed Threatened Status for the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of FisherPDF
80 FR 19878 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19892 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 20115 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Test Procedures for Consumer and Commercial Water HeatersPDF
80 FR 19881 - Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19871 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited AirplanesPDF

Issue

80 71 Tuesday, April 14, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau PROPOSED RULES Viticultural Areas: Eagle Foothills; Establishment, 19908-19914 2015-08496 Lamorinda; Establishment, 19895-19900 2015-08495 Lewis-Clark Valley, Establishment; Columbia Valley, Realignment, 19901-19908 2015-08501 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Field Testing a Marek's Disease Vaccine, Serotype 1, Live Virus, 19956-19957 2015-08604 Field Testing a Marek's Disease-Newcastle Disease Vaccine, Serotype 3, Live Marek's Disease Vector, 19955-19956 2015-08602 Meetings: Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health, 19956 2015-08603 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 19990-19991 2015-08517 Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, 19989 2015-08518 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 19988-19990 2015-08521 2015-08522 2015-08523 2015-08519 Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 19989-19990 2015-08520 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Child Care Quarterly Case Record Report, 19991 2015-08492 Meetings: Administration for Native Americans Tribal Consultation, 19991-19992 2015-08598 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Chef Menteur Pass, Lake Catherine, LA, 19884 2015-08487 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA, 19883-19884 2015-08488 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19957-19958 2015-08473
Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Capital Distribution, 20073-20074 2015-08499 International Regulation, 20077-20078 2015-08494 Investment Securities, 20076-20077 2015-08493 Release of Non-Public Information, 20075-20076 2015-08497 Subordinated Debt, 20074-20075 2015-08498 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Arms Sales, 19967-19970 2015-08525 Meetings: Independent Review Panel on Military Medical Construction Standards, 19970-19971 2015-08512 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Procedural Manuals: Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, 2.0; Voting System Testing and Certification Program, 19971-19972 2015-08567 Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Version 2.0, 19972 2015-08534 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Funding Availability: Workforce Data Quality Initiative—Round V Grants, 20015 2015-08502 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Standards and Test Procedures for Residential Appliances and Commercial Equipment; Meeting, 19885-19886 2015-08600 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Test Procedures for Consumer and Commercial Water Heaters, 20116-20147 2015-07932
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Development of the International Energy Conservation Code, 19972-19974 2015-08599 Requests for Information: Updating and Improving the Methodology for Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of Building Energy Codes, 19974-19979 2015-08601 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast Air Quality Management District, 19931-19932 2015-08469 California; Ventura and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control Districts; Permit Exemptions, 19932-19935 2015-08467 Montana; Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standards for the Libby, MT, Nonattainment Area, 19935-19941 2015-08405 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Drug Testing for Contractor Employees, 19982-19983 2015-08489 Test Data under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 19982 2015-08588 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters, 19873-19876 2015-08384 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes, 19871-19873 2015-07800 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 19876-19878 2015-08389 PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes, 19881-19883 2015-07858 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 19878-19881 2015-08137 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 19892-19895 2015-08071 Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Co., Model HA-420 HondaJet, Lithium-Ion Batteries, 19889-19892 2015-08586 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceedings, 19941 2015-08510 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19983-19985 2015-08442 2015-08443 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19985-19986 2015-08445 2015-08446 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 19979-19982 2015-08515 2015-08516 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19980-19981 2015-08647 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20061-20062 2015-08503 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19986-19988 2015-08406 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19988 2015-08675 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Fisher; West Coast Distinct Population Segment; 6-Month Extension of Final Determination on Status, 19953-19954 2015-08275 Zuni Bluehead Sucker; Critical Habitat Designation, 19941-19953 2015-08277 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 20078 2015-08506 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Foreign-Trade Zone 50, Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Long Beach, CA, 19958 2015-08590 Foreign-Trade Zone 57, Gildan Yarns, LLC, Charlotte, NC; Disapproval, 19958 2015-08592 Reorganizations under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 286, Caledonia, Essex, and Orleans Counties, VT, 19958 2015-08584 Foreign-Trade Zone 63, Prince George's County, MD, 19959 2015-08585 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19993-19994 2015-08485 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, 19992-19993 2015-08484 National Advisory Council on Migrant Health, 19992 2015-08486 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Transportation Security Administration

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Rent Reform Demonstration (Task Order 2), 20007-20009 2015-08538 Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing, 20005 2015-08539 Voucher Management System, 20009-20010 2015-08537 Digital Opportunity Demonstrations, 20004-20005 2015-08540 Requests for Nominations: Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee, 20005-20007 2015-08550 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Opportunity: Injury Prevention Program, 19994-20001 2015-08605 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee, 19959 2015-08575 Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 19960-19961 2015-08580 Materials Technical Advisory Committee, 19960 2015-08573 Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee, 19960 2015-08578 Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 19959-19960 2015-08574 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 20081 2015-08439 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee, 20080 2015-08437 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee, 20080-20081 2015-08431 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 20079 2015-08432 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee, 20079 2015-08434 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee, 20080 2015-08433 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee, 20081 2015-08438 Requests for Nominations: Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council, 20079-20080 2015-08440 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China, 19961-19964 2015-08591 Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan, 19965-19966 2015-08593 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates, 19964-19965 2015-08581 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Variable Valve Actuation Devices and Automobiles Containing the Same, 20012 2015-08511 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Crime Victimization Survey, 20013 2015-08416 Private Industry Feedback Survey, 20014-20015 2015-08415 Consent Decrees under the Clean Water Act, 2015-08426 20013-20014 2015-08507 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Steens Mountain Advisory Council, 20010 2015-08583 Plats of Survey: Oregon and Washington, 20010-20011 2015-08594 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Ventilation Plans, Tests and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines, 20015-20017 2015-08482 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Data Modernization Sampling Information Webinars, 20064-20065 2015-08477 Petitions for Exemptions: Maserati North America, Inc.; Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 20065-20066 2015-08490 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 20062-20064 2015-08491 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 20001 2015-08459 Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, 20001-20003 2015-08528 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19967 2015-08667 Meetings: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 19966-19967 2015-08471 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Marine Seismic Survey in the Beaufort Sea, AK, 20084-20114 2015-08481 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 20011 2015-08500 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions: South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes, 20031-20032 2015-08563 Southern Nuclear Operating Co.; Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes, 20018-20020 2015-08566 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 20020-20031 2015-08579 License Terminations: University of Michigan's Ford Nuclear Reactor Facility, 20017-20018 2015-08576 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Hazardous Materials: Explosive Approvals—Applicant Contact Information and Compliance with Special Provisions, 20066-20073 2015-08470 Postal Service Postal Service PROPOSED RULES Standards Governing the Design of Curbside Mailboxes, 19914-19931 2015-08342 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of March 31, 2015), 19869 2015-08685 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Quarterly Status Reports: Water Service, Repayment and Other Water-Related Contract Actions, 20011-20012 2015-08596 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20049 2015-08630 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 20032-20035 2015-08453 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 20047-20049, 20058-20060 2015-08448 2015-08455 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, 20043 C1--2015--07851 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 20053-20057 2015-08450 NYSE Arca, Inc., 20038-20041, 20043 2015-08447 C1--2015--07619 NYSE MKT, LLC, 20043-20047, 20049-20053 2015-08449 2015-08454 OneChicago, LLC, 20041-20043 2015-08451 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 20035-20038 2015-08452 Trading Suspension Orders: AmTrust Financial Group, Inc., et al., 20057-20058 2015-08621 Triumph Ventures Corp., 20057 2015-08638 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Surety Bond Guarantee Program; Miscellaneous Amendments, 19886-19889 2015-08297 NOTICES Surrender of Licenses of Small Business Investment Companies: MidCap Financial SBIC, LP, 20060 2015-08504 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evacuee Manifest and Promissory Note, 20060-20061 2015-08595 Repatriation/Emergency Medical and Dietary Assistance Loan Application, 20061 2015-08597 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office of Training and Workforce Engagement Canine Training and Evaluation Branch End of Course Level 1 Evaluation, 20003-20004 2015-08577 Security Programs for Foreign Air Carriers, 20003 2015-08562 Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: National Research Advisory Council, 20081 2015-08524 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 20084-20114 2015-08481 Part III Energy Department, 20116-20147 2015-07932 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 71 Tuesday, April 14, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0621; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-201-AD; Amendment 39-18133; AD 2015-07-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a pressurization problem on an airplane during climb-out; a subsequent investigation showed a crack in the fuselage skin. This AD requires require repetitive external eddy current inspections on the aft skin lap joints of the rear fuselage for cracking, corrosion, and other defects, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking, corrosion, and other defects, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective May 19, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0621; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0621.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52260).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0207, dated September 9, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The MCAI states:

In 2012, a pressurisation problem occurred on an AVRO 146-RJ100 aeroplane during climb-out. Subsequent investigation results identified a 42.87 inch (1089 mm) long crack in the fuselage skin in the rear fuselage drum, near the rear passenger door. The skin crack had initiated in the step of the skin land adjacent to a lap joint. In addition to the skin crack, cracks were found in Frames 41X and 42.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to degradation of the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

Prompted by this finding, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued Inspection Service Bulletin (ISB) 53-239, providing instructions to inspect the internal area of the rear fuselage drum for cracks, corrosion and any other defects and EASA issued AD 2012-0178 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2012_0178_Superseded.pdf/AD_2012-0178_1] which required accomplishment of a one-time inspection of the affected fuselage area and, depending on findings, repair of cracked structural items.

Following the issuance of that [EASA] AD, some new information on additional damage found on the aeroplane that had the pressurisation problem resulted in a further review of the cracking event. This review concluded that the event was more serious than previously considered and that the compliance time must be reduced in order to mitigate the risk of cracking on other aeroplanes. As a result, EASA issued AD 2012-0184 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2012_0184_superseded.pdf/AD_2012-0184_1] which superseded EASA AD 2012-0178.

After analysing the responses to EASA AD 2012-0184, which covered the initial inspection of stringer 30, left hand (LH) and right hand (RH), BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd also assessed the similar design features at other skin lands in the rear fuselage drum, namely at stringer 2 right and stringers 11 and 18, LH and RH. As a result, they determined that inspections at the other stringers would be required and also that repeat inspections of all these stringers would be necessary. Consequently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd ISB.53-239 Revision 1 and 2 were issued to include these new inspections.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0184, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of additional inspections of the affected fuselage area, including repetitive inspections, and depending on findings, repair of cracked structural items.

The required actions include repetitive external eddy current inspections on the aft skin lap joints of the rear fuselage for cracking, corrosion, and other defects, and repair if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0621-0002.

Actions Since Issuance of NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014)

Since we issued the NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014), we have received BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014. The new service information includes minor editorial changes.

We have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to refer to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014. We have also revised paragraph (i) of this AD to provide credit for BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 2, dated July 15, 2013.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014. The service information describes an external eddy current inspection on the aft skin lap joints of the rear fuselage for cracking, corrosion, and other defects, and repair. 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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 per inspection cycle $0 $680 per inspection cycle $680 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0621; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-07-05 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-18133. Docket No. FAA-2014-0621; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-201-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 19, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a pressurization problem on an airplane during climb-out; a subsequent investigation showed a crack in the fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking, corrosion, and other defects, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    (1) Within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable: Do an external eddy current inspection on the aft skin lap joints of the rear fuselage for cracking, corrosion, and other defects (i.e., surface damage and spot displacement), in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, including Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014.

    (i) For any airplane which has accumulated 9,000 flight cycles or more since the airplane's first flight as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 1,000 flight cycles or 6 months after of the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) For any airplane which has accumulated less than 9,000 flight cycles since the airplane's first flight as the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection before accumulating 10,000 flight cycles since the airplane's first flight.

    (2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable to the airplane's modification status.

    (i) For Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes post modification HCM50070E, or post modification HCM50070F, or post modification HCM50259A, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight cycles.

    (ii) For Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes pre-modification HCM50070E, and pre-modification HCM50070F, and pre-modification HCM50259A, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight cycles.

    (h) Corrective Action

    If any cracking, corrosion, or other defect is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishment of the repair does not constitute a terminating action for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection and corrective action on stringer 30, left hand (LH) and right hand (RH), as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, dated June 13, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection and corrective action, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection and corrective action, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 2, dated July 15, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0207, dated September 9, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0621-0002.

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

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, including Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 19, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07800 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0908; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-007-AD; Amendment 39-18136; AD 2015-05-52] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are publishing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109, A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109K2, A109E, A119, A109S, AW119 MKII, and AW109SP helicopters, which was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. This AD requires inspecting certain tail rotor (T/R) pitch control links (pitch links) for freedom of movement, corrosion, excessive friction of the spherical bearings, and cracks. This AD is prompted by a report of an in-flight failure of a pitch link on an Agusta Model AW119 MKII helicopter. These actions are intended to prevent loss of T/R pitch control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective April 29, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD (EAD) 2015-05-52, issued on March 4, 2015, which contains the requirements of this AD.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 29, 2015.

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

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated by reference service information, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39 0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-0908.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martin Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

    Discussion

    On March 4, 2015, we issued EAD 2015-05-52, which requires inspecting each pitch link part number (P/N) 109-0130-05-117 with 100 hours or less time-in-service since overhaul for freedom of movement, corrosion, and to determine the force required to rotate the spherical bearings. If there is any corrosion or if the force exceeds a certain amount, then the pitch link is unairworthy. If there is no corrosion and the force does not exceed the amount, then EAD 2015-05-52 requires cleaning and visually inspecting the pitch link rod for a crack. If there is a crack, then the pitch link is unairworthy. EAD 2015-05-52 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters and resulted from a report of an in-flight failure of a pitch link P/N 109-0130-05-117 on an Agusta Model AW119 MKII helicopter.

    EAD 2015-05-52 was prompted by EAD No. 2015-0035-E, dated February 27, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model A109A, A109AII, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119MKII helicopters. EASA advises of the reported “in-flight breaking” of the T/R pitch control link P/N 109-0130-05-117. EASA EAD 2015-0035-E requires inspecting the T/R pitch control link for corrosion, rotation resistance or binding, and cracks.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing 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 helicopters of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    AgustaWestland issued Alert Bollettino Tecnico (BT) Nos. 109-145, 109EP-141, 109K-65, 109S-065, 109SP-087, and 119-072, all revision A, and all dated February 27, 2015. These alert BTs specify inspections of pitch link P/N 109-0130-05-117 for corrosion, freedom of movement, excessive friction of the spherical bearings, and cracks. This information is reasonably available at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-0908. Or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

    AD Requirements

    This AD retains the requirements of EAD 2015-05-52 and requires inspecting the pitch link for freedom of movement for rotation resistance or binding. This AD also requires removing the pitch link and inspecting each pitch link spherical bearing for corrosion and the force required to rotate each pitch link spherical bearing. If there is any corrosion, the pitch link is unairworthy. If the force required to rotate a spherical bearing in either end of the pitch link is greater than 7.30 N (1.64 pounds force), the pitch link is unairworthy. If the force required to rotate the spherical bearings in both ends of the pitch link is equal to or less than 7.30 N (1.64 pounds force), this AD requires cleaning and visually inspecting the pitch link rod for a crack using a 10× or higher power magnifying glass or by performing a dye penetrant inspection. If there is a crack, the pitch link is unairworthy.

    Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 253 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. It takes about 2.5 work-hours at $85 per work-hour to perform the inspections, for a total cost of $213 per helicopter and $53,889 for the U.S. operator fleet. If required, replacing a pitch link will cost about $1,957 for parts. We do not anticipate any additional labor costs to install a new pitch link as opposed to re-installing the existing pitch link.

    According to AgustaWestland's service information some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Agusta. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter and the initial required action must be accomplished before further flight.

    Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD were impracticable and contrary to the public interest and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by EAD 2015-05-52, issued on March 4, 2015, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-05-52 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-18136; Docket No. FAA-2015-0908; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-007-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model A109, A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109K2, A109E, A119, A109S, AW119 MKII, and AW109SP helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail rotor pitch control link (pitch link) part number 109-0130-05-117 with 100 hours or less time-in-service since overhaul.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a pitch link. This condition could result in loss of tail rotor pitch control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 29, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2015-05-52, issued on March 4, 2015, which contains the requirements of this AD.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, inspect the pitch link for freedom of movement while it is installed on the helicopter.

    (i) If there is rotation resistance or binding, before further flight, perform the actions in paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(3) of this AD.

    (ii) If there is no rotation resistance and no binding, within 5 hours time-in-service, perform the actions in paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(3) of this AD.

    (2) Remove the pitch link and inspect each pitch link spherical bearing for corrosion. If there is any corrosion, the pitch link is unairworthy.

    (3) Determine the force required to rotate each pitch link spherical bearing as depicted in Figure 1 of AgustaWestland Alert Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109-145, 109EP-141, 109K-65, 109S-065, 109SP-087, or 119-072, all Revision A, and all dated February 27, 2015, as applicable to your model helicopter.

    (i) If the force required to rotate a spherical bearing in either end of the pitch link is greater than 7.30 N (1.64 pounds force), the pitch link is unairworthy.

    (ii) If the force required to rotate the spherical bearings in both ends of the pitch link is equal to or less than 7.30 N (1.64 pounds force), after cleaning the pitch link rod using aliphatic naphtha or equivalent and a soft non-metallic bristle brush, visually inspect the pitch link rod for a crack in the area depicted in Figure 1 of AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109-145, 109EP-141, 109K-65, 109S-065, 109SP-087, or 119-072, all Revision A, and all dated February 27, 2015, as applicable to your model helicopter, using a 10x or higher power magnifying glass or by dye penetrant inspection. If there is a crack, the pitch link is unairworthy.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Martin Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2015-0035-E, dated February 27, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-0908.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720, Tail Rotor Controls.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) AgustaWestland Alert Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109-145, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.

    (ii) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109EP-141, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.

    (iii) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109K-65, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.

    (iv) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109S-065, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.

    (v) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109SP-087, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.

    (vi) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 119-072, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.

    (3) For AgustaWestland service information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39 0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 6, 2015. Lance T. Gant, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08384 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0825; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-035-AD; Amendment 39-18138; AD 2015-08-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-04 for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. AD 2015-02-04 required installing two protective plates between the electrical wiring under the glare shield and the engine fire pull handles. This new AD continues to require installing two protective plates between the electrical wiring under the glare shield and the engine fire pull handles. This AD was prompted by our determination that the published version of AD 2015-02-04 incorrectly identified the AD number as “AD 2014-02-04” in a certain paragraph. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the electrical wiring, which could result in a short circuit and generation of smoke in the cockpit, potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective April 29, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 6, 2015 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015).

    We must receive comments on this AD by May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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-2015-0825; 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 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: Discussion

    On January 12, 2015, we issued AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015). AD 2015-02-04 applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. AD 2015-02-04 was prompted by a report of an untimely and intermittent indication of slat activity due to chafing of the electrical wiring under the glare shield and behind the flight deck front panel. AD 2015-02-04 required installing two protective plates between the electrical wiring under the glare shield and the engine fire pull handles. We issued AD 2015-02-04 to prevent chafing of the electrical wiring, which could result in a short circuit and generation of smoke in the cockpit, potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), corresponds to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2014-0024, dated January 23, 2014. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0825.

    Since we issued AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), we have determined that the published version of AD 2015-02-04 incorrectly identified the AD number in the Product Identification line as “AD 2014-02-04.” In order to refer to the correct AD number, this AD replaces “AD 2014-02-04” with “AD 2015-02-04” in the Product Identification line in the regulatory text.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of the urgency to correct the AD number in the regulatory text to avoid non-compliance. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0825; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-035-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 250 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), and retained in this AD are as follows:

    Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Retained installation from AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015) 26 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,210 $96 $2,306 $576,500

    This AD adds no additional economic burden.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), and adding the following new AD: 2015-08-02 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18138. Docket No. FAA-2015-0825; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-035-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 29, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers 5, 7, 27, 30, 34, 36, 78, 132, and 251 through 352 inclusive.

    (2) Airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers 2 through 250 inclusive, having Honeywell (formerly Allied Signal, Garrett AiResearch) TFE731-40-1C engines modified by Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F50-280.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an untimely and intermittent indication of slat activity due to chafing of the electrical wiring under the glare shield and behind the flight deck front panel, and also our determination that the published version of AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), incorrectly identified the AD number as “AD 2014-02-04.” We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the electrical wiring, which could result in a short circuit and generation of smoke in the cockpit, potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Installation of Protective Plates, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), with no changes. Within 74 months after March 6, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-02-04), install two Rilsan protective plates between the glare shield electrical wiring and the engine fire pull handles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-530, dated November 12, 2013.

    (h) 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: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUEST[email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0024, dated January 23, 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-2015-0825.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 6, 2015, (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015).

    (i) Dassault Service Bulletin F50-530, dated November 12, 2013.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.

    (5) 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.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 6, 2015. John P. Piccola, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08389 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0920; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-192-AD; Amendment 39-18135; AD 2015-07-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a jettison fuel pump that was shut off by the automatic shutoff system during the center tank fuel scavenge process on a short-range flight and a subsequent failure analysis of the fuel scavenge system. This AD requires making wiring changes, modifying certain power panels, installing electrical load management system 2 (ELMS2) software, and accomplishing a functional test. We are issuing this AD to prevent extended dry running of the jettison fuel pumps, which can be a potential ignition source inside the main fuel tanks, and consequent fuel tank fire or explosion in the event that the jettison pump overheats or has an electrical fault.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 19, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    For Boeing 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0920.

    For GE Aviation service information identified in this AD, contact GE Aviation Fleet Support, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.geaviation.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-2014-0920; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6499; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73252). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a jettison fuel pump that was shut off by the automatic shutoff system during the center tank fuel scavenge process on a short-range flight. The NPRM proposed to require making wiring changes, modifying certain power panels, installing ELMS2 software, and accomplishing a functional test. We are issuing this AD to prevent extended dry running of the jettison fuel pumps, which can be a potential ignition source inside the main fuel tanks, and consequent fuel tank fire or explosion in the event that the jettison pump overheats or has an electrical fault.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Concurrence With NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014)

    FedEx stated that it concurs with the proposed requirements specified in NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014).

    Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Section

    The Boeing Company (Boeing) requested that we revise the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014). Boeing explained that the number of airplanes used in the cost estimate calculations is incorrect. For Groups 1 through 4 airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, dated September 8, 2014, for which hardware and software changes are required, the number of affected U.S. registered airplanes is 9, instead of 7. For Group 5 airplanes, for which an ELMS2 software update is required, the number of affected U.S. registered airplanes is 2, not 4.

    We agree with the commenter. We have changed the number of airplanes in the “Costs of Compliance” section of this AD accordingly. We have also used information in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015, to calculate the estimated costs.

    Requests To Include Revised Service Information

    Boeing, All Nippon Airways (ANA), and FedEx requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014) to refer to a new revision of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083. Boeing, ANA, and FedEx stated that a revised service bulletin is expected to be sent to the FAA before the release of this AD and that referencing the revised service bulletin would eliminate the need for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) approval of the revised service bulletin.

    We agree with the commenters. Boeing has issued Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. This service bulletin was revised to correct wire length and part numbers in wire kits. We have changed this AD to reference Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015, throughout. We have also added paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, dated September 8, 2014, and have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that we revise the unsafe condition, as described in paragraph (e) of the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014). Boeing stated that the fuel jettison pumps that are the subject of this AD are not a potential fuel tank ignition source because the pumps in question have been qualified to run dry without causing adverse pump operating temperatures for 600 hours. The jettison pump design includes redundant safety features to prevent fuel tank ignition. Boeing also stated that, based on service history and given the number of flight hours accrued by Model 777 airplanes, a conservative analysis shows the chance of a jettison pump running dry and causing a fuel tank ignition is less than extremely improbable.

    We disagree to revise the unsafe condition as stated in the Summary and paragraph (e) of this AD. We acknowledge that the fuel jettison pumps in question are properly qualified, and there is no known failure condition that could result in an ignition source. However, based on service experience of various types of fuel pumps, the FAA and industry may be unable to anticipate all of the possible mechanical and electrical failure modes of the fuel pumps that could result in an ignition source. For example, fuel pump qualification tests do not evaluate dry running of a fuel pump with debris ingested. Therefore, we have determined that extended dry running of the fuel jettison pump is a potential ignition source. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014).

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. The service information describes, among other actions, procedures for making wiring changes to the engine fuel feed system, modifying certain power panels, installing ELMS2 software, and accomplishing a functional test. 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Group 1 through Group 4 airplanes: Hardware and software changes (9 airplanes) Up to 40 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,400 Up to $1,461 $4,861 Up to $43,749. Group 5 airplanes: ELMS2 software update (2 airplanes) 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 0 680 1,360.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-07-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18135; Docket No. FAA-2014-0920; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-192-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 19, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a jettison fuel pump that was shut off by the automatic shutoff system during the center tank fuel scavenge process on a short-range flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent extended dry running of the jettison fuel pumps, which can be a potential ignition source inside the main fuel tanks, and consequent fuel tank fire or explosion in the event that the jettison pump overheats or has an electrical fault.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Wiring and Software Changes

    (1) For Groups 1 through 4 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, make wiring changes, modify power panels P110 and P210, install electrical load management system 2 (ELMS2) software, and accomplish the functional test and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (2) For Group 5 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, install ELMS2 software, and accomplish the functional test and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    GE Aviation Service Bulletin 5000ELM-28-075, Revision 1, dated August 5, 2014; and GE Aviation Service Bulletin 6000ELM-28-076, Revision 1, dated August 5, 2014; are additional sources of guidance for modifying the P110 and P210 panels, respectively.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, dated September 8, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) 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 (j)(l) 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 the service information contains steps or procedures that are identified as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps or procedures must be done to comply with this AD; any steps or procedures that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps or procedures that are not identified as RC may be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from those identified in the specified service information without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps or procedures identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps or procedures identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6499; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For GE Aviation service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference in this AD, contact GE Aviation service information identified in this AD, contact GE Aviation Fleet Support, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected]; Internet:http://www.geaviation.com.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08137 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0132; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-038-AD; Amendment 39-18132; AD 2015-07-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the potential for a spring on the air conditioning compressor clutch plate to shear the oil cooler inlet-hose due to the close routing of these parts without a protective cover. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 19, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0132; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0132.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2015 (80 FR 4810). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to an unprotected routing of the oil cooler inlet-hose close to the air conditioning compressor clutch plate.

    If a spring on the compressor clutch plate shears it could lead to a damage of the oil hose and the engine oil can spill into the engine bay.

    In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires the installation of a cover assembly which will be mounted on the attachment points of the compressor.

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

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 4810, January 29, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 4810, January 29, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 4810, January 29, 2015).

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-012, dated November 4, 2014. The service information describes actions for installation of a cover assembly (between the compressor clutch plate and the oil hose) to protect the oil hose. This information is reasonably available at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0132, or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,250 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $17,600, or $1,760 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0132; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2015-07-04 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Amendment 39-18132; Docket No. FAA-2015-0132; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-038-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 19, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes, all serial numbers, that:

    (1) have not incorporated the actions of any version of PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-006, which allows for the installation of a different air conditioning compressor mounted at a different location and makes the unsafe condition nonexistent; and

    (2) are certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 21: Air Conditioning.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the potential for a spring on the air conditioning compressor clutch plate to shear the oil cooler inlet-hose due to the close routing of these parts without a protective cover. We are issuing this AD to correct the unprotected routing of the oil cooler inlet-hose, which could lead to damage of the oil hose resulting in an engine oil spill into the engine bay.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within the next 120 days after May 19, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), install a cover assembly on the attachment points of the compressor following the Accomplishment Instructions in PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-012, dated November 4, 2014.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

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

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) AD HB-2014-008, dated December 9, 2014; and any version of PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-006, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1002-0002.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-012, dated November 4, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service information identified in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0132.

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

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 31, 2015. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07858 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0258] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA 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 Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) bascule bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 4.6, at New Orleans, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the Ochsner Ironman 70.3 New Orleans event as they travel across the bridge as part of the bike and run courses. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position continuously during the event.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0258] 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 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 deviation, call or email Geri Robinson, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard received a request for a temporary deviation for the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) crossing the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 4.6, in New Orleans, Louisiana to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a nine-hour period during the Ochsner Ironman 70.3, on April 19, 2015. The bridge owner also received a request to close the bridge to all traffic during the Ironman event, which was approved. The bridge provides 45 feet in the closed-to-navigation position above mean sea level. Currently, according to 33 CFR 117.458(c), the draw of the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook), mile 4.6, shall open on signal from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.; except the bridge need not open from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. From 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. This deviation allows the draw span of the bridge to remain closed to navigation between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, 2015, while the Ironman participants travel across the bridge as part of the race course. Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows. As a result of coordination between the Coast Guard and the waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. The Coast Guard will inform users through the Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure period. There is an alternate route available via the Rigolets Pass to vessel traffic. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position can do so at any time. For the duration of the event, the bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.

    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: April 8, 2015. Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08488 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0259] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chef Menteur Pass, Lake Catherine, LA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the U.S. Highway 90 swing highway bridge across the Chef Menteur Pass, mile 2.8, at Lake Catherine, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the Ochsner Ironman 70.3 New Orleans event as they travel across the bridge as part of the bike and run courses. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position continuously during the event.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 1 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0259] 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 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 deviation, call or email Geri Robinson, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard received a request for a temporary deviation for the U.S. Highway 90 swing bridge crossing the Chef Menteur Pass, mile 2.8, at Lake Catherine, Orleans Parish, Louisiana to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a six-hour period during the Ochsner Ironman 70.3, on April 19, 2015. The bridge owner also received a request to close the bridge to all traffic during the Ironman event, which was approved. The bridge provides 10 feet vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position at mean high water. Currently, according to 33 CFR 117.436, the draw of the U.S. Highway 90 Bridge, mile 2.8, shall open on signal; except that, from 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need open only for the passage of vessels. The draw shall open at any time for a vessel in distress. This deviation allows the draw span of the bridge to remain closed to navigation between 7 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, 2015, while the Ironman participants travel across the bridge as part of the bike and race courses. Navigation on the waterway consists of mainly commercial fishermen and sportsman fishermen. As a result of coordination between the Coast Guard and the waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. The Coast Guard will inform users through the Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure period. There is an alternate route available via the Rigolets Pass to vessel traffic. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position can do so at any time. For the duration of the event, the bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, 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: April 8, 2015. Eric Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08487 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    80 71 Tuesday, April 14, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429, 430 and 431 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005] Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meeting and Webinar AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting and webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Meeting and Webinar: Thursday, April 30, 2015, 10 a.m.-3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 4A-104, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. For individuals that wish to attend by webinar, please register at—http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. After registering you will receive an email with the appropriate link to join the meeting and the necessary call-in information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the Energy Department on the development of standards and test procedures for residential appliances and commercial equipment.

    Tentative Agenda: (Subject to change; final agenda will be posted at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005):

    • Discussion and prioritization of topic areas that ASRAC can assist the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program

    • Discussion of options to engage the public under DOE's retrospective regulatory review plan

    Public Participation: Members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting and, if time allows, may make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email [email protected] In the email, please indicate your name, organization (if appropriate), citizenship, and contact information. Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present a government photo identification, such as a passport, driver's license, or government identification. Due to the required security screening upon entry, individuals attending should arrive early to allow for the extra time needed.

    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.

    DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota.

    Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; An Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); A military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.

    Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up for the Public Comment Period. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number of individuals who wish to speak but will not exceed five minutes. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The co-chairs of the Committee will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties and to facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

    Participation in the meeting is not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. ASRAC invites written comments from all interested parties. Any comments submitted must identify the ASRAC, and provide docket number EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected] Include docket number EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005 in the subject line of the message.

    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08600 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 115 RIN 3245-AG70 Surety Bond Guarantee Program; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule proposes to change the regulations for SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program in four areas. First, as a condition for participating in the Prior Approval and Preferred Programs, the proposal would clarify that a Surety must directly employ underwriting and claims staffs sufficient to perform and manage these functions, and final settlement authority for claims and recovery is vested only in salaried employees of the Surety. Second, the proposal would provide that all costs incurred by the Surety's salaried claims staff are ineligible for reimbursement by SBA, but the Surety may seek reimbursement for amounts paid for specialized services that are provided by outside consultants in connection with the processing of a claim. Third, the rule proposes to modify the criteria for determining when a Principal that caused a Loss to SBA is ineligible for a bond guaranteed by SBA. Fourth, the rule proposes to modify the criteria for admitting Sureties to the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program by increasing the Surety's underwriting limitation, as certified by the U.S. Treasury Department on its list of acceptable sureties, from at least $2 million to at least $6.5 million.

    DATES:

    SBA must receive comments to this proposed rule on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG70, by any of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, following the instructions for submitting comments; or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Barbara J. Brannan, Office of Surety Guarantees, 409 Third Street SW., Suite 8600, Washington, DC 20416.

    SBA will post all comments on www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, you must submit such information to U.S. Small Business Administration, Barbara J. Brannan, Office of Surety Guarantees, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416 or send an email to [email protected] Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review your information and determine whether it will make the information public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara J. Brannan, Office of Surety Guarantees, (202) 205-6545 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Discussion of Proposed Changes

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guarantees bid, payment and performance bonds for small and emerging contractors who cannot obtain surety bonds through regular commercial channels. SBA's guarantee gives Sureties an incentive to provide bonding for small businesses and, thereby, assists small businesses in obtaining greater access to contracting opportunities. SBA's guarantee is an agreement between a Surety and SBA that SBA will assume a certain percentage of the Surety's loss should a contractor default on the underlying contract.

    This rule proposes to change the regulations governing SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program (SBG Program) in four areas that have prompted questions from participating Sureties over the past year. First, the rule proposes to clarify that, to participate in the Prior Approval and Preferred Programs, a Surety must directly employ underwriting and claims staffs sufficient to perform and manage these functions. Final settlement authority for claims and recoveries is vested only in the surety's claims staff. The current rules require PSB Sureties to vest final settlement authority for claims and recovery in their salaried employees, see 13 CFR 115.60(a)(5), and this proposed rule would extend this requirement to Prior Approval Sureties. Some Prior Approval Sureties retain the final underwriting authority to approve a particular bond and some Prior Approval Sureties grant their agents this authority. For the latter arrangement, the proposed rule would clarify that Prior Approval Sureties must have salaried employees responsible for managing and overseeing the underwriting operations. In conducting such oversight, SBA would expect Prior Approval Sureties to periodically conduct reviews of the underwriting operations of their agents to ensure that the agent is underwriting SBA-guaranteed bonds in accordance with the standards set forth in 13 CFR 115.15(a). SBA is not aware that any Prior Approval Surety currently participating in the SBG Program is unable to satisfy this requirement, but is making this requirement explicit in the regulations for clarity and to avoid misunderstanding. PSB Sureties are currently required to vest underwriting authority in their salaried employees, see 13 CFR 115.60(a)(4), and the proposed rule would not affect this requirement. Accordingly, while PSB Sureties may allow their agents to perform the initial underwriting on a bond, the current rule requires that only the PSB Surety may execute the bond guarantee agreement (SBA Form 990 or 990A).

    Second, the rule proposes to specify that the costs that the Surety incurs for its salaried claims staff are ineligible for reimbursement by SBA. SBA considers such costs to be integral to the Surety's overhead, which is not eligible for reimbursement by SBA. See 13 CFR 115.16(f)(1). Under the proposed rule, however, the Surety may seek reimbursement for amounts actually paid by the Surety for specialized services that are provided by an outside consultant, which is not an Affiliate of the Surety, in connection with the processing of a claim, provided that such services are beyond the capability of the Surety's salaried claims staff. For example, to evaluate a claim, the Surety may need the opinion of a structural engineer to determine the Principal's compliance with engineering specifications. SBA would not expect the Surety to directly employ a structural engineer, and SBA would approve reasonable costs to contract for this specialized service as part of the Surety's Loss.

    Third, the rule proposes to modify the conditions under which a Principal, and its Affiliates, would be deemed ineligible for a bond guaranteed by SBA in the circumstance where the Principal has previously defaulted on an SBA guaranteed surety bond. Under the current rules, a Principal and its Affiliates are ineligible for further SBA bond guarantees if the Surety has requested reimbursement for Losses incurred under an SBA guaranteed bond issued on behalf of the Principal. See 13 CFR 115.14(a)(4). However, in the Prior Approval Program, the current rules provide that SBA's Office of Surety Guarantees (OSG) may agree, upon the Surety's recommendation, to reinstate the Principal, and its Affiliates, if the Surety has settled its claim with the Principal for an amount and on terms accepted by OSG (13 CFR 115.36(b)(2)), or the Principal's indebtedness to the Surety is discharged by operation of law (e.g., bankruptcy discharge) (13 CFR 115.36(b)(4)), or OSG and the Surety determine that further bond guarantees are appropriate (13 CFR 115.36(b)(5)). In addition, in the PSB Program, the current rules provide that the PSB Surety may reinstate a Principal's eligibility upon the Surety's determination that reinstatement is appropriate (13 CFR 115.14(b)).

    SBA is proposing to modify these rules in two ways. First, the proposed rule would prohibit the reinstatement of a Principal if the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, had previously defaulted on an SBA guaranteed bond that resulted in a Loss (as defined in 13 CFR 115.16) that has not been fully reimbursed to SBA or if SBA has not been fully reimbursed for any Imminent Breach payments. The proposed rule would provide that the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, may be reinstated only if SBA has been fully repaid for the Loss or for the Imminent Breach payment. In addition, the discharge of the indebtedness in bankruptcy would no longer qualify the Principal for reinstatement. These changes would conform the SBG Program more closely to SBA's other financial assistance programs under which an applicant is ineligible for financial assistance if it has caused a prior loss to the Agency. See 13 CFR 120.111(q). SBA believes that a Principal that has previously caused a Loss to SBA presents a higher risk to the Agency and should not receive the benefit of further SBA financial assistance. Under the proposed rule, SBA would have the authority to waive this prohibition for good cause. For example, if the Principal is able to show that the Loss was attributed to the acts or omissions of a co-owner who is no longer a part of the business, SBA could find good cause to reinstate the eligibility of the Principal. PSB Sureties would not be delegated the authority to make this “good cause” determination, but would continue to have the authority to reinstate the eligibility of a Principal when the Surety determines that further bond guarantees are appropriate for those Principals deemed ineligible under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5) or (6) of section 115.14.

    Second, the proposed rule would apply the same standards regarding the loss of eligibility and the conditions for reinstatement to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program. SBA believes that the conditions for reinstatement of a Principal's eligibility for SBA guaranteed bonds should not depend upon whether the Surety is a Prior Approval Surety or a PSB Surety, but that the reinstatement conditions should be uniform and apply equally to both Programs.

    Fourth, the rule proposes to modify the criteria for admitting a Surety to participate in the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program by increasing the Surety's underwriting limitation, as certified by the U.S. Treasury Department on its list of acceptable sureties on Federal bonds, from at least $2 million to at least $6.5 million. This change would conform the underwriting limitation to the statutory increase made by Public Law 112-239 in the maximum amount of any Contract or Order for which SBA may guarantee a bond. All PSB Sureties currently participating in the PSB Program would satisfy this new requirement.

    II. Section-By-Section Analysis

    Section 115.11. SBA is proposing to revise this Section by including the requirement that an applicant have a salaried staff that is employed directly (not an agent or other individual or entity under contract with the applicant) to oversee its underwriting functions and to perform all claims and recovery functions. This section would also be revised to provide that final settlement authority for claims and recovery actions must be vested only in the applicant's salaried staff. In addition, this section would be revised to clarify that the applicant must continue to comply with SBA's standards and procedures for underwriting, administration, claims, recovery, and staffing requirements while participating in SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program.

    Section 115.13(a). SBA is proposing to revise this section by adding a new paragraph (7) to provide that, to be eligible for an SBA guaranteed bond, neither the Principal nor any of its Affiliates may be ineligible for an SBA guaranteed bond under the grounds set forth in 13 CFR 115.14.

    Section 115.14. SBA is proposing to modify the criteria regarding the loss of the Principal's eligibility for future assistance and the conditions for reinstatement by providing that a Principal loses eligibility for further SBA bond guarantees if the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, has defaulted on an SBA guaranteed bond that resulted in a Loss (as defined in 13 CFR 115.16) that has not been fully reimbursed to SBA, or if SBA has not been fully reimbursed for any Imminent Breach payments. OSG would have the authority to waive this requirement for good cause. In addition, the discharge in bankruptcy of the Principal's indebtedness to the Surety would no longer qualify the Principal for reinstatement.

    SBA is also proposing to apply the same criterion on ineligibility and conditions for reinstatement to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program. As the same conditions for reinstatement would apply to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program, the conditions for reinstatement set forth in 13 CFR 115.36(b) and (c) would be moved in their entirety to 13 CFR 115.14(b) and (c), and the heading of this section would be changed to “Loss of Principal's eligibility for future assistance and reinstatement of Principal”.

    Section 115.16(e)(1). SBA is proposing to revise this provision to provide that SBA will reimburse amounts actually paid by a Surety for specialized services that are provided under contract by outside consultants in connection with the processing of a claim, provided that such services are beyond the capability of the Surety's salaried claims staff. The change, coupled with the other changes in this Proposed Rule, clarifies that a Surety cannot outsource routine claims functions and responsibilities or include such costs in its reimbursement requests submitted to SBA under the bond guarantee agreement. With the exception of specialized work that falls outside the scope of the routine processing and administration of claims, the expectation is that the Surety will be able to perform the claims function at no cost to the Agency.

    Section 115.16(f)(1). SBA is proposing to revise this provision to clarify that all costs incurred by the Surety's salaried claims staff, whether or not specifically allocable to an SBA guaranteed bond, are excluded from the definition of Loss. Costs incurred by the Surety's salaried claims staff, like all other overhead of the Surety, are the responsibility of the Surety.

    Section 115.18(a)(2). SBA is proposing to revise this paragraph to provide that the Surety's failure to continue to comply with the requirements set forth in section 115.11 are sufficient grounds for refusal to issue further guarantees, or in the case of a PSB Surety, termination of preferred status.

    Section 115.36. By including the conditions for reinstatement and the standard for underwriting after reinstatement in § 115.14(b) and (c), this rule proposes to rename the heading of this section to “§ 115.36 Indemnity settlements”, delete “(a) Indemnity settlements.”, renumber paragraphs “(1)”, “(2)”, and “(3)”, as “(a)”, “(b)”, and “(c)”, respectively, and remove paragraphs (b) and (c).

    Section 115.60(a)(1). SBA is proposing to conform this provision to the statutory increase in the maximum contract amount for which a bond may be guaranteed by removing “$2,000,000” and inserting “$6,500,000” in its place.

    Section 115.60(a)(5). By including in § 115.11 the requirement that all Sureties vest final settlement authority for claims and recovery only in their salaried claims staff, this rule proposes to remove 115.60(a)(5) and renumber the existing paragraph 115.60(a)(6) accordingly. Compliance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 12988, and 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612).

    Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 800).

    Executive Order 13563

    In accordance with Executive Order 13563, SBA discussed with several surety companies issues regarding the SGB Program regulations. In particular, SBA discussed the underwriting and claims staffing requirements that sureties must meet in order to participate in SBA's SGB Program. SBA also discussed with these companies the conditions for reimbursement of the costs incurred by their claims staffs. Generally, the sureties responded favorably to SBA's position that changes were necessary to clarify or amend the regulations on these issues.

    Executive Order 12988

    This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

    Executive Order 13132

    SBA has determined that this proposed rule will not have substantial, direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, for purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

    Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35

    For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, SBA has determined that this proposed rule will not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small non-profit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are 23 Sureties that participate in the SBA program, and no part of this proposed rule would impose any significant additional cost or burden on them. Consequently, this proposed rule does not meet the significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses criterion anticipated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 115

    Claims, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Surety bonds.

    For the reasons cited above, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR part 115 as follows:

    PART 115—SURETY BOND GUARANTEE 1. The authority citation for Part 115 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. app 3; 15 U.S.C. 687b, 687c, 694a, 694b note; and Pub. L. 110-246, Sec. 12079, 122 Stat. 1651.

    2. Amend § 115.11 by adding three sentences at the end to read as follows:
    § 115.11 Applying to participate in the Surety Bond Guarantee Program.

    * * * At a minimum, each applicant must have salaried staff that is employed directly (not an agent or other individual or entity under contract with the applicant) to oversee its underwriting function and to perform all claims and recovery functions. Final settlement authority for claims and recovery must be vested only in the applicant's claims staff. The applicant must continue to comply with SBA's standards and procedures for underwriting, administration, claims, recovery, and staffing requirements while participating in SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Programs.

    3. Amend § 115.13 by adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
    § 115.13 Eligibility of Principal.

    (7) No loss of eligibility. Neither the Principal nor any of its Affiliates is ineligible for an SBA-guaranteed bond under section 115.14.

    4. Amend § 115.14 to read as follows: a. Revise the section heading, and paragraphs (a)(4) and (b). b. Add paragraph (c).
    § 115.14 Loss of Principal's eligibility for future assistance and reinstatement of Principal.

    (4) The Principal, or any of its Affiliates, has defaulted on an SBA-guaranteed bond resulting in a Loss that has not been fully reimbursed to SBA, or SBA has not been fully reimbursed for any Imminent Breach payments.

    (b) Reinstatement of Principal's eligibility. At any time after a Principal becomes ineligible for further bond guarantees under § 115.14(a):

    (1) A Prior Approval Surety may recommend that such Principal's eligibility be reinstated, and OSG may agree to reinstate the Principal if:

    (i) The Surety has settled its claim with the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, for an amount that results in no Loss to SBA or in no amount owed for Imminent Breach payments, or OSG finds good cause for reinstating the Principal notwithstanding the Loss to SBA or amount owed for Imminent Breach payments; or

    (ii) OSG and the Surety determine that further bond guarantees are appropriate after the Principal was deemed ineligible for further SBA bond guarantees under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (5) or (6) of section 115.14(a).

    (2) A PSB Surety may:

    (i) Recommend that such Principal's eligibility be reinstated, and OSG may agree to reinstate the Principal, if the Surety has settled its claim with the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, for an amount that results in no Loss to SBA or in no amount owed for Imminent Breach payments, or OSG finds good cause for reinstating the Principal notwithstanding the Loss to SBA or amount owed for Imminent Breach payments; or

    (ii) Reinstate a Principal's eligibility upon the Surety's determination that further bond guarantees are appropriate after the Principal was deemed ineligible for further SBA bond guarantees under § 115.14(a) (1), (2), (3), (5) or (6).

    (c) Underwriting after reinstatement. A guarantee application submitted after reinstatement of the Principal's eligibility is subject to a very stringent underwriting review.

    5. Amend § 115.16 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (f)(1) to read as follows:
    § 115.16 Determination of Surety's Loss.

    (e) * * *

    (1) Amounts actually paid by the Surety for specialized services that are provided under contract by an outside consultant, which is not an Affiliate of the Surety, in connection with the processing of a claim, provided that such services are beyond the capability of the Surety's salaried claims staff; and

    (f) * * *

    (1) Any unallocated expenses, all direct and indirect costs incurred by the Surety's salaried claims staff, or any clear mark-up on expenses or any overhead of the Surety, its attorney, or any other party hired by the Surety or the attorney;

    6. Amend § 115.18 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 115.18 Refusal to issue further guarantees; suspension and termination of PSB status.

    (2) Regulatory violations, fraud. Acts of wrongdoing such as fraud, material misrepresentation, breach of the Prior Approval or PSB Agreement, the Surety's failure to continue to comply with the requirements set forth in § 115.11, or regulatory violations (as defined in §§ 115.19(d) and 115.19(h)) also constitute sufficient grounds for refusal to issue further guarantees, or in the case of a PSB Surety, termination of preferred status.

    7. Amend § 115.36 to read as follows: a. Revise the section heading; b. Remove the paragraph heading “(a) Indemnity settlements.”; c. Remove paragraphs (b) and (c); and d. Redesignate paragraphs “(1)”, “(2)”, and “(3)”, as “(a)”, “(b)”, and “(c)”.
    § 115.36 Indemnity settlements.
    § 115.60 Selection and admission of PSB Sureties. [Amended]
    8. Amend § 115.60 to read as follows: a. Amend § 115.60(a)(1) by removing “$2,000,000” and inserting “$6,500,000” in its place; and b. Remove paragraph (a)(5) and redesignate paragraph (a)(6) as paragraph (a)(5). Dated: April 6, 2015. Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08297 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0721; Notice No. 23-15-03-SC] Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company, Model HA-420 HondaJet, Lithium-Ion Batteries AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for the Honda Aircraft Company, Model HA-420 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the installation of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2015-0721] using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations 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, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery of Courier: 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: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Les Lyne, Policies & Procedures Branch, ACE-114, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4171; facsimile (816) 329-4090.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.

    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type certificate for their new Model HA-420. On October 10, 2013, Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification basis to amendment 23-62.

    The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan engines.

    The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not contain adequate requirements for the application of Li-ion batteries in airborne applications. This type of battery possesses certain failure, operational characteristics, and maintenance requirements that differ significantly from that of the nickel cadmium and lead acid rechargeable batteries currently approved in other normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. Therefore, the FAA is proposing this special condition to require that all characteristics of the rechargeable lithium batteries and their installation that could affect safe operation of the HA-420 are addressed, and appropriate Instructions for Continued Airworthiness which include maintenance requirements are established to ensure the availability of electrical power from the batteries when needed.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-62 thereto.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the HA-420 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: The installation of Li-ion batteries.

    The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not contain adequate requirements for the application of Li-ion batteries in airborne applications. This type of battery possesses certain failure, operational characteristics, and maintenance requirements that differ significantly from that of the nickel cadmium and lead acid rechargeable batteries currently approved in other normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes.

    Discussion

    The applicable parts 21 and 23 airworthiness regulations governing the installation of batteries in general aviation airplanes, including § 23.1353, were derived from Civil Air Regulations (CAR 3) as part of the recodification that established 14 CFR part 23. The battery requirements, which are identified in § 23.1353, were a rewording of the CAR requirements that did not add any substantive technical requirements. An increase in incidents involving battery fires and failures that accompanied the increased use of Nickel-Cadmium (Ni-Cad) batteries in aircraft resulted in rulemaking activities on the battery requirements for transport category airplanes. These regulations were incorporated into § 23.1353(f) and (g), which apply only to Ni-Cad battery installations.

    The proposed use of Li-ion batteries on the HA-420 airplane has prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of the existing battery regulations with respect to that chemistry. As the result of this review, the FAA has determined that the existing regulations do not adequately address several failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics of Li-ion batteries that could affect safety of the battery installation of the HA-420 airplane electrical power supply.

    The introduction of Li-ion batteries into aircraft raises some concern about associated battery/cell monitoring systems and how these may affect utilization of an otherwise “good” battery as an energy source to the electrical system when monitoring components fail. Associated battery/cell monitoring systems (i.e., temperature, state of charge, etc.) should be evaluated/tested with respect the expected extremes in the aircraft operating environment.

    Li-ion batteries typically have different electrical impedance characteristics than lead-acid or Ni-Cad batteries. Honda Aircraft Company needs to evaluate other components of the aircraft electrical system with respect to these characteristics.

    At present, there is very limited experience regarding the use of Li-ion rechargeable batteries in applications involving commercial aviation. However, other users of this technology range from wireless telephone manufacturers to the electric vehicle industry and have noted significant safety issues regarding the use of these types of batteries, some of which are described in the following paragraphs:

    1. Overcharging. In general, lithium batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. This is especially true for overcharging, which causes heating and destabilization of the components of the cell, leading to the formation (by plating) of highly unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. Finally, the severity of thermal runaway due to overcharging increases with increasing battery capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in large batteries.

    2. Over-discharging. Discharge of some types of lithium battery cells beyond a certain voltage (typically 2.4 volts) can cause corrosion of the electrodes of the cell; resulting in loss of battery capacity that cannot be reversed by recharging. This loss of capacity may not be detected by the simple voltage measurements commonly available to flight crews as a means of checking battery status—a problem shared with nickel-cadmium batteries.

    3. Flammability of Cell Components: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, some types of lithium batteries use liquid electrolytes that are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if there is a breach of the battery container.

    These safety issues experienced by users of lithium batteries raise concern about the use of these batteries in commercial aviation. The intent of the proposed special condition is to establish appropriate airworthiness standards for lithium battery installations in the HA-420 and to ensure, as required by §§ 23.1309 and 23.601, that these battery installations are not hazardous or unreliable.

    Additionally, the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), in a joint effort with the FAA and industry, has released RTCA/DO-311, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Rechargeable Lithium Battery Systems, which gained much of its text directly from previous Li-ion special conditions. Honda Aircraft Company proposes to use DO-311 as the primary methodology for assuring the battery will perform its intended functions safely as installed in the HA-420 airplane and as the basis for test and qualification of the battery. This Special Condition incorporates applicable portions of DO-311.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Provisional certification of the HA-420 is currently scheduled for June 2015. The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and public-comment procedure in several prior instances, specifically special conditions 23-236-SC, 23-247-SC, and 23-249-SC. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's both installation of the system and certification of the airplane, we are shortening the public-comment period to 20 days.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Honda Aircraft Company, HA-420 airplanes.

    1. Lithium-Ion Battery Installation

    a. Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any probable charging or discharging condition, or during any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote. The applicant must design Li-ion battery installation to preclude explosion or fire in the event of those failures.

    b. The applicant must design the Li-ion batteries to preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.

    c. No explosive or toxic gasses emitted by any Li-ion battery in normal operation or as the result of any failure of the battery charging or monitoring system, or battery installation not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

    d. Li-ion batteries that contain flammable fluids must comply with the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 23.863(a) through (d).

    e. No corrosive fluids or gasses that may escape from any Li-ion battery may damage surrounding airplane structure or adjacent essential equipment.

    f. The applicant must provide provision for each installed Li-ion battery to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.

    g. Li-ion battery installations must have—

    (1) A system to control the charging rate of the battery automatically so as to prevent battery overheating or overcharging; or

    (2) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or

    (3) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.

    h. Any Li-ion battery installation whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane, must incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate flightcrew members whenever the capacity and State of Charge (SOC) of the batteries have fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of the airplane.

    i. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) must contain recommended manufacturers maintenance and inspection requirements to ensure that batteries, including single cells, meet a safety function level essential to the aircraft's continued airworthiness.

    (1) The ICA must contain operating instructions and equipment limitations in an installation maintenance manual.

    (2) The ICA must contain installation procedures and limitations in a maintenance manual, sufficient to ensure that cells or batteries, when installed according to the installation procedures, still meet safety functional levels essential to the aircraft's continued airworthiness. The limitations must identify any unique aspects of the installation.

    (3) The ICA must contain corrective maintenance procedures to check battery capacity at manufacturers recommended inspection intervals.

    (4) The ICA must contain scheduled servicing information to replace batteries at manufacturers recommended replacement time.

    (5) The ICA must contain maintenance and inspection requirements to check visually for battery and/or charger degradation.

    j. Batteries in a rotating stock (spares) that have experienced degraded charge retention capability or other damage due to prolonged storage must be functionally checked at manufacturers recommended inspection intervals.

    k. The System Safety Assessment (SSA) process should address the software and complex hardware levels for the sensing, monitoring, and warning systems if these systems contain complex devices. The functional hazard assessment (FHA) for the system is required based on the intended functions described. The criticality of the specific functions will be determined by the safety assessment process for compliance with § 23.1309. Advisory Circular 23-1309-1C contains acceptable means for accomplishing this requirement. For determining the failure condition, the criticality of a function will include the mitigating factors. The failure conditions must address the loss of function and improper operations.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 6, 2015. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08586 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0824; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-191-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-20-27, for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 98-20-27 currently requires repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint; and a follow-on eddy current inspection and repair, if necessary. Since we issued AD 98-20-27, we have received reports of cracking of the wing top skin in an area not required for inspection by AD 98-20-27. This proposed AD would reduce the inspection compliance time and intervals, and extend the inspection area of the wing top skin at the front spar joint. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    • Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0824; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0824; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-191-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On September 16, 1998, we issued AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998). AD 98-20-27 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes).

    Since we issued AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998): The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0232R1, dated October 2, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    During full-scale fatigue testing conducted in the early 1990's, cracks were found on the top skin of the wing between Ribs 1 and 7, starting at the front spar fastener holes.

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

    Consequently, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6045 and DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 97-374-238 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/19973740tb_superseded.pdf/AD_F-1997-374-238_2] for A300-600 aeroplanes and AD 1999-008-020 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/19980080tb_superseded.pdf/AD_F-1999-008-020_2] for A300-600ST aeroplanes to require repetitive detailed inspections of the wing top skin and, in case of findings, an Eddy Current (EC) inspection, and, depending on the size of the cracks, repair.

    After those [DGAC] ADs were issued, further cracks to the wing top skin were reported by operators, within an area not covered by the existing [DGAC] ADs. To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus revised SB A300-57-6045 to extend the area to be inspected.

    In addition, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses were performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have determined that the inspection thresholds and intervals must be reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    As the ESG2 exercise is only applicable to A300-600 aeroplanes, A300-600ST aeroplanes are now addressed through new Airbus SB A300-57-9026.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 97-374-238(B) [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/19973740tb_superseded.pdf/AD_F-1997-374-238_2] [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998)] and [DGAC] AD 1999-008-020(B) [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/19980080tb_superseded.pdf/AD_F-1999-008-020_2], which are superseded, but requires those actions, for A300-600 aeroplanes only, within reduced thresholds and intervals.

    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-2015-0824.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. The service information describes inspection procedures for fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint between ribs 1 and 7. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Unlike the procedures described in the MCAI and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013, this proposed AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected in the wing top skin at the front spar joint. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked wing top skin at the front spar joint must be repaired before further flight. This difference has been coordinated with the EASA.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 130 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions that are required by AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 98-20-27 is $170 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $22,100, or $170 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0824; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-191-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 29, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

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

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of wing top skin in an area not required for inspection by AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Repetitive Inspections, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998), with revised service information. Prior to the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles after October 29, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-20-27), whichever occurs later: Perform a detailed visual inspection to detect fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 1, dated August 3, 1994, including Appendix 1, Revision 1, dated August 3, 1994; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 02, dated April 21, 1998, including Appendix 1, Revision 02, dated April 21, 1998; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. Repeat the detailed visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,000 flight cycles.

    (h) Retained Inspection and Repair, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998), with revised service information. If any cracking is suspected or detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Prior to further flight, perform an eddy current inspection to confirm the findings of the visual inspection, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 01, dated August 3, 1994, including Appendix 1, Revision 01, dated August 3, 1994; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 02, dated April 21, 1998, including Appendix 1, Revision 02, dated April 21, 1998; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. If any cracking is detected during any eddy current inspection, prior to further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent).

    (i) New Requirement of This AD: Initial Inspection

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the wing top skin between ribs one and seven for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 17,100 total flight cycles or 38,400 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles or 2,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles or 49,500 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Within 1,300 flight cycles or 2,800 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD thereafter at the applicable time and intervals specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For airplanes that have an average flight time (AFT) that is equal to or more than one and one-half hours: At intervals not to exceed 5,100 flight cycles or 11,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) For airplanes that have an AFT that is less than one and one-half hours: At intervals not to exceed 5,500 flight cycles or 8,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or more than one and one-half hours: At intervals not to exceed 6,500 flight cycles or 14,100 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) For airplanes that have an AFT that is less than one and one-half hours: At intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight cycles or 10,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (k) New Requirement of This AD: Repair of Cracking

    (1) If any crack in the top skin in the area forward of the front spar attachment is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (2) If any crack or sign of a crack is found in the top skin at or aft of the spar attachment during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Before further flight, do an eddy current inspection of the cracks or of the signs of cracking to confirm the findings of the detailed inspection, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. If there are any cracks at or aft of the spar attachment, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (l) No Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of any repair required by paragraph (k) this AD does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (m) No Reporting Required

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (i), (j) and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the Airbus service bulletins specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, dated March 18, 1993.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 01, dated August 3, 1994.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 02, dated April 21, 1998.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 03, dated October 25, 1999.

    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 04, dated January 13, 2002.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 05, dated June 13, 2003.

    (7) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 06, dated January 13, 2005.

    (8) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 07, dated August 14, 2008.

    (9) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 08, dated June 6, 2011.

    (10) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 09, dated May 21, 2013.

    (o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (i) 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.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

    (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0232R1, dated October 2, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0824.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08071 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2015-0007; Notice No. 151] RIN 1513-AC17 Proposed Establishment of the Lamorinda Viticultural Area AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 29,369-acre “Lamorinda” viticultural area in Contra Costa County, California. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the larger San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the multicounty Central Coast viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your comments on this notice to one of the following addresses:

    Internet: http://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2015-0007 at Regulations.gov, the Federal e-rulemaking portal);

    U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or

    Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20005.

    See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G St. NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

    Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

    Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

    • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

    • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

    • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

    • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

    • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

    Lamorinda Petition

    TTB received a petition from Patrick L. Shabram, on behalf of the Lamorinda Wine Growers Association, proposing the establishment of the “Lamorinda” AVA. The proposed Lamorinda AVA is located in Contra Costa County, California, and contains the cities of Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda. The proposed viticultural area lies in the northeast portion of the San Francisco Bay AVA (27 CFR 9.157) and also within the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75).

    The proposed AVA contains approximately 29,369 acres and has 46 commercially producing vineyards that cover approximately 139 acres. The petition states that the individual vineyards are small, each covering less than 5 acres, due to the hilly terrain and the largely suburban nature of the region. However, three much larger commercial vineyards covering a total of 130 acres are either in the early development or public review stages. There also are six bonded wineries currently within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Lamorinda AVA include its topography, soils, geology, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed viticultural area contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Lamorinda AVA and its supporting exhibits, which may be viewed in Docket No. TTB-2015-0007 at Regulations.gov.

    Name Evidence

    The proposed Lamorinda AVA takes its name from a commonly used portmanteau derived from the names of the three cities within the region: Lafayette (“La”), Moraga (“mor”), and Orinda (“inda”). As evidence of the use of the name “Lamorinda” in this region, the petition included a Rand McNally map of the region titled “Lamorinda.” The petition also included a listing of publications, sports clubs, businesses, and organizations within the proposed AVA that use the name “Lamorinda.” For example, a biweekly newspaper entitled Lamorinda Weekly and a Web site known as Lamorinda Web both provide news and information about the community. The Lamorinda Soccer Club, the Lamorinda Baseball Club, and the Lamorinda Rugby Football Club are all youth sports organizations in the region. A local transportation service known as the Lamorinda Spirit Van provides transportation for the elderly and individuals with disabilities within the region of the proposed AVA. Other businesses and organizations cited in the petition include Lamorinda Moms, Lamorinda Democratic Club, Lamorinda Sunrise Rotary, Lamorinda Music, Lamorinda Pediatrics, Lamorinda Theatre Academy, and Lamorinda Solar.

    Boundary Evidence

    The proposed Lamorinda AVA is comprised of hilly-to-mountainous terrain and occupies an area described in the petition as suburban. Elevations range from approximately 220 feet along Las Trampas Creek, which runs through the city of Lafayette in the eastern portion of the proposed AVA, to a 2,024-foot peak on Rocky Ridge in the southeastern corner of the proposed AVA.

    The eastern boundary of the proposed Lamorinda AVA follows a series of straight lines drawn along the ridgeline that separates the city of Walnut Creek, which lies just outside the boundary, from the city of Lafayette. The proposed eastern boundary also separates the hilly terrain of the proposed AVA from the flatter, lower elevations of the Ygnacio Valley and the San Ramon Valley. The proposed southern boundary follows a series of straight lines drawn between peaks to separate the proposed AVA from the more rugged, mountainous terrain to the south. The proposed western boundary follows a series of lines drawn between mountain peaks to follow the Gudde Ridge, which separates the proposed AVA from the Berkeley Hills and Oakland Highlands, both of which lie west of the proposed AVA. West of the Berkeley Hills and Oakland Highlands, the land slopes sharply towards the flatter, lower terrain surrounding San Leandro Bay and San Francisco Bay. The proposed northern boundary follows a portion of the corporate boundary line of the city of Orinda and a series of straight lines drawn between unnamed peaks whose elevations are marked on the USGS maps. The proposed boundary separates the proposed AVA from the lower, slightly cooler region surrounding the Briones Reservoir, the San Pablo Reservoir, and Suisun Bay, which all lie just north of the proposed AVA.

    Distinguishing Features

    The distinguishing features of the proposed Lamorinda AVA include its topography, soils, geology, and climate.

    Topography

    The proposed Lamorinda AVA is characterized by hilly-to-mountainous terrain, with a number of moderate-to-steep slopes throughout the region. Valleys within the proposed AVA tend to be very narrow. The high ridgelines that form the northern and western boundaries of the proposed AVA limit the amount of cool marine air that enters the region, giving the proposed AVA a warmer climate than the regions to the north and west.

    According to the petition, the hilly terrain of the proposed AVA affects viticulture. All vineyards within the proposed AVA are located on hillsides because the valley floors are too narrow for commercial viticulture. Because of the steepness of the hillsides, machinery cannot be used safely in the vineyards. Therefore, all vineyard work, including harvesting, must be done by hand. The inability to use machinery keeps the vineyards small. The steep hillsides also promote airflow within the vineyards, which dries and cools the vines and reduces the risk of mildew. Finally, the hilly terrain is suitable for growing both cool- and warm-climate varietals, sometimes within the same vineyard. As an example of cool- and warm-climate grapes growing in the same vineyard, the petition cites the Captain Vineyards in Moraga, which grows both Pinot Noir and Cabernet Sauvignon. The steepness of the vineyard means vines planted on the lower portions of the hillsides receive less sunlight, making the temperature cool enough to grow cool-climate grapes such as Pinot Noir. By contrast, the hilltops receive more sunlight, which raises the temperature enough to grow warm-climate grapes such as Cabernet Sauvignon.

    The hilly-to-mountainous topography of the proposed Lamorinda AVA contrasts with the terrain of the surrounding regions. To the north, the terrain becomes flatter as the land slopes down towards Suisun Bay. To the immediate east of the proposed AVA are the Ygnacio Valley and San Ramon Valley, which both have flatter terrain than the proposed AVA. To the immediate south of the proposed AVA, the topography is more mountainous and rugged than within the proposed AVA. To the west, the Berkeley Hills and Oakland Hills give way to the flat coastal terrain along San Leandro Bay and San Francisco Bay.

    In addition to having a distinctive topography, the proposed Lamorinda AVA also has a suburban land use pattern that is distinct from many other AVAs. According to the petition, 79.5 percent of the proposed AVA is located within the city limits of Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda. However, the petition also notes that the proposed AVA has semi-rural characteristics, with homes on large lots and a low population density. As a result, property owners often have room to plant vineyards that are large enough to allow for commercial viticulture. The petition states that the areas to the immediate east and west of the proposed AVA are more urban than the proposed AVA, with higher population densities and land that is subdivided into much smaller lots than the land within the proposed Lamorinda AVA. Therefore, commercial viticulture is not possible within those areas.

    Soils

    According to a geological report included with the petition as Exhibit B, the soils of the proposed Lamorinda AVA are classified as mollisols and vertisols. Mollisols are soils that are high in organic material and calcium and are common in areas where grass is the predominant native vegetation. Vertisols, the predominant soils in the proposed AVA, have high levels of clay and are known to shrink and form deep cracks during dry periods. The high clay content in the soils of the proposed AVA is attributable to the weathering of the clay-rich Orinda Formation that underlies the region.

    The most prevalent soil series within the proposed AVA are Los Osos clay loam, Lodo clay loam, Alo clay, Sehorn clay, and Altamont-Fontana Complex. Clay-rich soils such as these typically have high water-holding capacities, which can reduce the sugar content of the grapes and increase the risk of diseases and rot in vineyards. However, the soils of the proposed Lamorinda AVA have lower than expected water-holding capacities because the thinness of the soils, the steepness of the terrain, and the presence of sand in the soils all allow for the rapid runoff of excess water. The thinness of the soils also has the added effect of preventing the vines from growing too vigorously.

    The soils of the proposed Lamorinda AVA are distinctive from the soils in the surrounding regions. The soils to the west, south, and southeast of the proposed AVA are formed from a combination of sedimentary and volcanic materials. To the north of the proposed Lamorinda AVA, the soils along the Suisun Bay are fine-grained bay mud, which is unsuitable for viticulture due to its high water-holding capacity. To the east in the Ygnacio Valley, the soils are deeper, coarser alluvial deposits.

    Geology

    The dominant geological formation of the proposed AVA is the Orinda Formation. Other major geological formations within the proposed AVA include the Briones Formation and the Mulholland Formation. All three of these underlying geological formations contain large amounts of sedimentary rocks, including sandstone. Other sedimentary rocks present within these formations include shale, which is common in the Mulholland Formation, and claystone casts, which are present in large numbers in the Orinda Formation.

    The proposed Lamorinda AVA is bordered by two major faults. The Hayward Fault lies to the west of the proposed AVA and passes through the cities of Oakland and Berkeley. The Calaveras Fault runs east of the proposed AVA and through the city of Walnut Creek. The two faults angle toward each other and merge south of the proposed AVA. Millions of years ago, seismic activity in the Hayward Fault led to the uplifting of the Berkeley Hills and the formation of a restricted marine basin in the region of the proposed AVA. A restricted marine basin is a body of saltwater or brackish water that has more water flowing into the basin than out of it, due to the surrounding topography. Fine materials weathering from the Berkeley Hills, to the west, and the foothills of Mount Diablo, to the southeast, settled in this basin and led to the creation of the Orinda Formation. Eventually, the basin was completely restricted and became a shallow lake. The deposition of weathered material into this shallow lake created the Mulholland Formation. Over time, seismic activity along the Hayward Fault and the Calaveras Fault uplifted the bottom of the shallow lake, draining the lake and forming the hilly terrain that is characteristic of the proposed Lamorinda AVA.

    To the east of the proposed Lamorinda AVA, the dominant geological formation is the Tassajara-Green Valley Formation, which consists of mudstone, sandstone, and small amounts of volcanic material. To the south of the proposed AVA, the Orinda, Briones, and Mulholland Formations continue to dominate, eventually giving way to the Forearc Assemblage. To the west, the dominant geologic formations are the Forearc Assemblage, the Franciscan Formation, and the Great Valley Ophiolite, along with the Moraga Formation and Siesta Formation. To the north, the Briones and Monterey Formations dominate and eventually give way to Forearc Assemblage.

    The geology of the proposed Lamorinda AVA affects viticulture indirectly through its role in forming the terrain and soils of the region. Erosion of the Orinda Formation led to the formation of the proposed AVA's clay-rich soils with high water-holding capacities. The uplifting of the floor of the ancient lake created the steep, hilly terrain of the proposed AVA. The steepness of the hills provides good drainage and limits the depth of the soils, both of which help mitigate the high water-holding capacity of the soils in the proposed AVA. Finally, the hills of the proposed AVA allow for good airflow in vineyards and provide a variety of slope aspects that are suitable for growing a wide variety of grapes.

    Climate

    Ridgelines shelter the proposed Lamorinda AVA from much of the diurnal fog and cool marine air moving inland from San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay. While some marine air enters the proposed AVA through narrow creek valleys and wind gaps, the region is less exposed to the cool air as the regions along the bays. Additionally, the small amount of daytime fog that enters the proposed AVA is thin and burns off quickly, unlike the heavier, longer-lasting fog of the coastal areas. As a result, the proposed AVA receives more sunlight and has generally warmer temperatures than the surrounding regions, except for the regions farther inland, which receive very little, if any, marine air and fog. The proposed AVA does receive some nocturnal fog, although the petition states that nocturnal fog has a different effect on temperatures than diurnal fog. Diurnal fog usually lowers daytime temperatures by blocking the sunlight. By contrast, nocturnal fog has a modest warming effect on nighttime temperatures. When the heat that has been absorbed by soil during the day is released back into the air at night, nocturnal fog acts as a blanket, trapping the heat closer to the ground and preventing it from dissipating.

    The petition included annual growing degree day (GDD) 1 data from eight weather stations within and around the proposed Lamorinda AVA. The data from all eight stations is contained in Exhibit C of the petition. Of the four stations that had complete data from 2007 to 2011, the data showed that the proposed AVA had the highest GDD accumulations over that period, which substantiates the petition's claim that the proposed AVA is sheltered from cooling marine air and diurnal fog more so than surrounding areas. The following table from the petition summarizes the GDD data from the four stations that had complete data from 2007 to 2011.

    1 In the Winkler climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64.

    Annual Growing Degree Data From 2007-2011 Year Lafayette
  • Reservoir 2
  • (within proposed AVA)
  • Oakland Foothills 3
  • (South-southwest of proposed AVA)
  • Concord 4
  • (Northwest of
  • proposed AVA)
  • Pleasanton 5
  • (Southeast of
  • proposed AVA)
  • 2007 2,928 2,187 3,024 2,863 2008 3,325 2,479 3,209 3,068 2009 3,215 2,367 3,068 3,090 2010 2,816 2,103 2,664 2,599 2011 2,995 2,173 2,778 2,842

    The data from the remaining four weather stations 6 outside the proposed AVA was incomplete for the years between 2007 and 2011. However, the data that was provided also shows that the proposed AVA had higher GDD accumulations than three of those stations. The fourth station, located in Brentwood, California, which is to the east of the proposed AVA, had higher GDD accumulations than the proposed AVA. This further substantiates the petition's claim that areas outside of the proposed AVA, such as Brentwood and other areas located much farther inland, differ in that they receive less marine air and fog than the proposed AVA.

    2 Data from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) station located at the reservoir.

    3 Data from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) station #147 (“Oakland Foothills”) on the campus of Mills College in Oakland, CA.

    4 Data from the CIMIS station #170 (“Concord”) on the Diablo Creek Golf Course in Concord, CA.

    5 Data from the CIMIS station #191 (“Pleasanton”) located in Alameda County, CA.

    6 EBMUD station at San Pablo Reservoir (north-northwest of proposed AVA), EBMUD station at Briones Reservoir (north of proposed AVA), EBMUD station at Upper San Leandro Reservoir (south of proposed AVA), and CMIS station #47 (“Brentwood”) in Brentwood (east of proposed AVA).

    The warm temperatures, high GDD accumulations, and lack of diurnal fog in the proposed Lamorinda AVA have an effect on viticulture. Slower-maturing varieties of grapes have ample time to ripen because the warm temperatures and plentiful sunlight allow for long days of photosynthesis. By contrast, slower-maturing varieties of grapes are less likely to ripen successfully in the cooler, foggier regions to the north, south, and west of the proposed AVA because lower temperatures and lower levels of sunlight interrupt photosynthesis.

    Summary of Distinguishing Features

    In summary, the evidence provided in the petition indicates that the geographic features of the proposed Lamorinda AVA are distinguishable from those of the surrounding regions. The terrain of the proposed AVA is moderate-to-steep hills, which contrasts with the steeper, more rugged terrain to the south and west and the lower, flatter plains to the north and east. The soils of the proposed AVA are high in clay, whereas volcanic materials are present in the soils to the south and west and alluvial deposits are prominent to the north and east. The dominant geological formation of the proposed Lamorinda AVA is the Orinda Formation, whereas the Tassajara-Green Valley Formation is prominent to the east and the Forearc Assemblage dominates the regions to the north, west, and south. Finally, the surrounding regions are more exposed to marine air and fog and have lower GDD accumulations than the proposed AVA.

    Comparison of the Proposed Lamorinda Viticultural Area to the Existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs San Francisco Bay AVA

    The San Francisco Bay AVA was established by T.D. ATF-407, which was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 1999 (64 FR 3024). According to T.D. ATF-407, the San Francisco Bay AVA is distinguished by a climate that is heavily influenced by marine air and fog from San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The presence of stream valleys and wind gaps in the region allows limited amounts of marine air and fog to travel beyond the coastal mountains and into the interior regions of the AVA. However, as one travels easterly from the coastline, the climate generally becomes drier and warmer as the marine influence diminishes.

    The proposed Lamorinda AVA is located in the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay AVA and shares some broad characteristics of the larger San Francisco Bay AVA. While the proposed Lamorinda AVA receives some marine air that enters the region through stream valleys and wind gaps, much of the cooling air is blocked by the higher elevations that surround the proposed AVA to the north, west, and south. The proposed AVA also experiences some light nocturnal marine fog, but the heavy diurnal fog that characterizes the more coastal portions of the San Francisco Bay AVA seldom occurs.

    Central Coast AVA

    The large, 1 million-acre Central Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-216, which was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 1985 (50 FR 43128). The Central Coast viticultural area encompasses the California counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz, and it contains 28 established AVAs. T.D. ATF-216 describes the Central Coast viticultural area as extending from Santa Barbara to the San Francisco Bay area, and east to the California Coastal Ranges. The only distinguishing feature of the California Coast AVA addressed in T.D. ATF-216 is that all of the included counties experience marine climate influence due to their proximity to the Pacific Ocean.

    The proposed Lamorinda AVA is located within the Central Coast AVA and, like the larger AVA, experiences mild marine breezes and nocturnal marine fog. However, due to its much smaller size, the proposed AVA has greater uniformity in geographical features such as topography, temperature, and soils, than the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA.

    TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 29,369-acre Lamorinda AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for viticultural area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.

    Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.

    Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

    If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Lamorinda,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Lamorinda” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule.

    The approval of the proposed Lamorinda AVA would not affect any existing viticultural area, and any bottlers using “San Francisco Bay” or “Central Coast” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the San Francisco Bay or Central Coast AVAs would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Lamorinda AVA would allow vintners to use “Lamorinda,” “San Francisco Bay,” and “Central Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Lamorinda AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

    Public Participation Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Lamorinda AVA's location within the existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. TTB also is interested in comments whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs that the proposed Lamorinda AVA should no longer be part of those AVAs. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.

    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Lamorinda AVA on wine labels that include the term “Lamorinda” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB also is interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.

    Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2015-0007 on Regulations.gov, the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 151 on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the “Help” tab.

    U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20005.

    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 151 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.

    In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.

    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

    Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0007 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 151. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use Regulations.gov, click on the site's “Help” tab.

    All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.

    You also may view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

    Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

    Proposed Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    27 U.S.C. 205.

    Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding § 9.___to read as follows:
    § 9. Lamorinda.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Lamorinda”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Lamorinda” is a term of viticultural significance.

    (b) Approved maps. The four United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Lamorinda viticultural area are titled:

    (1) Walnut Creek, CA, 1995;

    (2) Las Trampas Ridge, CA, 1995;

    (3) Oakland East, CA, 1997; and

    (4) Briones Valley, CA, 1995.

    (c) Boundary. The Lamorinda viticultural area is located in Contra Costa County, California. The boundary of the Lamorinda viticultural area is as described below:

    (1) The beginning point is on Walnut Creek map at the water tank (known locally as the Withers Reservoir) at the end of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Kim Road, in the Cañada del Hambre Y Las Bolsas Land Grant.

    (2) From the beginning point, proceed south-southeast in a straight line approximately 0.8 mile to the 833-foot peak marked “Hump 2;” then

    (3) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 1.7 miles to the marked 781-foot peak south of the shared Lafayette-Walnut Creek corporate boundary line and north of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Peaceful Lane; then

    (4) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 0.3 mile to the marked 610-foot peak southwest of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Secluded Place; then

    (5) Proceed south-southwest in a straight line approximately 1.7 miles to an unidentified benchmark at the end of an unnamed unimproved road known locally as Diablo Oaks Way in section 33, T1N/R2W; then

    (6) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Las Trampas map, and continuing another 0.9 mile to the substation at the southeast corner of section 4, T1S/R2W; then

    (7) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 2.3 miles to the 1,827-foot summit of Las Trampas Peak, section 22, T1S/R2W; then

    (8) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line approximately 2.1 miles to the 2,024-foot benchmark marked “Rock 2” in section 26, T1S/R2W; then

    (9) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line approximately 2.7 miles to the marked 1,057-foot peak in section 29, T1S/R2W; then

    (10) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line approximately 2 miles to the intersection of the 1,000-foot elevation line with the Contra Costa-Alameda County line in section 31, T1S/R2W; then

    (11) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 0.4 mile, crossing onto the Oakland East map, then continuing another 0.1 mile to the 1,121-foot peak in section 30, T1S/R2W; then

    (12) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 3.6 miles to the 1,301-foot peak in section 15, T1S/R3W; then

    (13) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 1.6 miles to the 1,634-foot peak in section 9, T1S/R3W; then

    (14) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 2.2 miles to the communication tower on the Contra Costa-Alameda County line in section 5, T1S/R3W; then

    (15) Proceed north in a straight line approximately 0.1 mile, crossing onto the Briones Valley map, then continuing another 0.6 mile to the 1,905-foot summit of Vollmer Peak in the El Sobrante Land Grant; then

    (16) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line approximately 3 miles, crossing over to the 1,027-foot peak in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant, to the Orinda corporate boundary line; then

    (17) Proceed generally east along the Orinda corporate boundary line approximately 3.3 miles to the water tank at the 1,142-foot elevation in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant; then

    (18) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line approximately 1.2 miles to the 1,357-foot benchmark marked “Russell” in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant; then

    (19) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 0.8 mile to the 1,405-foot peak in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant; then

    (20) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line approximately 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Walnut Creek map, then continuing another 1.1 miles to the beginning point.

    Signed: April 7, 2015. John J. Manfreda, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08495 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2015-0005; Notice No. 149] RIN 1513-AC14 Proposed Establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area and Realignment of the Columbia Valley Viticultural Area AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 306,650-acre “Lewis-Clark Valley” viticultural area in portions of Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater and Latah Counties in Idaho and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman Counties in Washington. TTB also proposes to modify the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley viticultural area to eliminate a potential overlap with the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area. The proposed boundary modifications would decrease the size of the approximately 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley viticultural area by approximately 57,020 acres. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.

    DATES:

    TTB must receive your comments on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your comments on this proposal to one of the following addresses:

    http://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this document as posted within Docket No. TTB-2015-0005 at “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal);

    U.S. mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or

    Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200E, Washington, DC 20005.

    See the Public Participation section of this document for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth the standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

    Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

    Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA.

    Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

    • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

    • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

    • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

    • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

    • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

    Petitions to modify the boundary of an existing AVA which would result in a decrease in the size of an existing AVA must include the following:

    • An explanation of the extent to which the current AVA name does not apply to the excluded area;

    • An explanation of how the distinguishing features of the excluded area are different from those within the boundary of the smaller AVA; and

    • An explanation of how the boundary of the existing AVA was incorrectly or incompletely defined or is no longer accurate due to new evidence or changed circumstances.

    Petition To Establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and To Modify the Boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA

    TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan Busacca, a licensed geologist and founder of Vinitas Consultants, LLC, on behalf of the Palouse-Lewis Clark Valley Wine Alliance and the Clearwater Economic Development Association. The petition proposed to establish the “Lewis-Clark Valley” AVA and to modify the boundary of the existing “Columbia Valley” AVA (27 CFR 9.74). The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is located at the confluence of the Snake River and the Clearwater River and covers portions of Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties in northern Idaho and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman Counties in southeastern Washington.

    The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA contains approximately 306,650 acres and has 3 bonded wineries, as well as 16 vineyards containing more than 81 acres of grapes distributed across the proposed AVA. According to the petition, an additional 50 acres of grapes are expected to be planted in the next few years. The distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area include its climate, topography, native vegetation, and soils. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data contained in the sections below are from the petition to establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify the established Columbia Valley AVA.

    A small portion of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA overlaps the southeastern corner of the established Columbia Valley AVA. The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA does not overlap any other established AVA. To eliminate the potential overlap, the petitioner proposed to modify the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA so that the overlapping area would be solely within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The proposed modifications would reduce the size of the approximately 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley AVA boundary by approximately 57,020 acres. One vineyard, Arnett Vineyard, currently exists within the area of the proposed boundary modification. The vineyard owners have provided TTB with a letter supporting the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the proposed modification of the Columbia Valley AVA boundary.

    Proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA Name Evidence

    The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA derives its name from the two principle towns within the proposed AVA: Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, Washington. The two towns, which face each other across the Snake River, were named in honor of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, who traveled through the region of the proposed AVA during their famous expedition of 1804-1806. The petition included examples of schools, businesses, and organizations within the proposed AVA that bear the names of Lewis and Clark, including Lewis-Clark State College, Lewis-Clark Terminal at the Port of Clarkston, Lewis-Clark Moose Lodge 75, Lewis-Clark Metropolitan Appliance and TV Repair, Lewis-Clark Credit Union, Lewis-Clark Dental Clinic, and Lewis-Clark Auto Sales.

    The petition also included evidence that the region of the proposed AVA is known as the “Lewis-Clark Valley.” For example, the Wikipedia entry for “Clarkston, Washington” states that the town is located “in the Lewis-Clark Valley at the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater rivers.” 1 The Lewis Clark Valley Chamber of Commerce promotes tourism and economic development within the region of the proposed AVA. An organization called Valley Vision has as its mission the “[c]ontinuous improvement of the Lewis-Clark Valley's business climate * * * .” 2 The Web site LC Today, which features news and activities in the Lewiston-Clarkston region, offers a listing of “60 Things To Do in the Lewis-Clark Valley.” 3 A Web site featuring real estate information for the region of the proposed AVA is called “Lewis-Clark Valley Homes.” 4 The telephone directory serving the region of the proposed AVA is called the “Lewis-Clark Valley Telephone Directory.” The Lewis-Clark Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization provides transportation project planning for the region. Finally, several organizations within the proposed AVA have the phrase “Lewis-Clark Valley” in their names, including the Lewis-Clark Valley Baptist Church, Family Promise of Lewis-Clark Valley, the La Leche League of the Lewis-Clark Valley, and the Boys & Girls Club of the Lewis-Clark Valley.

    1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkston,_Washington.

    2www.lewis-clarkvalley.org/about/our-mission.

    3www.lctoday.com/tourism/valleyactivities.htm.

    4www.lcvalleyhomes.com.

    Boundary Evidence

    The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA consists mostly of canyon walls, low plateaus, and bench lands formed by the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. Approximately 98 percent of the proposed AVA's boundary follows the 600-meter elevation line, and all the land within the proposed AVA is below that elevation. The 600-meter elevation line was chosen because grapes do not reliably ripen annually above that elevation and, above that altitude, temperatures fall low enough to kill the varieties of Vitis vinifera (V. vinifera) grapes that are grown within the proposed AVA. TTB notes that the maps used to draw the proposed boundary show elevations in meters, and the petition describes the elevations within the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions in terms of feet. Six hundred meters corresponds to approximately 1,970 feet.

    The regions outside the proposed AVA generally have higher elevations and colder temperatures than the proposed AVA. To the north of the proposed AVA is the high prairie region known as the Palouse. The heavily forested Bitterroot Mountains are located to the east of the proposed AVA boundary. The proposed southern boundary separates the proposed AVA from the Craig Mountains and from Hells Gate State Park, which is not available for commercial viticulture due to its protected status as an Idaho State park. Additionally, the southern boundary was drawn to prevent the proposed AVA from extending into Oregon, which is less than 5 miles from the southernmost proposed AVA boundary but is not considered to be part of the geographical region known as the Lewis-Clark Valley. To the west and southwest of the proposed AVA are the Blue Mountains.

    Distinguishing Features

    The distinguishing features of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA include its climate, topography, native vegetation, and soils.

    Climate

    Temperature: According to the petition, the temperate climate of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is well suited for growing wine grapes, especially varieties of V. vinifera. The warm temperatures of the proposed AVA have earned the region the nickname “banana belt of the Pacific Northwest.” The table below, derived from information submitted in support of the petition, compares the average annual temperature and growing degree days 5 (GDDs) of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the surrounding regions. The data from the two weather stations within the proposed AVA and from the Moscow, Idaho, weather station, approximately 32 miles north of Lewiston, Idaho, was gathered during the period from 2000 to 2009. The data for the Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue Mountains consists of estimates calculated by the petitioner based on elevation, as there are no weather stations located within these regions.

    5 As a measurement of heat accumulation during the grape-growing season, one degree day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. In the Winkler climate classification system, heat accumulation as measured in growing degree days (GDDs) per year defines climatic regions. Climatic region I has less than 2,500 GDDs per year; region II, 2,501 to 3,000; region III, 3,001 to 3,500; region IV, 3,501 to 4,000; and region V, 4,001 or more. See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 61-64.

    Location (direction from proposed AVA) Average
  • annual
  • temperature
  • (degrees
  • fahrenheit)
  • Average growing season GDD
  • accumulation
  • Lewiston Nez Perce weather station (within) 53.4 3,036 Dworshak Fish Hatchery (within) 51.6 2,613 Moscow, ID (north) 47.6 1,796 Bitterroot Mountains (east) 40 1,000-1,500 Craig Mountains (south) 45 1,500-1,700 Blue Mountains (west, southwest) 42 1,000-1,500

    According to the petition, the average annual temperatures and GDD accumulation that the proposed AVA experiences are within the range required for many varieties of wine grapes to ripen reliably, including Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Grenache, Malbec, Pinot noir, Syrah, Pinot gris, Riesling, and Zinfandel, all of which are grown within the proposed AVA. By contrast, annual temperatures and GDD accumulations that the surrounding regions experience are too cold to support most viticulture, particularly varieties of V. vinifera, which require at least 2,000 GDDs to ripen successfully. As evidence, the petition notes that Washington State University in Pullman, located in the Palouse region approximately 30 miles northwest of Lewiston, Washington, has had a vigorous wine grape research program for the past 12 years but has yet to succeed in propagating and maintaining research vineyards due to the cold temperatures.

    The petition also included the Cool-Climate Viticulture Suitability Index (CCVSI) statistics that were available from the two weather stations located within the proposed AVA and the station in Moscow, Idaho. The CCVSI is the number of days between the last spring temperature below 29 degrees Fahrenheit and the first fall temperature below 29 degrees Fahrenheit. Within the proposed AVA, the CCVSI for the Lewiston Nez Perce station was 234.2 and the CCVSI for the Dworshak Fish Hatchery was 225.2. By contrast, the CCVSI for the Moscow station was 159.5, which means the region north of the proposed AVA has a growing season that is approximately 2 months shorter than that of the proposed AVA. The significantly shorter growing season in the Palouse region does not allow sufficient time for wine grapes to ripen reliably, particularly the varieties of V. vinifera grown within the proposed AVA.

    Precipitation: The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA receives less rainfall annually than the surrounding regions. The following table is derived from data submitted in support of the petition and compares the annual precipitation amounts within the proposed AVA to those of the surrounding areas. Precipitation data from the two weather stations within the proposed AVA and from the Moscow, Idaho, station was gathered during 2000 to 2009. The data for the Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue Mountains was calculated using the data mapping system of the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State University.6

    6 The Parameter-elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) climate data mapping system combined climate normals gathered from weather stations, along with other factors such as elevation, longitude, slope angles, and solar aspect to estimate the general climate patterns for the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. Climate normals are only calculated every 10 years, using 30 years of data, and at the time the petition was submitted, the most recent climate normals available were from the period of 1971-2000.

    Location (direction from
  • proposed AVA)
  • Annual
  • precipitation
  • amounts
  • (inches)
  • Lewiston Nez Perce weather station (within) 11.3 Dworshak Fish Hatchery (within) 22.7 Moscow, Idaho (north) 25.1 Bitterroot Mountains (east) 40-70 Craig Mountains (south) 20-35 Blue Mountains (west, southwest) 25-50

    The proposed AVA's location to the east of the Blue Mountains is the primary factor behind its low precipitation amounts. The Blue Mountains, which rise to elevations over 6,000 feet, intercept storms carried on the westerly jet stream and prevent them from entering the proposed AVA. Most of the annual precipitation within the proposed AVA occurs between November and May, and the region experiences a prolonged summer drought. One viticultural benefit of summer droughts is that grape growers do not have to be concerned about excessive water damaging the roots of the vines. Although growing season precipitation amounts are very small, the petition states that viticulture is able to thrive within the proposed AVA because the winter rains are sufficient to “fill the soil profile,” assuring adequate amounts of soil moisture necessary for bud break and fruit set early in the growing season. By mid-June, the soil is dry enough to induce mild water stress on the vines and slow the growth of canes and leaves, allowing the vines to put their energy into fruit production. Vineyard managers can then control the amount of water added to the soil via drip irrigation, ensuring that the vines receive enough water to survive but not so much as to promote overly vigorous cane or leaf growth or root rot.

    Topography

    The topography of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA includes bench lands, low plateaus, and steeply sloping canyon walls. Although the proposed AVA is often referred to as a “valley” because its elevations are lower than those of the surrounding regions, the landscape has been cut into such steep and deep V-notched canyons by the Snake and Clearwater Rivers and their tributaries that almost none of the AVA consists of the broad floodplains typically associated with valley floors. According to the petition, the lack of floodplains within the proposed AVA is beneficial to viticulture because floodplains often have high water tables that limit vine root depth. Floodplains are also susceptible to cold-air pooling that can damage new growth and delay fruit maturation.

    Elevations within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA range from approximately 740 feet along the Snake and Clearwater Rivers to approximately 1,970 feet along most of the proposed AVA's boundary. The average elevation within the proposed AVA is 1,200 feet. According to a table included in the petition, the vineyards within the proposed AVA are planted at elevations between 815 and 1,850 feet. The petition states that at elevations above approximately 1,970 feet, growing season temperatures are too cold to support reliable ripening of V. vinifera and winter freezes can be hard enough to kill dormant vines.

    The topography of the surrounding regions is different from that of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. To the north, the Palouse is dominated by rounded, gently rolling hills and elevations ranging from approximately 1,000 feet to 2,800 feet, with an average elevation of 2,200 feet. To the east, south, west, and southwest of the proposed AVA are high, rugged mountains cut by deep canyons. Elevations in the Bitterroot Mountains, east of the proposed AVA, range from 3,000 feet to 10,150 feet and average approximately 6,000 feet. To the south, the Craig Mountains range from 2,500 feet to over 5,100 feet and average approximately 3,000 feet. To the west and southwest, the Blue Mountains range from 2,500 feet to over 6,300 feet with an average elevation of approximately 4,000 feet.

    Native Vegetation

    The native vegetation of the canyon walls, plateaus, terraces, and benches of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA consists of low shrubs and perennial grasses that have deep masses of fine roots. Although some portions of the eastern half of the proposed AVA are sparsely forested, the understory of the forested regions is covered with perennial grasses. The petition states that the decomposition of the grasses and their roots over the years has contributed to the formation of nutrient-rich soils within the proposed AVA that are high in the organic materials that promote healthy vine growth.

    Likewise, to the north of the proposed AVA, the native vegetation of the Palouse consists primarily of perennial grasses. However, most of the native vegetation of the Palouse was cleared in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for large-scale agricultural purposes, such as wheat production, which continue to this day. To the east, south, and west of the proposed AVA, the Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue Mountains are covered with conifer forests. The understories of these conifer forests are typically covered with pine needle litter instead of perennial grasses. The pine needle litter remains on the surface of the soil, unlike the root masses of perennial grasses. Therefore, the organic material released by the decaying pine needle litter does not mix as deeply into the soil as the material released by decaying grass roots. As a result, the soils of the mountainous regions are not as high in organic material and nutrients as the soils within the proposed AVA.

    Soils

    There are approximately 88 different soil types within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. However, approximately 95 percent of the soil types within the proposed AVA belong to the Mollisols soil order. Soils from this order are comprised primarily of decomposed perennial grasses and grass roots and contain a high level of organic matter in the form of humus. The humus accumulates within the soil, rather than just in a layer on top of the soil, due to the decomposition of the dense masses of grass roots. The high levels of organic matter in the soils provide an ample supply of nutrients for vineyards. Most of the cultivated Mollisols soils within the proposed AVA also contain loess, which is comprised of fine-grained particles of nutrient-rich silt that were deposited by wind.

    The soils within the proposed AVA are generally thin, having been eroded over the years by the Snake and Clearwater Rivers and their tributaries. As a result, the soils average less than 6 feet in depth before reaching a restrictive subsurface, such as bedrock. The shallowness of the soils limits the depths of roots and prevents overly vigorous cane and leaf development.

    According to the petition, the Mollisols soils within the proposed AVA have the highest available water holding capacity (AWC) of any known soil texture class. AWC is the ability of soil to store rainfall and irrigation water. The soils within the proposed AVA can store approximately 2.4 inches of water per foot of soil. In regions that receive high amounts of annual rainfall, soils with high AWC may not be suitable for viticulture because excessive amounts of stored water promote root rot, mildew, and fungal diseases. However, because the proposed AVA has very low annual rainfall amounts and receives most of its rainfall outside the growing season, the amount of water stored in the soil is not excessive and does not pose a risk to the health of the vines.

    The soils of the surrounding regions differ from those of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. To the north, the soils of the Palouse are also loess-derived Mollisols, but the soils reach depths of up to 12 feet, which is much deeper than the soil depth of the proposed AVA. In the mountainous regions to the east, south, west, and southwest of the proposed AVA, the soils also are deeper than within the proposed AVA. Even though the surrounding mountain slopes are steep, the soils have not eroded like the soils of the proposed AVA because the dense conifer forests have held much of the soil in place. Soils in the regions to the east, south, west, and southwest of the proposed AVA are mostly of the Andisols order and are derived from volcanic ash and other material produced by volcanic eruptions. Unlike the Mollisols of the proposed AVA, Andisols soils contain only small amounts of organic matter because the humus is derived from the decomposition of leaf litter resting on the soil's surface, rather than from masses of grass roots decomposing deep within the soil.

    Summary of Distinguishing Features

    In summary, the climate, topography, native vegetation, and soils of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA distinguish it from the surrounding areas. In all directions outside the proposed AVA, the temperatures are cooler, the growing degree day accumulations are smaller, rainfall is higher, and the elevations are higher. The steep canyon walls, plateaus, and bench lands of the proposed AVA are different from the rounded, rolling hills of the Palouse region to the north and the rugged Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue Mountains that surround the proposed AVA to the east, south, and west. Perennial grasses and shrubs are the primary vegetation within the proposed AVA, whereas the majority of the native vegetation to the north of the proposed AVA has been cleared for agricultural purposes, and the regions to the east, south, and west are covered with coniferous forests. Finally, the soils of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA are thin, loess-derived Mollisols soils, which are shallower than the Mollisols soils of the Palouse region to the north and distinct from the volcanic Andisols soils found to the east, south, and west.

    Proposed Modification of the Columbia Valley AVA

    As previously noted, the petitioner requested a modification of the boundary of the established Columbia Valley AVA. The Columbia Valley AVA is located in central and eastern Washington and northern Oregon. The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA spans the Idaho-Washington border and, as proposed, would partially overlap the southeastern corner of the Columbia Valley AVA near the communities of Clarkston, Vineland, and Asotin, Washington. The proposed boundary modifications would reduce the size of the Columbia Valley AVA by approximately 57,020 acres (approximately 0.5 percent) and would eliminate the potential overlap between the proposed AVA and the existing AVA.

    If the boundary modification is approved, the area of the potential overlap would be included exclusively within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. Wines produced primarily from grapes grown within the removed region would no longer be eligible for labeling with the “Columbia Valley” appellation. There is currently one vineyard, Arnett Vineyard, within the region of the proposed boundary modification. The petition included a letter of support from the owners of that vineyard, stating their support for the proposed Columbia Valley AVA boundary modification and the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.

    Overview of the Columbia Valley AVA

    The 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley AVA was established by T.D. ATF-190, which was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1984 (49 FR 44897), and codified at 27 CFR 9.74. The Columbia Valley AVA is a large, treeless basin surrounding the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers in Washington and Oregon. T.D. ATF-190 states that the Columbia Valley AVA has a growing season between 150 and 204 days and annual rainfall of less than 15 inches. The topography of the AVA is characterized by its broadly undulating hills cut by rivers and broken by sloping basaltic uplifts.

    T.D. ATF-190 made no comparisons of the Columbia Valley AVA to the area identified in this proposed rule as the Idaho portion of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.

    Comparison of Distinguishing Features Within the Proposed Realignment Area to the Columbia Valley AVA

    The region of the proposed boundary modification is located in the southeastern portion of the Columbia River Valley AVA, along the Snake River and near the towns of Clarkson, Vineland, and Asotin, Washington. The petition emphasizes that the region proposed to be removed from the Columbia Valley AVA (hereinafter referred to as the proposed realignment area) has topography and soils that are more similar to those of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA than to those of the existing AVA.

    The topography of the proposed realignment area is consistent with that of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The average elevation of both the proposed realignment area and the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is 1,200 feet, which is higher than the Columbia Valley AVA's average elevation of 700 feet. The proposed realignment area, like the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, consists of steep, V-shaped canyons, low plateaus, and bench lands along the Snake River and its tributaries. By contrast, the majority of the Columbia Valley AVA is a broad basin with a gently rolling surface. The petition notes that the Columbia River Valley AVA contains rugged, canyon-like coulees and broad, flat-floored “channeled scablands.” However, the coulees and scablands were created by cataclysmic glacial floods from the ancient Lake Missoula, whereas the canyon of the proposed realignment area and the proposed AVA was carved over time by the flow of the Snake River. The coulees and scablands also are generally shallower and have broad, flat floors, as compared to the deep, steeply-sloped V-shaped canyons and narrow valley floors of the proposed realignment area and the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.

    The soils of the proposed realignment area also are different from the soils of the Columbia Valley AVA. Within the proposed realignment area, most of the soils are from the Mollisols order, as are the soils within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. By contrast, approximately 80 percent of Columbia Valley AVA soils are Aridisols and Entisols. Aridisols and Entisols soils generally contain less than 1 percent organic matter, compared to the humus-rich soils of the Mollisols order. Aridisols and Entisols soils also generally have lower water-holding capacities due to their coarse or gravelly textures, whereas the loamy Mollisols soils of both the proposed realignment area and proposed AVA have greater water-holding capacities. Finally, Aridisols and Entisols soils are generally alkaline, compared to the slightly acidic Mollisols soils. Although the petition states that some Mollisols soils exist within the Columbia Valley AVA, they generally occur at high elevations that are too cold to support V. vinifera.

    In addition to the physical features that distinguish the proposed realignment area from the Columbia Valley AVA and unite it with the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, the petition included evidence that the proposed realignment area is strongly associated with the name “Lewis-Clark Valley,” rather than the “Columbia Valley” name. For example, three of the businesses in the “Name Evidence” section of this proposed rule (the Lewis-Clark Terminal, Lewis-Clark Credit Union, and Lewis-Clark Dental Clinic) are located within the proposed realignment area. Additionally, all of the organizations listed in the “Name Evidence” section serve residents of the proposed AVA as well as the proposed realignment area, further demonstrating that the proposed realignment area is strongly associated with the region known as the Lewis-Clark Valley.

    TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 306,650-acre “Lewis-Clark Valley” American viticultural area and to concurrently modify the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this document.

    TTB is proposing the establishment of the new viticultural area and the modification of the existing AVA as one action. Accordingly, if TTB establishes the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, then the proposed boundary modification of the Columbia Valley AVA would be approved concurrently. If TTB does not establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, then the present Columbia Valley AVA boundary would not be modified as proposed in this document.

    Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA and the boundary modification of the established AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document.

    Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and TTB lists them below in the proposed regulatory text.

    Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. If TTB establishes this proposed viticultural area, its name, “Lewis-Clark Valley,” would be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point.

    If this proposed regulatory text is adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers using “Lewis-Clark Valley” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA's full name “Lewis-Clark Valley” as an appellation of origin. If approved, the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the proposed modification of the Columbia Valley AVA boundary would allow vintners to use “Lewis-Clark Valley” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

    Use of “Columbia Valley” as an Appellation of Origin

    If the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the corresponding modification of the Columbia Valley AVA boundary are approved, bottlers currently using “Columbia Valley” as an appellation of origin for wine produced primarily from grapes grown in the area removed from the Columbia Valley AVA would no longer be able to use “Columbia Valley” as an appellation of origin, but could use the term “Lewis-Clark Valley” in the brand name if otherwise eligible. See the “Transition Period” section of this document for more details.

    Bottlers currently using “Columbia Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wine produced from grapes grown within the current, and if modified, Columbia Valley AVA would still be eligible to use the term as an appellation of origin or in a brand name.

    Transition Period

    If the proposals to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA are adopted as a final rule, a transition rule will apply to labels for wines produced from grapes grown in the area removed from the Columbia Valley AVA. A label containing the words “Columbia Valley” in the brand name or as an appellation of origin may be used on wine bottled within two years from the effective date of the final rule, provided that such label was approved prior to the effective date of the final rule and that the wine conforms to the standards for use of the label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in effect prior to the final rule. At the end of this two-year transition period, if a wine is no longer eligible for labeling with the “Columbia Valley” AVA name (e.g., it is primarily produced from grapes grown in the area removed from the Columbia Valley AVA), then a label containing the words “Columbia Valley” in the brand name or as an appellation of origin would not be permitted on the bottle. TTB believes that the two-year period should provide affected label holders with adequate time to use up any existing labels. This transition period is described in the proposed regulatory text for the Columbia Valley AVA published at the end of this notice.

    TTB notes that wine eligible for labeling with the “Columbia Valley” AVA name under the proposed new boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA will not be affected by this two-year transition period. Furthermore, if TTB does not approve the proposed boundary modification, then all wine label holders currently eligible to use the “Columbia Valley” AVA name would be allowed to continue to use their labels as originally approved.

    Public Participation Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether TTB should establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and concurrently modify the boundary of the established Columbia Valley AVA. TTB is interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, climate, topography, soils, and other required information submitted in support of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.

    TTB also invites comments on the proposed modification of the existing Columbia Valley AVA. TTB is especially interested in comments on whether the evidence provided sufficiently differentiates the proposed realignment area from the existing Columbia Valley AVA. Comments should address the name usage, boundaries, climate, topography, soils, and any other pertinent information that supports or opposes the proposed boundary modification.

    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA on wine labels that include the term “Lewis-Clark Valley,” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB also is interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.

    Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this proposal by using one of the following three methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this document within Docket No. TTB-2015-0005 on “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 149 on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the “Help” tab at the top of the page.

    U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20005.

    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 149 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals.

    Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.

    You also may write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

    Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0005 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 149. You also may reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the “Help” tab at the top of the page.

    All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that it considers unsuitable for posting.

    You also may view copies of this document, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You also may obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.

    Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document.

    List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    27 U.S.C. 205.

    Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Amend § 9.74 by revising paragraph (b) and paragraphs (c)(38) through (c)(40) and by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 9.74 Columbia Valley.

    (b) Approved maps. The approved maps for determining the boundary of the Columbia Valley viticultural area are nine 1:250,000 scale U.S.G.S. maps and one 1:100,000 (metric) scale U.S.G.S. map. They are entitled:

    (1) Concrete, Washington, U.S.; British Columbia, Canada, edition of 1955, limited revision 1963;

    (2) Okanogan, Washington, edition of 1954, limited revision 1963;

    (3) Pendleton, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1954, revised 1973;

    (4) Pullman, Washington, Idaho, edition of 1953, revised 1974;

    (5) Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 1:100,000 (metric) scale, edition of 1981;

    (6) Ritzville, Washington, edition of 1953, limited revision 1965;

    (7) The Dales, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1953, revised 1971;

    (8) Walla Walla, Washington, Oregon, edition of 1953, limited revision 1963;

    (9) Wenatchee, Washington, edition of 1957, revised 1971; and

    (10) Yakima, Washington, edition of 1958, revised 1971.

    (c) * * *

    (38) Then south following the Washington-Idaho State boundary on the 1:100,000 (metric) scale Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon map to the 600-meter elevation contour along the eastern boundary of section 9, R. 46 E./T. 11 N.; and then generally west following the meandering 600-meter contour to the eastern boundary of section 17, R. 45E./T. 11N.; then south following the eastern boundary of section 17 to the southern boundary of section 17; and then west following the southern boundaries of sections 17 and 18 to the Asotin-Garfield county line in section 19, R. 45E./T. 11N.;

    (39) Then south following the Garfield-Asotin county line to the 600-meter elevation contour; then following generally west and south in a counterclockwise direction along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to Charley Creek in section 4, R. 44 E./T. 9 N.; and then west following Charley Creek on to the township line between R. 42 E. and R. 43 E.;

    (40) Then north following the township line between R. 42 E. and R. 43 E. on the 1:250,000 scale “Pullman, Washington, Idaho” map to Washington Highway 128 at Peola;

    (d) Transition period. A label containing the words “Columbia Valley” in the brand name or as an appellation of origin approved prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] may be used on wine bottled before [DATE 2 YEARS FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] if the wine conforms to the standards for use of the label set forth in § 4.25 or § 4.39(i) of this chapter in effect prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].

    3. Add § 9.___to read as follows:
    § 9.___ Lewis-Clark Valley.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Lewis-Clark Valley”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Lewis-Clark Valley” is a term of viticultural significance.

    (b) Approved maps. The three United States Geographical Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 (metric) scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area are titled:

    (1) Clarkston, Wash.-Idaho-Oregon, 1981;

    (2) Orofino, Idaho-Washington, 1981; and

    (3) Potlatch, Idaho, 1981.

    (c) Boundary. The Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is located in Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties, Idaho, and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman Counties, Washington. The boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is as follows:

    (1) The beginning point is located on the Clarkston map in Washington State along the Garfield-Asotin County line at the southwest corner of section 18, T11N/R45E. From the beginning point, proceed east along the southern boundary line of section 18, crossing over the Snake River, and continue along the southern boundary line of section 17, T11N/R45E, to the southeast corner of section 17; then

    (2) Proceed north along the eastern boundary line of section 17 to the 600-meter elevation contour; then

    (3) Proceed generally east-northeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing into Idaho and onto the Orofino map, then continue to follow the elevation contour in an overall clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Orofino and Clarkston maps and finally onto the Potlatch map, and then continuing to follow the 600-meter elevation contour in a clockwise direction to the elevation contour's intersection with the southern boundary line of section 1, T37N/R1W, on the Potlatch map, north of the Nez Perce Indian Reservation boundary and west of the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of the Clearwater River) in Clearwater County, Idaho; then

    (4) Cross the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of the Clearwater River) by proceeding east along the southern boundary line of section 1, T37N/R1E, to the southeastern corner of section 1; then by proceeding north along the eastern boundary line of section 1 to the southwest corner of section 6, T37N/R2E; and then by proceeding east along the southern boundary line of section 6 to the 600-meter elevation contour; then

    (5) Proceed generally east initially, then generally south, and then generally southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing onto the Orofino map, and then continuing to follow the elevation contour in an overall clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Orofino and Potlatch maps, to the eastern boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, on the Orofino map in Clearwater County, Idaho; then

    (6) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, to the southeastern corner of section 13, T35N/R2E, northeast of Lolo Creek; then

    (7) Proceed west along the southern boundary line of section 13, T35N/R2E, to the Clearwater-Idaho County line in the middle of Lolo Creek; then

    (8) Proceed generally west-northwest along the Clearwater-Idaho County line (concurrent with Lolo Creek) to the Lewis County line at the confluence of Lolo Creek and the Clearwater River; then

    (9) Proceed generally south along the Lewis-Idaho County line (concurrent with the Clearwater River) to the northern boundary line of section 23, T35N/R2E; then

    (10) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 23, T35N/R2E, to the 600-meter elevation contour; then

    (11) Proceed generally northwest along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing onto the Potlatch map and then back onto the Orofino map and continuing generally southwest along the 600-meter elevation contour to the common T32N/T31N township boundary line along the southern boundary line of section 35, T32N/R5W, south of Chimney Creek (a tributary of the Snake River) in Nez Perce County, Idaho; then

    (12) Proceed west along the common T32N/T31N township boundary line, crossing Chimney Creek, to the Idaho-Washington State line (concurrent with the Nez Perce-Asotin County line) at the center of the Snake River; then

    (13) Proceed generally southeast along the Idaho-Washington State line in the Snake River to the northern boundary line of section 29, T31N/R5W; then

    (14) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 29, T31N/R5W, to the 600-meter elevation contour, northeast of Lime Hill in Asotin County, Washington; then

    (15) Proceed generally west and then generally south-southwest along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to the southern boundary line of section 25, T7N/R46E; then

    (16) Proceed west along the southern boundary lines of section 25 and 26, crossing onto the Clarkston map, and continuing along the southern boundary lines of section 26 to the 600-meter elevation contour west of Joseph Creek; then

    (17) Proceed southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to the western boundary line of section 34, T7N/R46E; then

    (18) Proceed north along the western boundary lines of sections 34 and 27, T7N/R46E, crossing over the Grande Ronde River, to the 600-meter elevation contour; then

    (19) Proceed generally northeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour and continue along the 600-meter elevation contour in a clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Clarkston and Orofino maps, until, on the Clarkston map, the 600-meter elevation line intersects the Garfield-Asotin County line for the third time along the western boundary of section 19, T11N/R45E; and then

    (20) Proceed north along the Garfield-Asotin County line, returning to the beginning point.

    Signed: April 7, 2015. John J. Manfreda, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08501 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2015-0006; Notice No. 150] RIN 1513-AC18 Proposed Establishment of the Eagle Foothills Viticultural Area AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 49,815-acre “Eagle Foothills” viticultural area in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the Snake River Valley viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your comments on this notice to one of the following addresses:

    Internet: http://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2015-0006 at “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal);

    U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or

    Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20005.

    See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

    Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

    Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

    • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

    • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

    • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed viticultural AVA;

    • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

    • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

    Eagle Foothills Petition

    TTB received a petition from Martha Cunningham, owner of the 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards, on behalf of the local grape growers and vintners, proposing the establishment of the “Eagle Foothills” AVA. The original proposed name for the AVA was “Willow Creek Idaho.” However, after TTB determined that the name evidence provided in the petition did not sufficiently demonstrate that the region is known by that name, the petitioner submitted a request to change the proposed AVA name to “Eagle Foothills.”

    The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA covers portions of Gem and Ada Counties, Idaho, and is located to the immediate north of the city of Eagle and approximately 10 miles northwest of the city of Boise. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the established Snake River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.208) and does not overlap any other existing or proposed AVA. The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA contains approximately 49,815 acres, with 9 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of 67 acres distributed throughout the proposed AVA. The petition states that an additional 4 acres will soon be added to an existing vineyard. Additionally, 7 commercial vineyards covering approximately 472 acres are planned within the proposed AVA in the next few years.

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA include its topography, soils, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA and its supporting exhibits.

    Name Evidence

    The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is located on the southwestern flanks of Prospect Peak and Crown Point, two prominent peaks in the mountainous region known as the “Boise Front,” which rises to the east of the proposed AVA. Due to its location north of the city of Eagle and within the foothills of the Boise Front, the region of the proposed AVA is commonly referred to as the “Eagle Foothills.”

    The petitioner provided several examples of the use of “Eagle Foothills” to refer to the region of the proposed AVA. For example, a local ranch offers several guided horseback tours, including one through the “Eagle Foothills.” 1 A Web site dedicated to hiking in Idaho features the “Eagle Foothills Little Gulch Loop” trail, which is located within the proposed AVA.2 A news story from a local television station described a wildfire within the proposed AVA, which destroyed several houses in “the Eagle Foothills.” 3 A Web site dedicated to news and reviews of wines from the northwestern United States features a story about 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards, which is located within the proposed AVA, and refers to the vineyard and winery as being located “in the Eagle Foothills north of Boise.” 4 The Ada County Highway District Web site includes a page about transportation projects “in and around the Eagle Foothills,” including funding to improve State Highway 16, which runs through the proposed AVA.5 A real estate listing for a home for sale within the proposed AVA, describes the home as being “close to the Eagle Foothills equestrian trails.” 6 Finally, a planned community being developed within a portion of the proposed AVA is described as covering “land running . . . along the Eagle Foothills.” 7

    1www.sweetpepperranch.com/local-attractions/riding-destinations/eagle-foothills.

    2www.trimbleoutdoors.com/ViewTrip/1709698.

    3www.ktvb.com/story/local/2014/07/16/11528375.

    4 Eric Degerman. “Idaho's high-elevation Pinot Gris produces awards, fans.” Great Northwest Wine, June 11, 2013. www.greatnorthwestwine.com/2013/06/11.

    5www.achdidaho.org/projects/PublicProject.aspx?ProjectID=124.

    6www.brechtproperties.com/Property/3175-W-Homer-Road-Eagle-Idaho.

    7www.m3companiesllc.com/communities/m3eagle.

    Boundary Evidence

    The northern boundary of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA follows straight lines drawn between peaks marked on the USGS Southwest Emmett and Southeast Emmett quadrangle maps. The boundary separates the rugged terrain of the proposed AVA from the lower, flatter elevations of Emmett Valley and the Payette River Plain. The proposed eastern boundary follows the 3,400-foot elevation contour and lines drawn between peaks on the USGS Pearl and Eagle quadrangle maps to approximate the eastern boundary of the established Snake River Valley AVA. TTB notes that the proposed boundary is only an approximation of the Snake River Valley AVA because the established AVA's boundaries were drawn using maps that measure elevations in meters instead of feet. The proposed eastern boundary separates the proposed AVA from the higher elevations of the Boise Front, including Prospect Peak and Crown Point. The proposed southern boundary follows roads marked on the USGS Eagle, Star, and Middleton quadrangle maps in order to separate the proposed AVA from the lower elevations and urban landscape of the cities of Eagle and Boise. The proposed western boundary follows the Ada-Canyon County line and separates the proposed AVA from the lower elevations and flatter terrain of the Boise River Plain.

    Distinguishing Features

    The distinguishing features of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA include its topography, soils, and climate.

    Topography

    According to the petition, the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is located within the Unwooded Alkaline Foothills ecoregion of Idaho.8 This ecoregion is defined as an arid, sparsely populated region of rolling foothills, benches, and alluvial fans commonly underlain by alkaline lake bed deposits. Perennial streams are rare, but limited agriculture occurs where there is water available for irrigation. Most of the landscape is used for grazing livestock or as wildlife habitat.

    8 C.L. McGrath, Ecoregions of Idaho (Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2002).

    A network of seasonal creeks, including Willow Creek, Big Gulch Creek, Little Gulch Creek, Woods Gulch, and their tributaries, flow southwesterly through the proposed AVA and have etched deep gulches. The rugged terrain has a variety of slope aspects, including a multitude of south-facing slopes that are preferred by vineyard owners. Slope angles vary within the proposed AVA from 2 to 15 degrees, with an average of 8 degrees. Elevations within the proposed AVA range from 2,490 feet to approximately 3,400 feet, with an average elevation of approximately 2,900 feet.

    The topography of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is distinguishable from that of the surrounding regions. To the north of the proposed AVA is Emmett Valley and the Payette River Plain, which are classified within the Treasure Valley ecoregion of Idaho. The Treasure Valley ecoregion is described as being heavily irrigated for agricultural purposes and having a much greater population density than the Unwooded Alkaline Foothills ecoregion in which the proposed AVA is located.9 Elevations in Emmett Valley and the Payette River Plain are lower and flatter than within the proposed AVA. To the east of the proposed AVA is the mountainous region known as the Boise Front, which has higher elevations than the proposed AVA. Crown Point and Prospect Peak, the two peaks in the Boise Front that are closest to the proposed AVA, reach 5,163 feet and 4,867 feet, respectively. To the south and west of the proposed AVA is the Boise River Plain, which has lower elevations and is classified as a continuation of the Treasure Valley ecoregion. Slope angles are shallow in the Boise River Plain, averaging less than 2 percent. The region to the south of the proposed AVA is also heavily urbanized and contains the cities of Boise and Eagle, in contrast with the relatively undeveloped proposed AVA.

    9Ibid.

    The topography of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA has an effect on viticulture. For example, the elevations within the proposed AVA are higher than the elevations in the regions to the north, west and south, so cold air drains away from the proposed AVA and pools in the neighboring plains and valleys. As a result, damaging frosts are not as common within the proposed AVA as they are in the lower surrounding regions. Additionally, the abundance of south-facing slopes within the proposed AVA allows vineyards to be planted where the vines can receive the most sunlight. According to the petition, a vineyard on a south-facing slope with a 10 percent slope angle can receive 25 percent more sunlight than a vineyard planted on a flat site.

    Soils

    Loams, sandy loams, coarse sandy loams, and stony loams are the predominate soils of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA. These soils derived from the erosion of the sedimentary bedrock that once formed the bottom of the ancient Lake Idaho, as well as from the erosion of the granitic mountains of the Boise Front. Small amounts of volcanic ash are present in the soils, and levels of organic matter are low. The soils are notable for their large, irregularly shaped, coarse grains, which allow water to drain quickly and thoroughly and contribute to a relatively low water-holding capacity. Depth to bedrock ranges from 25 to 50 inches, and pH levels range from mildly acidic (6.75) to mildly alkaline (7.25).

    The soils of the surrounding regions are distinguishable from the soils of the proposed AVA. To the north and south of the proposed AVA, the soils are primarily derived from active flood-plain alluvium from the Payette and Boise River systems, respectively. These soils have a finer, more uniform texture and greater water-holding capacity than the coarser, larger-grained soils of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA. To the east, the soils in the mountains of the Boise Front are derived primarily from granite and volcanic materials and lack the sedimentary materials found in the soils of the proposed AVA. To the west of the proposed AVA, the soils become increasingly fine-grained and the depth to bedrock increases due to greater wind-blown and alluvial deposition. According to the petition, soils to the west of the proposed AVA can reach depths of 150 inches or more.

    The soils of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA have an effect on viticulture. The large, coarse, irregularly shaped grains found in most of the soils of the proposed AVA do not fit together tightly, allowing for “pockets” of oxygen to form between the grains. These “pockets” promote healthy root growth because if a soil is too compacted, the roots can essentially suffocate and die from lack of oxygen. The spaces between soil grains also discourage rot and mildew because they allow water to drain more rapidly than finer, uniform soil grains that are more closely packed together. The depth of the soil within the proposed AVA allows roots to reach depths that are deep enough to not be overly sensitive to changes in soil moisture level, but the soils are not so deep as to encourage overly vigorous vine growth. Finally, the pH levels of the soils are neutral enough to promote the optimal absorption of necessary mineral nutrients such as zinc and iron.

    Climate

    The petition provided information to show that the climate of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is distinguishable from that of the surrounding regions. The following table from the petition summarizes the annual precipitation amounts, average growing season temperature, growing degree day (GDD) accumulation 10 , last spring and first fall frost dates, and length of the frost-free period for the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions 11 . Because there are no weather stations located within the proposed AVA, the petitioner used the PRISM climate model 12 to estimate the temperature and precipitation data for the proposed AVA.

    10 In the Winkler climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual growing degree days (GDD), defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth (“General Viticulture,” by Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1974, pages 61-64).

    11 Data for the listed weather stations gathered from the Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu.

    12 The Parameter Elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) climate data mapping system combined climate normals gathered from weather stations, along with other factors such as elevation, longitude, slope angles, and solar aspect to estimate the general climate patterns for the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. Climate normals are only calculated every 10 years, using 30 years of data, and at the time the petition was submitted, the most recent climate normals available were from the period of 1971-2000.

    Variable Proposed Eagle Foothills AVA Caldwell
  • (southwest of
  • proposed AVA)
  • Emmett (north of proposed AVA) Nampa
  • (southwest of
  • proposed AVA)
  • Boise-“7 N” Station (east of proposed AVA) Boise-Air
  • Terminal
  • Station
  • (southeast of proposed AVA)
  • Average annual precipitation (inches) 14.3 11.4 13.8 10.9 19.2 11.7. Average annual GDD accumulation 2,418 2,939 2,728 2,695 2,299 2,930. Average date of last spring frost May 12 April 24 May 6 May 5 May 24 May 10. Average date of first fall frost October 3 October 7 October 7 October 11 October 5 October 6. Average annual frost-free period (days) 144 165 153 160 133 149.

    The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA has a cool climate, as evidenced by the short growing season and low GDD accumulations. The cool climate of the proposed AVA places it in Region 1b of the Winkler classification system, meaning that early- and mid-season varieties of grapes, such as Chardonnay, Pinot Gris, and Riesling, can successfully grow and ripen. Additionally, the cool temperatures of the proposed AVA produce grapes with lower acidity levels than the same grape varietals grown in warmer climates. Finally, the rainfall amounts within the proposed AVA are sufficient to promote healthy vine growth but also are low enough to produce small berries with concentrated flavors that are not diluted by an excess of water.

    The climate of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is different from that of the surrounding region. The higher elevations to the east, where the Boise “7N” weather station is located, have higher precipitation amounts, a shorter growing season, and lower GDD accumulations (indicating cooler growing season temperatures) that would not allow most varieties of grapes to ripen reliably. The Caldwell, Emmett, Nampa, and Boise Air Terminal weather stations, all of which are at lower elevations than the proposed AVA, have lower precipitation amounts, a longer growing season, and higher GDD accumulations (indicating warmer growing season temperatures). Based on the GDD accumulations, these lower plains regions are classified as Region II areas in the Winkler classification system.

    Summary of Distinguishing Features

    In summary, the topography, soils, and climate of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The following table, derived from information in the petition, compares the features of the proposed AVA to the features of the surrounding areas.

    Region Characteristics Proposed Eagle Foothills AVA Rugged terrain; moderate elevations; low GDD accumulations; short growing season; moderate annual rainfall amounts; rapidly-draining coarse-grained soils derived from sedimentary bedrock. North, South, and West of proposed AVA Flat valley terrain; low elevations; low annual rainfall amounts; high GDD accumulations; long growing season; slow draining, fine-grained soils derived from alluvium. East of proposed AVA Mountainous terrain; very high elevations; very low GDD accumulations; very short growing season; high annual rainfall amounts; soils derived from granite and volcanic material. Comparison of the Proposed Eagle Foothills AVA to the Existing Snake River Valley AVA Snake River Valley AVA

    T.D. TTB-59, which published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10598), established the Snake River Valley AVA in portions of southeastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho. The AVA covers the remains of the ancient Lake Idaho, which filled the western part of the Snake River Valley approximately 4 million years ago. Much of the AVA boundary follows the 1,040-meter elevation contour because conditions above that elevation are not conducive to viticulture. The Snake River Valley AVA is described in T.D. TTB-59 as a semiarid desert with annual rainfall amounts of 10 to 12 inches and as having a frost-free period from May 10 to September 29. Vineyards within the AVA are typically planted in shallow soils on slopes.

    The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is located along the eastern edge of the Snake River Valley AVA and shares some broad characteristics with the established AVA. The proposed AVA is also located within the remains of ancient Lake Idaho at elevations below 1,040 meters (approximately 3,412 feet). Like much of the Snake River Valley AVA, the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is a semiarid region with vineyards planted on slopes to maximize sunlight exposure and minimize the risk of frost. However, the proposed viticultural area receives several more inches of rainfall annually, in comparison with the majority of the Snake River Valley AVA. Additionally, the growing season for the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is slightly longer. Finally, although T.D. TTB-59 states that the soils within the large Snake River Valley AVA are too varied to be a distinguishing feature, the much smaller proposed Eagle Foothills AVA has fairly uniform soil characteristics throughout, and the soils of the proposed AVA can be distinguished from the soils of the surrounding regions.

    TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 49,815-acre Eagle Foothills AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.

    Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.

    Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name or other term identified as being viticulturally significance in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name or other viticulturally significant term and that name or term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name or other viticulturally significant term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

    If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Eagle Foothills,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Eagle Foothills” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule.

    The approval of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Snake River Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Snake River Valley would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA would allow vintners to use “Eagle Foothills” and “Snake River Valley” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

    Public Participation Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA's location within the existing Snake River Valley AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing Snake River Valley AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Snake River Valley AVA that the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA should no longer be part of that AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.

    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA on wine labels that include the term “Eagle Foothills” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.

    Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2015-0006 on “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 150 on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the “Help” tab.

    U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20005.

    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 150 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.

    In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.

    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

    Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0006 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 150. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use Regulations.gov, click on the site's “Help” tab.

    All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.

    You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

    Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

    Proposed Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    27 U.S.C. 205.

    Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding § 9.___ to read as follows:
    § 9. Eagle Foothills.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Eagle Foothills”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Eagle Foothills” is a term of viticultural significance.

    (b) Approved maps. The 6 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Eagle Foothills viticultural area are titled:

    (1) Southwest Emmett, Idaho, 1970;

    (2) Southeast Emmett, Idaho, provisional edition 1985;

    (3) Pearl, Idaho, provisional edition 1985;

    (4) Eagle, Idaho, 1998;

    (5) Star, Idaho, 1953; and

    (6) Middleton, Idaho, 1958; photorevised 1971.

    (c) Boundary. The Eagle Foothills viticultural area is located in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho. The boundary of the Eagle Foothills viticultural area is as described below:

    (1) The beginning point is on the Southwest Emmett map at the intersection of the Ada, Gem, and Canyon County lines at the southwestern corner of section 31, T6N/R1W.

    (2) From the beginning point, proceed north along the western boundary of sections 31 and 30 to the northwest corner of section 31, T6N/R1W; then

    (3) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line to the marked 3,109-foot elevation point near the southwest corner of section 31, T6N/R1W; then

    (4) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Southeast Emmett map, to the marked 3,230-foot elevation point in section 22, T6N/R1W; then

    (5) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line to the marked 3,258-foot elevation point in section 23, T6N/R1W; then

    (6) Proceed easterly in a straight line to the 3,493-foot elevation point in section 23, T6N/R1W; then

    (7) Proceed northeast in a straight line to the 3,481-foot elevation point in section 13, T6N/R1W; then

    (8) Proceed northeast in a straight line to the intersection of the marked 4-wheel drive trail with the R1W range line; then

    (9) Proceed north along the R1W range line to its first intersection with the 3,400-foor elevation contour; then

    (10) Proceed east along the meandering 3,400-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Pearl map, then continuing easterly, then southerly, along the meandering 3,400-foot elevation contour, crossing Schiller Creek, the North and South Forks of Willow Creek, and Big Gulch Creek, to the first intersection of the 3,400-foot contour line with the R1E/R2E range line, with forms the eastern boundary of section 13, T5N/R1E; then

    (11) Proceed southeast in a straight line to the marked 3,613-foot elevation in point Section 18, T5N/R2E; then

    (12) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 3,426-foot elevation point in Section 24, T5N/R1E; then

    (13) Proceed west in a straight line to the marked 3,416-foot elevation point in Section 24, T5N/R1E; then

    (14) Proceed west in a straight line to the marked 3,119-foot elevation point in Section 23, T5N/R1E; then

    (15) Proceed south in a straight line to the marked 3,366-foot elevation point in Section 23, T5N/R1E; then

    (16) Proceed southwest in a straight line, crossing onto the Eagle map, to the marked 3,372-foot elevation point in Section 26, T5N/R1E; then

    (17) Proceed northwest in a straight line, crossing back onto the Pearl map, to the marked 3,228-foot elevation point in Section 22, T5N/R1E; then

    (18) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 3,205-foot elevation point in Section 22, T5N/R1E; then

    (19) Proceed south in a straight line, crossing onto the Eagle map, to the marked 3,163-foot elevation point in Section 27, T5N/R1E; then

    (20) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 2,958-foot elevation point in Section 28, T5N/R1E; then

    (21) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the northeast corner of section 32, T5N/R1E; then

    (22) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of Section 32 to the point where the boundary joins Pearl Road, then continue south along Pearl Road to the intersection of the road with Beacon Road; then

    (23) Proceed west along Beacon Road, crossing onto the Star map, to the intersection of Beacon Road with an unnamed light-duty road known locally as North Wing Road at the southern boundary of section 32, T5N/R1W; then

    (24) Proceed south along North Wing Road to the intersection of the road with New Hope Road in Section 5, T4N/R1W; then

    (25) Proceed west along New Hope Road, crossing onto the Middleton map, to the intersection of the road with the Ada-Canyon County line; then

    (26) Proceed north along the Ada-Canyon County line, crossing onto the Southwest Emmett map, to the beginning point.

    Signed: April 7, 2015. John J. Manfreda, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08496 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Standards Governing the Design of Curbside Mailboxes AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed revision of standards; invitation to comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service proposes to replace USPS STD 7B, which governs the design of curbside mailboxes, with new USPS STD 7C. The proposed new STD 7C was developed internally to meet the operational requirements of the Postal Service.

    DATES:

    The Postal Service must receive written comments on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding this proposal are invited. Written comments should be mailed to U.S. Postal Service, Delivery Operations ATTN: Ashlea Meyer, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 7142, Washington, DC 20260-7142. Copies of all written comments will be available for public inspection and copying between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ashlea Meyer, (202) 268-7256.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Overview

    U.S. Postal Service Standard, Mailboxes, City and Rural Curbside, USPS STD 7B, governs the design of curbside mailboxes. Pursuant to the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) 508.3.2.1, USPS STD 7B applies to mailboxes manufactured to be erected at the edge of a roadway or curbside of a street and to be served by a carrier from a vehicle on any city route, rural route, or highway contract route. Copies of current STD 7B, or other information about the manufacture of curbside boxes may be obtained from USPS Engineering, 8403 Lee Highway, Merrifield, VA 22082-8101 (see DMM 608.8.0). The current standard, effective February 8, 2001, (66 FR 9509-9522) prescribes designs that in several respects are no longer ideal for the operational requirements of the Postal Service.

    As discussed in more detail below, the Postal Service is proposing that the design and performance requirements for new versions of both locking and non-locking curbside mailboxes be included in the proposed USPS STD 7C. These new design options would be able to accommodate the insertion and removal of a new minimum-sized mail item 7 inches high by 13 inches wide by 16 inches deep. We believe that instituting these mailbox design options would allow for improvement in the Postal Service's capacity for this mode of delivery as vendors choose to produce these curbside mailboxes, and should the mailboxes come into widespread use.

    The addition of these new design options does not impact the continued approval status of any current USPS STD 7B mailbox.

    Specific New Design Options Proposed in New USPS STD 7C

    Options incorporated in the proposed new standard USPS STD 7C include the following:

    1. Introduces for a new version of locked and non-locked mailbox designs the requirement to accommodate the insertion and removal of a test gauge measuring 7 inches high by 13 inches wide by 16 inches deep. This test gauge is the most significant proposed change for the new mailbox designs. The proposed minimum size requirement will allow for a much higher delivery rate in the current mail stream.

    2. Adds new Figures 1B and 3 for the new enhanced capacity non-locked and locked mailbox design options. These figures provide overall design parameters for the two new mailbox design options and the figures are not mandatory design templates.

    3. Introduces, for the new locked mailbox designs only, the requirement to pass a 3-minute physical security test of the customer access door (using a specified set of pry tools) and a 3-minute manual test to ensure that no mail item can be removed through the front carrier access door. The Postal Service sees value in establishing a USPS-performed test requirement for this new locked curbside mailbox design option. Any product validated to meet this requirement would provide a specified level of security that would be adequate to thwart quick-strike attacks.

    4. Reaffirms the prohibition of any style of locks, locking devices, or inserts that require the carrier to use a key or restrict or reduce the interior opening of the mailbox, once the front door has been fully opened for any approved non-locked curbside mailbox. “No mail service” will continue to be the Postal Service's policy for any approved non-locked curbside mailbox that has been internally modified with any of these unapproved add-on products. To assure the effectiveness of the new minimum parcel capacity requirement under USPS STD 7C, internal obstructions that prevent this requirement from being met will result in a suspension of service when the situation is identified.

    5. Introduces minimal door catch and signal flag force tests to ensure those components meet prescribed limits.

    6. Updates the provisions in Sections 6, Application Requirements and 7, Approval or Disapproval. The Application Requirements include a new requirement establishing a 180-day time limit for the submission of a mailbox for security testing, if applicable, and final review after the manufacturer has received approval of a design upon preliminary review. Failure to meet this deadline will cause the preliminary review approval to be rescinded.

    7. Removes the incorporation by reference of certain documents of the American Society of Quality and replaces the current quality-related provisions in 3.1 through 3.1.4 of USPS STD 7B with updated quality requirements in new Section 5, Quality Management System Provisions.

    8. Introduces requirements for use of both USPS and third-party intellectual property. Manufacturers agree not to use USPS marks without USPS approval and a license from the USPS. Manufacturers also have sole responsibility for acquiring all necessary licenses for third-party intellectual property used. All liability rests with the manufacturer for use of third-party intellectual property regarding any USPS approved mailboxes.

    Re-Approval of Manufacturers' Curbside Mailboxes

    The changes proposed by the new USPS STD 7C would not have any impact on any currently approved USPS STD 7B product. Any mailbox manufacturer wishing to seek approval for either or both of the new locked and non-locked design options introduced by USPS STD 7C would follow the process detailed in Section 6, Application Requirements of USPS STD 7C.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes to replace USPS STD 7B with USPS STD 7C as set forth in the Appendix to this document.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Requirements. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301- 307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201- 3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.

    2. Remove U.S. Postal Service Standard 7B and add U.S. Postal Service Standard 7C in its place to read as follows: Appendix U.S. POSTAL SERVICE STANDARD 7C, MAILBOXES, CURBSIDE (USPS STD 7C) 1. Scope and Classification

    1.1 Scope—This standard covers all curbside mailboxes. Curbside mailboxes are defined as any design made to be served by a carrier from a vehicle on any city, rural, or highway contract route. This standard is not applicable to mailboxes intended for door delivery service (see 8.1).

    1.2 Classifications—Based on their design, curbside mailboxes are classified as either:

    • Non-Locked Mailboxes:

    T—Traditional—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1, 3.1.1.1, and Figure 1A).

    C—Contemporary—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1 and 3.1.1.2).

    LC—Large Capacity—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1, 3.1.1.3, and Figure 1B).

    • Locked Mailboxes:

    LMS—Locked, Mail Slot Design—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.2, 3.1.2.1, and Figures 2A and 2B).

    LLC—Locked, Large Capacity/USPS Security Tested—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.2, 3.1.2.2, and Figure 3).

    1.3 Approved Models

    1.3.1 Approved Models—A list of manufacturers whose mailboxes have been approved by the United States Postal Service (USPS) will be published annually in the Postal Bulletin. A copy of the most current list of approved models is also available from the office listed in 1.3.2.

    1.3.2 Interested Manufacturers—Manufacturing standards and current information about the manufacture of curbside mailboxes may be obtained by writing to:

    USPS ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, DELIVERY AND RETAIL TECHNOLOGY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101 2. Applicable Documents

    2.1 Specifications and Standards—Except where specifically noted, the specifications set forth herein apply to all curbside mailbox designs.

    2.2 Government Document—The following document of the latest issue is incorporated by reference as part of this standard:

    United States Postal Service Postal Operations Manual (POM)

    Copies of the applicable sections of the POM can be obtained from USPS Delivery and Retail, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-6200.

    2.3 Non-Government Documents—The following documents of the latest issue are incorporated by reference as part of this standard:

    American Standards for Testing Materials (ASTM) • ASTM G85 Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing • ASTM D968 Standard Test Methods for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by Falling Abrasive

    Copies of the ASTM documents can be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

    Underwriters Laboratories (UL) • UL 771 Night Depositories (Rain Test Only)

    Copies of the UL document can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.

    3. Requirements

    3.1 General Design—Mailboxes must meet regulations and requirements as stipulated by USPS collection and delivery, operation, and policy (see 2.2). This includes carrier door operation (see 3.3), flag operation (see 3.6), incoming mail openings and the retrieval of outgoing mail (see below in 3.1). The manufacturer determines the opening style, design, and size; however, the carrier must be able to deposit the customer's mail. Outgoing mail for full service designs must be able to be pulled straight out of the mailbox without interference from protrusions, hardware, etc. Mailboxes must be capable of passing the applicable testing requirements (see Section 4). Mailboxes must not be made of any transparent, toxic, or flammable material (see 3.2). The mailbox must protect mail from potential water damage which may result from wet weather conditions (see 4.4). Any advertising on a mailbox or its support is prohibited. Additional specific requirements follow.

    3.1.1 Non-Locked Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to any of the three design types specified in 3.1.1 will be classified as non-locked with the appropriate sub-designation. Designs incorporating a carrier signal flag (see 3.6) will be classified as full-service mailboxes. Designs with no flag will be classified as limited service (see 3.11). As specified in 3.4, a rear door is permitted to enable the customer to remove mail without standing in the street. The use of any ancillary items (i.e., locks, locking devices, or inserts) that either require the carrier to use a key to gain access to a non-locked mailbox or that restrict or reduce the interior opening of the mailbox, once the front door has been fully opened, is prohibited. There is no local Postmaster approval exception for this prohibition.

    3.1.1.1 Traditional Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to Figure 1A and meet the limited capacity requirements specified in 4.2.1 will be classified as Traditional (T).

    3.1.1.2 Contemporary Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that do not conform to the dome-rectangular shape of Traditional designs but meet the limited capacity requirements specified in 4.2.1, while not exceeding the maximum dimensions of Figure 1A, will be classified as Contemporary (C).

    3.1.1.3 Large Capacity Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to Figure 1B and meet the expanded capacity requirements specified in 4.2.2 will be classified as Large Capacity (LC).

    3.1.2 Locked Designs—Mailbox designs that conform to either of the two design types specified in 3.1.2 will be classified as Locked with the appropriate sub-designation.

    3.1.2.1 Locked, Mail Slot Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to either Figure 2A or 2B and meet the limited-capacity requirements specified in 4.2.1 will be classified as Locked, Mail Slot Design (LMS). This locking design option provides non-USPS-tested security for the customer's incoming mail. Although the shape and design are less restrictive, these Locked mailbox designs must meet the same applicable functional requirements. Designs having a slot for incoming mail must be at least 1.75 inches high by 10 inches wide. If a slot has a protective flap, it must operate inward to ensure mail can be inserted in a horizontal manner without requiring any additional effort by the carriers (see Figure 2B). The slot must be positioned on the front side of the mailbox facing the street. In addition, the slot must be clearly visible and directly accessible by mail carriers. Any designs that allow for outgoing mail must meet all applicable requirements of this standard.

    3.1.2.1.1 Full Service—Locked mailbox designs of this class allow for both incoming and outgoing mail as depicted in Figure 2A. Both incoming and outgoing mail functionality must be located behind a single carrier service door as shown in Figure 2A. While it is preferred 1 that the outgoing mail function be handled via use of the backside of the front door, any alternate use of a separate outgoing mail compartment, such as beneath or side-by-side with the incoming mail compartment, is permitted provided that no additional carrier service is introduced. All designs must allow the carrier direct access to grasp and retrieve the outgoing mail.

    1 The term `preferred' as used throughout this document in conjunction with any requirement implies that compliance is desired but not mandatory.

    3.1.2.1.2 Limited Service—Locked mailbox designs of this class allow only for incoming mail as shown in Figure 2B.

    3.1.2.2 Locked, Large Capacity/USPS-Security-Tested Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to Figure 3 and meet both the expanded capacity requirements specified in 4.2.2 and security testing specified in 4.12 will be classified as Locked, Large Capacity/USPS-Security-Tested (LLC).

    3.1.2.2.1 Full Service—Locked mailbox designs of this class allow for both incoming and outgoing mail as depicted in Figure 3. Both incoming and outgoing mail functionality must be located behind a single carrier service door as shown in Figure 3. While it is preferred 1 that the outgoing mail function be handled via use of the backside of the front door, any alternate use of a separate outgoing mail compartment, such as beneath or side-by-side with the incoming mail compartment, is permitted provided that no additional carrier service is introduced. All designs must allow the carrier direct access to grasp and retrieve the outgoing mail.

    3.1.2.2.2 Limited Service—Locked mailbox designs of this class allow only for incoming mail. Refer to the two Locked mailbox feature exceptions linked to Note 10 of Figure 3.

    3.1.3 Mailbox Accessories—Decorative art and devices can be attached to the exterior of approved mailbox designs, provided they do not interfere with mail delivery or present a safety hazard. Devices can also be mounted in the interior of approved mailboxes, provided they do not cause the intended mailbox to fail either capacity test described in 4.2, and do not interfere with mail delivery or present a safety hazard. Any advertising on a mailbox or its support is prohibited. Unrestricted spring-loaded devices and designs are prohibited. Auxiliary flags or devices used to signal the customer that the mail has arrived must operate automatically without requiring additional carrier effort.

    3.2 Materials—Ferrous or nonferrous metal, wood (restrictions apply), plastic, or other materials may be used, as long as their thickness, form, mechanical properties, and chemical properties adequately meet the operational, structural, and performance requirements set forth in this standard. Materials used must not be toxic, flammable or transparent.

    3.2.1 Mailbox Floor—The entire bottom area of all mailboxes, where mail would rest, must be fabricated to prevent mail from damage due to condensation or moisture. Except for the internal mail compartment of locked style mailboxes, all designs must not present a lip or protrusion that would prevent the mail from being inserted or pulled straight out of the mailbox. The surface of the floor cannot be made of wood material. The floor must be ribbed as shown in Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 3, or dimpled, embossed, or otherwise fabricated provided the resulting surface area (touching mail) does not exceed the boundary of a square with sides of 0.25 inch (per dimple or impression) and is a minimum of 0.12 inch high on centers not exceeding 1 inch. A mat insert having a raised surface contour may be used for the internal mail compartment of locked style mailboxes only (see Figures 2A, 2B, and 3).

    3.2.2 Carrier Signal Flag—The carrier signal flag cannot be made of wood. Plastic is the preferred material.

    3.2.3 Door Handle—The door handle cannot be made of wood. Plastic is the preferred material.

    3.3 Carrier Service Door—There must be only one carrier service door that must provide access for mail delivery and collection at the unit and meet USPS delivery operational requirements (see 2.2). The door must meet the applicable testing requirements specified in 4.3. The carrier service door must operate freely and solely by pulling outward and downward with a convenient handle or knob. The design of the door, including hinges and handles must provide protection against wind, rain, sleet, or snow (see 4.4). Door latches must hold the door closed but allow easy opening and closing requiring no more than 5 pounds of force. The action of the latch must be a positive mechanical one not relying solely on friction of the hinge parts. The door must not be spring-loaded. Magnetic latches are acceptable provided adequate closure power is maintained during ambient conditions specified in 4.7 and applicable testing described in Section 4. It is preferred that by either tactile sensation or sound (i.e., a snap or click) carriers are alerted that the door is properly shut. The door, once opened, must remain in the open position until the carrier pushes it closed. The door must rotate a minimum of 100 degrees when opened and it is preferred that the maximum rotation be limited to 120 degrees or less. When in a fully opened and rest position, the opening angle of the door cannot measure more than 180 degrees. No protrusions other than the handle or knob, door catch, alternate flag design, decorative features or markings are permitted on the carrier service door. Protrusions of any kind that reduce the usable volume within the mailbox when closed are not acceptable. See 3.1.2 for carrier service door requirements for Locked mailbox designs.

    3.3.1 Handle or Knob—The handle or knob must have adequate accessibility to permit quickly grasping and pulling it with one hand (with or without gloves) to open the door. The handle or knob must be located within the top 1/3 of the door. Various acceptable handle and knob designs with required dimensions are depicted in Figure 5. Other designs may be acceptable provided they allow enough finger clearance and surface area for carriers to grasp.

    3.4 Rear Doors—Both locking and non-locking mailbox designs may have rear doors.

    3.4.1 Non-Locking Mailbox Designs—These mailbox designs may have a rear door, provided that it does not interfere with the normal delivery and collection operation provided by the carrier, require the carrier to perform any unusual operations, or prevent the applicable capacity test gauge from fully inserting. The rear door must not be susceptible to being forced open as a result of large mail items such as newspapers and parcels being inserted through the carrier service door. The rear door must meet the applicable testing requirements specified in 4.

    3.4.2 Locking Mailbox Designs—These designs must have a customer access door that may be located as shown in Figures 2A, 2B, and 3 on the rear wall of the mailbox. However, for locking mailbox designs, the customer access door may be located on a side wall. For locking designs submitted for approval under 3.1.2.2, this door must be subject to the security test requirement in 4.12.

    3.5 Locks—Locked mailbox designs, which are submitted for approval under 3.1.2.2, must meet the security test requirements of 4.12 to ensure that incoming mail is accessible only by the customer to the performance level required. The use of locks on all non-locked mailbox designs is prohibited. Manufacturers must include the following statement in their instructions to customers:

    IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAIL CARRIERS TO OPEN MAILBOXES THAT ARE LOCKED, ACCEPT KEYS FOR THIS PURPOSE, OR LOCK MAILBOXES AFTER DELIVERY OF THE MAIL.

    3.6 Carrier Signal Flag—Non-locked and locked mailbox designs classified as Full Service must have a carrier signal flag. While it is preferred that the flag design be one of the approved concepts depicted in Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 3, and 4, alternates will be considered for approval if all other dimensional and test requirements are otherwise met. As shown in each figure, the flag must be mounted on the right side when facing the mailbox from the front. The flag must not require a lift of more than 2 pounds of force to retract. Additionally, when actuated (signaling outgoing mail), the flag must remain in position until retracted by the carrier. The color of the flag must be in accordance with the requirements described in 3.9. The operating mechanism of the flag must not require lubrication and must continue to operate properly and positively (without binding or excessive free play) after being subjected to the test described in Section 4. Optionally, the flag may incorporate a self-lowering feature that causes it to automatically retract when the carrier service door is opened provided no additional effort is required of the carrier. The self-lowering feature cannot present protrusions or attachments and must not interfere with delivery operations in any manner or present hazardous features as specified in 3.1.

    3.7 Marking—The mailbox must bear two inscriptions on the carrier service door: “U.S. MAIL” in a minimum of 0.50 inch-high letters and “Approved By The Postmaster General” in a minimum of 0.18 inch-high letters. These inscriptions may be positioned beneath the incoming mail slot for Limited Service Locked (Mail Slot Design) mailboxes as shown in Figure 2B. Markings must be permanent and may be accomplished by applying a decal, embossing on sheet metal, raised lettering on plastic, engraving on wood or other methods that are suitable for that particular unit. The manufacturer's name, address, date of manufacture (month and year), and model number or nomenclature must be legible and permanently marked or affixed on a panel (rear, backside of door, bottom or side interior near the carrier service door) of the mailbox that is readily accessible and not obscured.

    3.7.1 Modified Mailbox Marking—Mailboxes that use previously approved units in their design must include marking stating the new manufacturer's name address, date of manufacture, and model nomenclature in a permanent fashion and location as described in 3.7. Additionally, the “U.S. MAIL” and “Approved By The Postmaster General” marking must be reapplied if it is obscured or obliterated by the new design.

    3.8 Coatings and Finishes—The choice of coatings and finishes is optional, provided all requirements of this standard are met. All coatings and finishes must be free from flaking, peeling, cracking, crazing, blushing, and powdery surfaces. Coatings and finishes must be compatible with the mailbox materials. Except for small decorative accents, mirror-like coatings or finishes are prohibited. The coating or finish must meet the applicable testing requirements described in 4.6.

    3.9 Color—The color of the mailbox and flag must be in accordance with the requirements stated in 3.9. The mailbox may be any color. The carrier signal flag can be any color except any shade of green, brown, white, yellow or blue. The preferred flag color is fluorescent orange. Also, the flag color must present a clear contrast with predominant color of the mailbox.

    3.10 Mounting—The mailbox must be provided with means for convenient and locked mounting that meets all applicable requirements. The manufacturer may offer various types of mounting accessories, such as a bracket, post or stand. Although the Postal Service does not regulate the design of mounting accessories, no part of the mounting accessory is permitted to project beyond the front of the mounted mailbox. Mounting accessories must not interfere with delivery operations as described in 3.1.3 or present hazardous features as described in 3.13. See Section 8 for additional important information.

    3.11 Instructions and Product Information

    3.11.1 Assembly and Installation—A complete set of instructions for assembling and mounting the mailbox must be furnished with each unit. The instructions must include the following conspicuous message:

    CUSTOMERS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE LOCAL POST OFFICE BEFORE INSTALLING THE MAILBOX TO ENSURE ITS CORRECT PLACEMENT AND HEIGHT AT THE STREET. GENERALLY, MAILBOXES ARE INSTALLED AT A HEIGHT OF 41-45 INCHES FROM THE ROAD SURFACE TO EITHER THE INSIDE SURFACE OF THE MAILBOX THAT THE MAIL IS PLACED ON BY THE CARRIER OR TO THE LOWEST EDGE OF MAIL ENTRY (FOR LOCKED MAIL SLOT DESIGNS) AND ARE SET BACK 6-8 INCHES FROM THE FRONT FACE OF CURB OR ROAD EDGE TO THE MAILBOX DOOR.

    3.11.2 Limited Service Mailboxes—The following conspicuous note must be included with each mailbox:

    THIS IS A LIMITED SERVICE MAILBOX (WITHOUT FLAG) AND IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR CUSTOMERS WHO DO NOT WANT POSTAL CARRIERS TO PICK UP THEIR OUTGOING MAIL. UNLESS POSTAL CARRIERS HAVE MAIL TO DELIVER, THEY WILL NOT STOP AT LIMITED SERVICE MAILBOXES.

    3.12 Newspaper Receptacles—A receptacle for the delivery of newspapers may be attached to the post of a curbside mailbox provided no part of the receptacle interferes with the delivery of mail, obstructs the view of the flag, or presents a hazard to the carrier or the carrier's vehicle. The receptacle must not extend beyond the front of the box when the door is closed. No advertising may be displayed on the outside of the receptacle, except the name of the publication. If the mailbox design does not require a post, a separate mounting arrangement must be made.

    3.13 Workmanship—The mailbox must be properly assembled and utilize the best commercial practice workmanship standards in the fabrication of all components and assemblies. All movable parts must fit and operate properly with no unintended catch or binding points. The unit must be free from harmful projections or other hazardous devices. The unit must not have any sharp edges, sharp corners, burrs or other features (on any surfaces) that may be hazardous to carriers or customers, or that may interfere with delivery operations as described in 3.1.

    3.14 Intellectual Property—Under no circumstances does the Postal Service intend that manufacturers use third-party intellectual property without an appropriate license agreement between the manufacturer and the third party at issue. The manufacturer is solely responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and is solely responsible for any liability incurred in connection with any intellectual property infringement allegations concerning devices that the USPS reviews and approves. The manufacturer agrees not to use any USPS marks, including but not limited to APPROVED BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL or USPS-APPROVED, without prior USPS approval and a license from the USPS.

    4. Testing Requirements

    4.1 Testing Requirements—Mailboxes will be subjected to all applicable testing described herein (specific requirements follow). A mailbox that fails to pass any test will be rejected. Testing will be conducted in sequence as listed herein and in Table III.

    4.2 Capacity—Non-locked and locked designs must meet the applicable minimum capacity requirements as tested by insertion and removal of a test gauge or appropriate mail test items as specified in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

    4.2.1 Capacity (Limited Capacity Test Gauge)—Traditional and Contemporary designs, submitted for approval under 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2, must meet minimum capacity requirements tested by insertion and removal of a standard test gauge which measures 18.50 inches long x 5.00 inches wide x 6.00 inches high. The test gauge is inserted with its 6-inch dimension aligned in the vertical axis (perpendicular to the mailbox floor). The gauge must be capable of easy insertion and removal; and while inserted, allow for all doors to be completely closed without interference.

    The capacity of Locked designs, submitted for approval under 3.1.2.1, which have slots, chutes or similar features, will be tested and approved based upon whether standard USPS mail sizes (see Table I) can be easily inserted through the mail slot or opening. Retrieval of this mail from the locked compartment must be equally as easy.

    Table I—Standard Mail [Locked designs] Description Size (L x H x Thk) (inches) Express & Priority Mail Envelopes 121/2 x 91/2 x 1/2 Priority Mail Box 85/8 x 53/8 x 15/8

    4.2.2 Capacity (Expanded Capacity Test Gauge)—Non-Locked and Locked designs, submitted for approval to either 3.1.1.3 or 3.1.2.2, must meet minimum capacity requirements tested by insertion and removal of a standard test gauge which measures 16.00 inches long x 13.00 inches wide x 7.00 inches high. The test gauge is inserted with its 7-inch dimension aligned in the vertical axis (perpendicular to the mailbox floor). The gauge must be capable of easy insertion and removal; and while inserted, allow for all doors to be completely closed without interference. The capacity of Locked designs must also meet this capacity test requirement; however, any dimension may be aligned in the vertical axis. Retrieval of the test gauge from the locked compartment must be equally as easy.

    4.3 Operational Requirements—Carrier service doors, auxiliary doors, door catches or mechanisms, carrier signal flags, and applicable accessory devices must be capable of operating 7,500 normal operating cycles (1 cycle = open/close) at room temperature, continuously and correctly, without any failures such as breakage of parts. Testing may be performed either manually or by means of an automated mechanically driven test fixture which essentially mimics a manual operation. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    4.4 Water-Tightness—A rain test in accordance with UL 771, section 47.7, must be performed to determine a mailbox's ability to protect mail from water. The rain test must be operated for a period of 15 minutes for each side. At the conclusion of the test, the outside of the unit is wiped dry and all doors are opened. The inside of the compartment must contain no water other than that produced by high moisture condensation. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    4.5 Salt Spray Resistance—A salt spray test must be conducted in accordance with method A5 of ASTM G85, Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing. The salt test must be operated for 25 continuous cycles with each cycle consisting of 1-hour fog and 1-hour dry-off. The mailbox must be tested in a finished condition, including all protective coating, paint, and mounting hardware and must be thoroughly washed when submitted to remove all oil, grease, and other nonpermanent coatings. No part of the mailbox may show finish corrosion, blistering or peeling, or other destructive reaction upon conclusion of test. Corrosion is defined as any form of property change such as rust, oxidation, color changes, perforation, accelerated erosion, or disintegration. The build-up of salt deposits upon the surface will not be cause for rejection. However, any corrosion, paint blistering, or paint peeling is cause for rejection. This test is primarily applicable to ferrous metal mailbox designs. The test is also valid for mailbox designs made of plastic, wood, or other materials that use any metal hardware.

    4.6 Abrasion Resistance—The mailbox's coating or finish must be tested for resistance to abrasion in accordance with method A of ASTM D968. The rate of sand flow must be 2 liters of sand in 22 ±3 seconds. The mailbox will have failed the sand abrasion test if it requires less than 15 liters of sand to penetrate its coating, or if it requires less than 75 liters of sand to penetrate its plating. This test applies to metal mailbox designs only.

    4.7 Temperature Stress Test—The mailbox under test must be placed in a cold chamber at −65 °F for 24 hours. The chamber must first be stabilized at the test temperature. After remaining in the −65° environment for the 24-hour period, the unit must be quickly removed from the cold chamber into room ambient temperature and tested for normal operation. The removal from the chamber and the testing for normal operation must be accomplished in less than 3 minutes. The room ambient temperature must be between 65° and 75° Fahrenheit. Normal operation is defined as operation required and defined by this document. The unit under test must undergo a similar temperature test, as described above, at a temperature of 140° Fahrenheit. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    4.8 Structural Rigidity Requirements—Forces of specified magnitude (see Table II) must be slowly applied at specific points on the mailbox under test (see Figure 6). These forces must be held for a minimum of 1 minute and then released. After their release, the deformation caused by the forces must be measured. If the deformation exceeds the limit specified in Table II, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural rigidity requirement. The doors must remain closed for test positions 1 through 6. The forces at positions 1 and 2 must be applied with the mailbox in its normal upright position, supported by a horizontal board. The forces at positions 3, 4, and 5 must be applied with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side down). The mailbox must be supported, on the flag side, by a flat board that is relieved in the immediate area of the flag mechanism. The force at position 6 (Non-Locked mailbox flags only) must be applied with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side up). This load may be applied as shown in Figure 5 or from the other direction. If visible cracks in the material, develop as a result of the testing, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural rigidity requirement. At the conclusion of the Structural Rigidity testing, if the mailbox under test fails to operate normally, as defined by this document, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural rigidity requirement. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    Table II—Permanent Deformation Limits Position Deformation
  • (inches)
  • Load
  • (pounds)
  • 1 1/8 200 2 1/8 200 3 1/8 50 4 1/8 50 5 1/8 100 6 1/2 2

    4.9 Impact Test—Refer to Figure 6 for load positions. Precondition the mailbox for 4 hours at −20° Fahrenheit. The following testing must be performed within 3 minutes of removing the mailbox from the temperature chamber. At both load positions 3 and 4, with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side down) with all doors closed, apply an impact load force generated by a 10-pound weight dropped from a height of 3 feet above the mailbox surface onto a bolster plate having a surface not larger than 2 inches by 6 inches. The mailbox must be supported, on the underside, by a flat board that is relieved in the immediate area of the flag mechanism. If any noticeable perforation, occurrence of sharp edges, or cracking of the material (either inside or outside the mailbox) develops as a result of the impact, or if the door becomes inoperable or fails to close normally, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the impact resistance requirement. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    4.10 Door Catch or Mechanism Test—Door catches and mechanisms must be tested to demonstrate that a force not greater than 5 pounds or less than 1 pound is required to open and close them (see 3.3). A force measurement device must be attached to the front door's knob or handle. The load must be applied slowly in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the door. The device must allow for the measured force limits to be recorded accurately.

    4.11 Carrier Signal Flag Test—The mailbox flag must be tested to demonstrate that a force not exceeding 2 pounds is required to deploy, extend, raise, or retract it. The load must be applied at the flag edge furthest from the hinged end or at the leading edge, if the flag retracts and extends. A force measurement device must be attached to the flag so as to apply the load and allow for it to be recorded accurately.

    4.12 Security Test (Locked, Large Capacity Designs)—Locked design mailboxes, submitted for 3.1.2.2 approval, must be tested as described below for resistance to tampering and unauthorized entry through the use of tools such as screwdrivers, flat plates, knives, pry bars, vise grips, pliers, chisels, and punches for a period not to exceed 3 minutes for each feature tested. Pry tools used for testing must not exceed 18 inches in length.

    4.12.1 Customer Access Door—Gaps and seams around the perimeter of the customer access door must be tested using pry tools listed in 4.12 for a period not to exceed 3 minutes to ensure that access to the compartment cannot be gained within that period of time.

    4.12.2 Carrier Access Door—A manual test must be conducted for a period of 3 minutes to ensure that no customer mail items can be accessed and removed through an opened carrier access door within that period of time.

    5. Quality Management System Provisions

    5.1 Quality System—The approved source must ensure and be able to substantiate that manufactured units conform to requirements and match the approved design.

    5.2 Inspection—The USPS reserves the right to inspect units for conformance at any stage of manufacture. Inspection by the USPS does not relieve the approved source of the responsibility to provide conforming product. The USPS, may, at its discretion, revoke the approval status of any product that does not meet the requirements of this standard.

    5.3 System—The approved source must use a documented quality management system acceptable to the USPS. The USPS has the right to evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of the approved source's quality management system prior to approval, and during tenure as an approved source. At a minimum, the quality management system must include controls and record keeping in the areas described in 5.3.1 through 5.3.8.

    5.3.1 Document Control—Documents used in the manufacture of product must be controlled. The control process for documents must ensure the following:

    • Documents are identified, reviewed, and approved prior to use.

    • Revision status is identified.

    • Documents of external origin are identified and controlled.

    5.3.2 Supplier Oversight—The approved source must use a documented process that ensures the following:

    • Material requirements and specifications are clearly described in procurement documents.

    • Inspection or other verification methods are established and implemented for validation of purchased materials.

    5.3.3 Inspection and Testing—The approved source must monitor and verify that product characteristics match approved design. This activity must be carried out at appropriate stages of manufacture to ensure that only acceptable products are delivered.

    5.3.4 Control of Nonconforming Product—The control method and disposition process must be defined and ensure that any product or material that does not conform to the approved design is identified and controlled to prevent its unintended use or delivery.

    5.3.5 Control of Inspection, Measuring, and Test Equipment—The approved source must ensure that all equipment used to verify product conformance is controlled, identified, and calibrated at prescribed intervals traceable to nationally recognized standards in accordance with documented procedures.

    5.3.6 Corrective Action—The approved source must maintain a documented complaint process. This process must ensure that all complaints are reviewed and that appropriate action is taken to determine cause and prevent reoccurrence. Action must be taken in a timely manner and be based on the severity of the nonconformance. In addition to outlining the approved source's approach to quality, the documentation must specify the methodology used to accomplish the interlinked processes and describe how they are controlled. The approved source must submit its quality documentation to the Postal Service for review along with the preliminary design review.

    Note:

    It is recognized that each approved source functions individually. Consequently, the quality system of each approved source may differ in the specific methods of accomplishment. It is not the intent of this standard to attempt to standardize these systems, but to present the basic functional concepts that when conscientiously implemented will provide assurance that the approved source's product meets the requirements and fully matches the approved design.

    5.3.7 Documentation Retention—All of the approved source's documentation pertaining to the approved product must be kept for a minimum of 3 years after shipment of product.

    5.3.8 Documentation Submittal—The approved source must submit a copy of its quality system documentation relevant to the manufacture of curbside mailboxes for review as requested during the approval process and tenure as an approved source.

    6. Application Requirements

    6.1 Application Requirements—All correspondence and inquiries must be directed to the address in 1.3.2. The application process consists of the steps described in 6.1.1 through 6.1.3.4.

    6.1.1 Preliminary Review—Manufacturers must first satisfy requirements of a preliminary review prior to submitting samples of any sample mailboxes or accessories. The preliminary review consists of a review of the manufacturer's conceptual design drawings for each mailbox for which the manufacturer is seeking approval. Computer-generated drawings are preferred, but hand-drawn sketches are acceptable provided they adequately depict the overall shape and interior size of the proposed mailbox design. Drawings must also include details about the design of applicable features such as the carrier service door (including the mail drop design and mechanism, for locking mailboxes), latch, handle, flag, floor, and mail induction opening size. If drawings show that the proposed mailbox design appears likely to comply with the requirements of this standard, manufacturers will be notified in writing and may then continue with the application requirements described in 6.1.2. Do NOT submit any sample units to the USPS prior to complying with the requirements of 6.1.2. Notification that a manufacturer's drawings satisfy the requirements of the preliminary review does NOT constitute USPS approval of a design and must NOT be relied upon as an assurance that a design will ultimately be approved.

    6.1.2 Independent Lab Testing—Upon receiving written notification from the USPS that a submitted design satisfies requirements of the preliminary review, manufacturers must, at their own expense, submit one representative sample of their mailbox or accessory for which the vendor seeks USPS approval to an independent laboratory for testing along with a copy of the preliminary review letter from the USPS. Manufacturers with more than one unique model must have each one tested independently. Models that are generally of the same size, shape, and material of previously approved designs but only have different decorative features (i.e., color scheme and surface contours) are not considered unique and do not require any testing. Manufacturers seeking approval of models that are not unique must submit documentation for each model in accordance with 6.1.3.2. This documentation must be reviewed and the proposed model must either be approved or disapproved (see Section 7). All tests must be performed by an approved independent test lab, except for the security tests, which must be performed by the Postal Service. See Appendix A for information on how to receive the list of USPS-approved independent test labs.

    6.1.3 Final Review—Within 180 days of receipt of USPS preliminary review approval, manufacturers must submit one sample mailbox or accessory to the USPS for security testing, final review, and approval. The sample must be accompanied with a certificate of compliance and a copy of the laboratory test results (see 6.1.3.3). Mailboxes submitted to the USPS (see 1.3.2) for final evaluation must be identical in every way to the mailboxes to be marketed, and must be marked as specified in 3.7. Manufacturers may be subject to a verification of their quality system prior to approval. This may consist of a review of the manufacturer's quality manual (see 6.1.3.4) and an onsite quality system evaluation (see 5.2). If this final review submission does not occur within the prescribed timeframe, the preliminary review approval will be rescinded.

    6.1.3.1 Installation Instructions—Manufacturers must furnish a written copy of their installation instructions for review. These instructions must contain all information as detailed in 3.11.

    6.1.3.2 Documentation—Units submitted for approval must be accompanied by two complete sets of manufacturing drawings consisting of black on white prints (blueprints or sepia are unacceptable). The drawings must be dated and signed by the manufacturer's representatives. The drawings must completely document and represent the design of the unit tested. If other versions of the approved mailbox are to be offered, the drawings must include the unique or differing design items of these versions. The drawings must include sufficient details to allow the USPS to inspect all materials, construction methods, processes, coatings, treatments, finishes (including paint types), control specifications, parts, and assemblies used in the construction of the unit. Additionally, the drawings must fully describe any purchased materials, components, and hardware including their respective finishes. The USPS may request individual piece parts to verify drawings.

    6.1.3.3 Certification of Compliance and Test Results—Manufacturers must furnish a written certificate of compliance indicating that their design fully complies with the requirements of this standard. In addition, the manufacturer must submit the lab's original report which clearly shows results of each test conducted (see Table III). The manufacturer bears all responsibility for its units meeting these requirements and the USPS reserves the right to retest any and all units submitted, including those which are available to the general public. Any changes to the design after approval and certification must be submitted to the USPS for evaluation.

    Table III—Test Requirements Test Requirement Reference Applicable document Capacity Insertion of test gauge 4.2 Operational Requirements 7,500 cycles 4.3 Water-Tightness No appreciable moisture 4.4 UL 771, Section 47.7. Salt Spray Resistance 25 cycles 4.5 ASTM G85. Abrasion Resistance 75 liters 4.6 ASTM D968. Temperature Stress Test Must function between -65 °F and 140 °F 4.7 Structural Rigidity Requirements Refer to Table II for loads and points, maximum 1/8 inch permanent deformation 4.8 Impact Test 10 lbs. dropped from 3 feet 4.9 Door Catch/Mechanism Test Max 5 lbs./Min 1 lb. to open/close door 4.10 Carrier Signal Flag Test Max 2 lbs. required to use flag 4.11

    6.1.3.4 Quality Policy Manual—The manufacturer must submit its quality policy manual to the address listed in 1.3.2.

    7. Approval or Disapproval

    7.1 Disapproval—Written notification, including reasons for disapproval, will be sent to the manufacturer within 30 days of completion of the final review of all submitted units. All correspondence and inquiries must be directed to the address listed in 1.3.2.

    7.1.1 Disapproved Mailboxes—Mailboxes disapproved will be disposed of in 30 calendar days from the date of the written notification of disapproval or returned to the manufacturer, if requested, provided the manufacturer pays shipping costs.

    7.2 Approval—One set of manufacturing drawings with written notification of approval will be returned to the manufacturer. The drawings will be stamped and identified as representing each unit.

    7.2.1 Approved Mailboxes—Mailboxes that are approved will be retained by the USPS.

    7.2.2. Rescission—The manufacturer's production units must be constructed in accordance with the USPS-certified drawings and the provisions of this specification and be of the same materials, construction, coating, workmanship, finish, etc., as the approved units. The USPS reserves the right at any time to examine and retest units obtained either in the general marketplace or from the manufacturer. If the USPS determines that a mailbox model is not in compliance with this standard or is out of conformance with approved drawings, the USPS may, at its discretion, rescind approval of the mailbox as described in 7.2.2.1 through 7.2.2.5.

    7.2.2.1 Written Notification—The USPS will provide written notification to the manufacturer that a mailbox is not in compliance with this standard or is out of conformance with approved drawings. This notification will include the specific reasons that the unit is noncompliant or out of conformance and will be sent via Registered MailTM.

    7.2.2.1.1 Health and Safety—If the USPS determines that the noncompliance or nonconformity constitutes a danger to the health or safety of customers or letter carriers, the USPS may, at its discretion, immediately rescind approval of the unit. In addition, the USPS may, at its discretion, order that production of the mailbox cease immediately, that any existing inventory not be sold for receipt of U.S. Mail, and that USPS Approved corrective design changes be applied to sold and unsold units.

    7.2.2.2 Manufacturer's Response—In all cases of noncompliance or nonconformity other than those determined to constitute a danger to the health or safety of customers or letter carriers, the manufacturer must confer with the USPS and must submit one sample of a corrected mailbox to the USPS for approval no later than 45 calendar days after receipt of the notification described in 7.2.2.1. Failure to confer or submit a corrected mailbox within the prescribed period will constitute grounds for immediate rescission.

    7.2.2.3 Second Written Notification—The USPS will respond to the manufacturer in writing, via Registered Mail, no later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the corrected mailbox with a determination of whether the manufacturer's submission is accepted or rejected and with specific reasons for the determination.

    7.2.2.4 Manufacturer's Second Response—If the USPS rejects the corrected mailbox, the manufacturer may submit a second sample of the corrected mailbox to the USPS for approval no later than 45 calendar days after receipt of the notification described in 7.2.2.3. Failure to confer or submit a corrected mailbox within the prescribed period will constitute grounds for immediate rescission.

    7.2.2.5 Final USPS Rescission Notification—The USPS will provide a final response to the manufacturer in writing no later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the second sample corrected mailbox with a determination of whether the manufacturer's submission is accepted or rejected and with specific reasons for the determination. If the second submission is rejected, the USPS may, at its discretion, rescind approval of the mailbox. In addition, the USPS may, at its discretion, order that production of the mailbox cease immediately, and that any existing inventory not be sold or used for receipt of U.S. Mail. If the USPS rescinds approval, the manufacturer is not prohibited from applying for a new approval pursuant to the provisions of 6.

    7.2.3 Revisions, Product or Drawings—Changes that affect the form, fit, or function (e.g., dimensions, material, and finish) of approved products or drawings must not be made without written USPS approval. Any proposed changes must be submitted with the affected documentation reflecting the changes (including a notation in the revision area), and a written explanation of the changes. One unit, incorporating the changes, may be required to be resubmitted for testing and evaluation for approval.

    7.2.3.1 Corporate or Organizational Changes—If any substantive part of the approved manufacturer's structure changes from what existed when the manufacturer became approved, the manufacturer must promptly notify the USPS and will be subject to a reevaluation of its approved products and quality system. Examples of substantive structural changes include the following: Change in ownership, executive or quality management; major change in quality policy or procedures; relocation of manufacturing facilities; and major equipment or manufacturing process change (e.g., outsourcing vs. in-plant fabrication). Notification of such changes must be sent to the address given in 1.3.

    7.2.4 Product Brochure—Within 60 days upon sale to the public, manufacturers must submit one copy of their product brochures representing approved mailbox designs to the address listed in 1.3.2 and to:

    USPS, Delivery Program Support, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Rm. 7142, Washington, DC 20260-7142 8. Notes

    8.1 Mailboxes intended to be used in delivery to customers' doors are not currently “approved” by the United States Postal Service as referenced in this standard. However, it is recommended that these boxes conform to the intentions of this specification, particularly the safety of the carrier and customer and the protection of the mail. The local postmaster must be contacted prior to the installation and use of any door mailbox.

    8.2 The United States Postal Service does not approve mailbox posts or regulate mounting of mailboxes other than the requirements specified in 3.10 and 3.11. Please note that mailbox posts are often subject to local restrictions, state laws, and federal highway regulations. Further information may be obtained from:

    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 N. Capitol St. NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001-1512,http://www.transportation.org. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, safety.fhwa.dat.gov. BILLING CODE 7710-12-P EP14AP15.030 EP14AP15.031 EP14AP15.032 EP14AP15.033 EP14AP15.034 EP14AP15.035 EP14AP15.036 EP14AP15.037 Appendix A USPS-Approved Independent Test Laboratories

    To obtain the latest list of USPS-approved test labs, contact: USPS ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, DELIVERY AND RETAIL TECHNOLOGY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101.

    Additional test laboratories may be added provided they satisfy USPS certification criteria. Interested laboratories should contact: USPS ENGINEERING, TEST EVALUATION AND QUALITY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08342 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-C
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0841; FRL-9926-17-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAFs). We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0841, by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected].

    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule(s) D. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

    Table 1—Submitted Rule Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted SCAQMD 223 Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities 06/02/06 03/17/09

    On April 20, 2009, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 223 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 223 in the SIP, and the District has not adopted earlier versions of this rule.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 223 establishes permitting requirements for LCAFs and establishes a menu of management practice options that LCAF owner/operators must select from and implement. The rule requirements apply to large operations above specified size thresholds, including dairies with at least 1,000 milking cows and poultry facilities with at least 650,000 birds. The rule requires these operations to apply for and obtain an SCAQMD permit that includes a mitigation plan with measures as listed in an appendix to the rule.

    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

    II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

    The Los Angeles-South Coast air basin is an ozone nonattainment area classified as extreme for the 1-hour ozone, 1997 8-hour ozone, and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and revision/relaxation requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).

    2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. It contains clear thresholds and control requirements, and it strengthens the SIP by adding new controls for LCAFs.

    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule(s)

    In our TSD we identify additional control options that may be reasonably available for implementation in the Los Angeles-South Coast area (see “Additional Recommendations”) and that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until May 14, 2015. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 223—Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities, as listed in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08469 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0082; 9926-15-Region 9] Revisions to the California SIP, Ventura & Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control Districts; Permit Exemptions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions clarify, update, and revise exemptions from New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements, for various air pollution sources.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0082, by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry Maurin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3943, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the dates they were revised by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revision date Submittal date VCAPCD 23 Exemption from Permit 11/12/13 05/13/14 EKAPCD 202 Permit Exemptions 01/13/11 06/21/11

    On July 15, 2011 and July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for EKAPCD Rule 202 and VCAPCD Rule 23, respectively, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The completeness criteria must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 23 into the SIP on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567). Since the last approval of Rule 23 into the SIP, VCAPCD has adopted revisions on November 11, 2003; April 13, 2004; October 12, 2004; September 12, 2006; April 8, 2008; and April 12, 2011.

    EKAPCD Rule 202 was last approved into the SIP on July 6, 1982 (47 FR 29231). Since the last approval of Rule 202 into the SIP, EKAPCD has adopted revisions on April 25, 1983; November 18, 1985; August 22, 1989; April 30, 1990; August 19, 1991; May 2, 1996; January 8, 1998; March 13, 2003; and January 8, 2004.

    All of these revisions were submitted to EPA; however, EPA has not taken action on any of these submittals. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. Permitting rules were developed as part of the local air district's programs to control these pollutants.

    The purposes of VCAPCD Rule 23 (Exemption from Permit) and EKAPCD Rule 202 (Permit Exemptions) are to identify when a new or modified source is exempted from the requirement to obtain a permit prior to construction. Rule 202 also requires recordkeeping to verify and maintain any exemption.

    II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the new and existing exemptions in the submitted rules include CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l). Section 110(a) requires that SIP rules be enforceable, while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, for satisfying CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), we have reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with EPA implementing regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165.

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? 1. Attainment Status of VCAPCD and EKAPCD

    Ventura County is designated as a serious nonattainment area for the 2008 and 1997 federal 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all other NAAQS.

    Eastern Kern County is designated as a marginal and moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 and 1997 federal 8-hour ozone NAAQS, respectively, and as a serious nonattainment area for the PM10 NAAQS. It is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all other NAAQS.

    2. Minor NSR Permitting Requirements and Analysis

    The revised VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules affect the minor source NSR programs by revising existing exemptions, adding new exemptions, and exempting minor agricultural sources with emissions less than 50 percent of the major source thresholds.

    The requirements in 40 CFR 51.160, subsections (a) through (e), provide the basis for evaluating exemptions from NSR permitting. The basic purpose of NSR permitting is set forth in 40 CFR 51.160(a), requiring NSR SIPs to set forth legally enforceable procedures that enable the State or local agency to determine whether the construction or modification of a stationary source would result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy, or would interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. Section 51.160(e) provides that the procedures must identify types and sizes of stationary sources that will be subject to NSR permitting review. We view this provision as allowing a State to exempt certain types and sizes of stationary sources so long as the program continues to serve the purposes outlined in 40 CFR 51.160(a). Thus, the revised and new exemptions discussed in detail in the TSDs, and the exemptions for non-major agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive emissions) are less than 50 percent of the major source thresholds are approvable so long as the minor source permitting programs (i.e. including the exemptions) continue to provide the necessary information to allow the Districts to determine whether construction of new or modified stationary sources would result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategies or would result in interference with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS.

    Under 40 CFR 51.160, the Districts have discretion in conducting the minor sources permitting programs to exempt certain small or de minimus sources. Congress directed the States and Districts to exercise the primary responsibility under the CAA to tailor air quality control measures, including minor source permitting programs, to the State's needs. See Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975) (States make the primary decisions over how to achieve CAA requirements); Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2006).

    EPA has reviewed the submitted VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules in accordance with CAA Section 110(a) and 40 CFR 51.160 as described above. In our evaluation, EPA has determined that the emissions which may result from the revised and new exemptions set forth in the submitted VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules meet acceptable de minimus criteria as allowed in 40 CFR 51.160(e). See the attached TSDs for each district for more information on these revised and new exemptions.

    The submitted rules also add a new exemption for new or modified minor agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive PM10) would be less than 50% of the applicable major source thresholds. With respect to such minor agricultural sources, we conclude that this exemption is approvable because, as discussed in more detail below in addressing CAA Section 110(l), the exemption will not result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategies and would not result in interference with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS.

    EPA has also evaluated the revised VCAPCD Rule 23 and EKAPCD Rule 202 for consistency with CAA Section 110(l) requirements. As noted above, the new exemptions in Rule 23, would result in de minimus increases in emissions. For the new exemption for new or modified minor agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive PM10) would be less than 50% of the applicable major source thresholds, EPA has determined that this exemption would not interfere with reasonable further progress and attainment of any of the NAAQS in Ventura County or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and thus is approvable under sections 110(l) because of (1) the limited nature of all new exemptions, (2) the presence of other regulatory controls for exempt agricultural sources, (3) the low background concentrations for the NAAQS pollutants in Ventura County other than ozone, and (4) the fact that the submitted ozone plan for Ventura County does not rely on NSR controls for minor agricultural sources and shows that the downward trend in ozone precursor emissions in Ventura County is predicted to continue well into the future.

    The new exemptions in EKAPCD Rule 202 will result in de minimus increases in emissions and would result in a strengthening of the SIP. For the new exemption for new or modified minor agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive PM10) would be less than 50% of the applicable major source thresholds, EPA has determined that this exemption would not interfere with reasonable further progress and attainment of any of the NAAQS in the EKAPCD or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and thus is approvable under CAA Section 110(l). Similar to Ventura County, these revisions are approvable for EKAPCD under section 110(l) of the Act because of (1) the limited nature of all new exemptions, (2) the narrowing of several existing exemptions, (3) the presence of other regulatory controls for exempt agricultural sources, (4) the low ambient concentrations for the NAAQS pollutants in EKAPCD other than ozone, and (5) emissions projections that assume no NSR controls for minor agricultural sources yet the emissions projections decline or hold steady well into the future for PM10 and the ozone precursors.

    The TSDs for each District rule have more information on our evaluation.

    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agencies modify the rules.

    D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA considers the submitted rules to fulfill all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules regarding exemptions from permit requirements discussed in section I.A of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 Clean Air Act; and

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08467 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0254; FRL-9926-00-Region 8] Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standards for the Libby, Montana Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make two separate and independent determinations regarding the Libby, Montana nonattainment area for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Libby nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, April 2010. This proposed determination is based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. Second, EPA is proposing that the Libby nonattainment area has continued to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. Based on the second determination, EPA also proposes to suspend certain nonattainment area planning obligations. These determinations do not constitute a redesignation to attainment. The Libby nonattainment area will remain designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Libby nonattainment area meets the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan. These proposed actions are being taken under the CAA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0254, by one of the following methods:

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

    • Email: [email protected]

    • Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).

    • Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

    • Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0254. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment 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 instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 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:

    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    b. 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.

    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Background A. The PM2.5 NAAQS

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established a health-based PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (“the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS” or “the 1997 annual standard”). At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3 (the “1997 24-hour standard”). See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (the “2006 24-hour standard”).

    On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA lowered the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also retained the existing standards for coarse particulate pollution (PM10). This rulemaking action proposes determinations solely for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. It does not address the 1997 or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards or the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS.

    B. The Libby Nonattainment Area

    On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA promulgated our air quality designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-2003. These designations became effective on April 5, 2005. The Libby nonattainment area is comprised of the City of Libby within Lincoln County. See 40 CFR 81.327.

    In response, the State of Montana submitted State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions on June 26, 2006 and March 26, 2008 intended to meet planning requirements for the Libby nonattainment area. In particular, based on section 172(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and the April 5, 2005 effective date of designation as nonattainment, the attainment plan identified April 2010 as the applicable attainment date.1 The state's attainment plan accordingly showed attainment by that date.

    1 Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the attainment date for a nonattainment area is “the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the date such area was designated nonattainment,” except that EPA may extend the attainment date as appropriate “for a period no greater than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment, considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.”

    On September 14, 2010 (75 FR 55713), EPA proposed to approve Montana's attainment plan. EPA proposed this action in accordance with the “Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,” 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007), which EPA issued to assist states in their development of SIPs to meet the Act's attainment planning requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We received no adverse comments on our proposal, which we finalized on March 17, 2011 (76 FR 14584).

    III. Summary of Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing two separate and independent determinations regarding the Libby nonattainment area. First, pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Libby nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the area's attainment date, April 2010. This proposed determination is based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period that shows the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 annual NAAQS for that period.

    EPA is also proposing to make a determination that the Libby nonattainment area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed “clean data” determination is based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data that shows the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. If EPA finalizes this determination, any remaining requirements for the Libby nonattainment area under subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA regarding an attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), and contingency measures related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the NAAQS.2

    2 Even if these requirements are suspended, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted by the State to EPA for review and approval.

    IV. EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data

    The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted quality-assured air quality monitoring data into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database for 2007-2009 and subsequently certified that data. EPA's evaluation of this data shows that the Libby nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by April 2010. Additionally, the data set from the three most recent years, 2012-2014 (which is also quality-assured and certified), shows that the Libby nonattainment area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The data is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. Additional information on the air quality data found in AQS for the Libby nonattainment area can be found in the docket for this action.

    The criteria for determining if an area is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are set out in 40 CFR 50.13 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N. The 1997 annual PM2.5 primary and secondary standards are met when the annual design value is less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m3. Three years of valid annual means are required to produce a valid annual standard design value. A year meets data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data. The use of less than complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.

    This proposed determination of attainment for the Libby nonattainment area is based on EPA's evaluation of quality-controlled, quality-assured, and certified annual PM2.5 air quality data for the 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 monitoring periods. There is one PM2.5 monitor in the Libby nonattainment area (AQS Site ID 30-053-0018). This monitor had complete data for all quarters in the years 2007 through 2014, except for one calendar quarter in 2011.3 The monitoring data and calculated design values for the Libby nonattainment area are summarized in Table 1 for the 2007-2009 monitoring period and in Table 2 for the 2012-2014 monitoring period.

    3 The Libby nonattainment area monitor had less than complete data capture in 2011, due to quality assurance issues.

    Table 1—2007-2009 Libby Nonattainment Area Annual PM2.5 Monitoring Data and Completeness Location Site ID Annual mean 2007 2008 2009 2007-2009 Design Value
  • (µg/m3)
  • Complete quarters 2007 2008 2009 Complete data?
    City of Libby 30-053-0018 13.0 12.9 10.7 12.2 4 4 4 Yes.
    Table 2—2012-2014 Libby Nonattainment Area Annual PM2.5 Monitoring Data and Completeness Location Site ID Annual mean 2012 2013 2014 2007-2009 Design Value
  • (µg/m3)
  • Complete quarters 2012 2013 2014 Complete data?
    City of Libby 30-053-0018 11.3 10.9 9.3 10.5 4 4 4 Yes.

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has reviewed the PM2.5 ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring periods 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 for the Libby nonattainment area, as recorded in the AQS database. On the basis of that review, EPA proposes to determine that the Libby nonattainment area (1) attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date, based on data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period, and (2) continued to attain during the 2012-2014 monitoring period.

    V. Effect of Proposed Determinations of Attainment for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA (Subpart 4)

    This section and section VI of EPA's proposal addresses the effects of a final clean data determination and a final determination of attainment by the attainment date for the Libby nonattainment area. For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, EPA's “Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,” 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007), embodied EPA's “Clean Data Policy” interpretation under subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1). As promulgated by the rule, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.004 set forth the effects of a determination of attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard.

    On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the “Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule” and the “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” final rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (collectively, “1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule” or “Implementation Rule”). The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1, part D, title I of the CAA, rather than the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4. The Court remanded EPA's Implementation Rule for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

    In light of the Court's decision and its remand of the Implementation Rule, EPA finalized the “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS” on June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), (“PM2.5 Classification and Deadline Rule”). This rulemaking classified the Libby nonattainment area as “Moderate” for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated nonattainment under subpart 4 would initially be classified by operation of law as “Moderate” nonattainment areas, and would remain Moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a “Serious” nonattainment area or redesignates the area to attainment. Accordingly, it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to Moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to Moderate nonattainment areas and include an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).

    As set forth in more detail below, under EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation, a determination that the area has attained the standard suspends the state's obligation to submit attainment-related planning requirements of subpart 4 (and the applicable provisions of subpart 1) for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. These include requirements to submit an attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures, because the purpose of these provisions is to help reach attainment, a goal which has already been achieved.

    A. Background on Clean Data Policy

    Over the past two decades, EPA has consistently applied its Clean Data Policy interpretation to attainment-related provisions of subparts 1, 2, and 4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several EPA memoranda and regulations. In addition, numerous individual rulemakings published in the Federal Register have applied the interpretation to a spectrum of NAAQS, including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO) and lead (Pb) standards. The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean Data Policy interpretation as embodied in EPA's 1997 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.4 NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that have considered and reviewed EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation have upheld it and the rulemakings applying EPA's interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion); Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009) (memorandum opinion).

    4 “EPA's Final Rule to implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule)” (70 FR 71612, 71645-46; November 29, 2005).

    As noted above, EPA incorporated its Clean Data Policy interpretation in both its 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule and in its PM2.5 Implementation Rule. While the D.C. Circuit, in its January 4, 2013 decision, remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the Court did not address the merits of that portion of the rule, nor cast doubt on EPA's existing interpretation of the statutory provisions.

    However, in light of the Court's decision, EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4 is set forth here, for the purpose of identifying the effects of a determination of attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard for the Libby nonattainment area. EPA has previously articulated its Clean Data interpretation under subpart 4 in implementing the PM10 standard. See, e.g., 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (determination of attainment of the PM10 standard in Coso Junction, California); 71 FR 6352 (Feb. 8, 2006) (Ajo, Arizona Area); 71 FR 13021 (Mar. 14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona Area); 71 FR 40023 (July 14, 2006) (Weirton, West Virginia Area); 71 FR 44920 (Aug. 8, 2006) (Rillito, Arizona Area); 71 FR 63642 (Oct. 30, 2006) (San Joaquin Valley, California Area); 72 FR 14422 (Mar. 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona Area); 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, California Area). Thus, EPA has repeatedly established that, under subpart 4, an attainment determination suspends the obligations to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other measures related to attainment.

    B. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related Provisions of Subpart 4

    In EPA's proposed and final rulemaking actions determining that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM10 standard, EPA set forth at length its rationale for applying the Clean Data Policy to PM10 under subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit upheld EPA's final rulemaking, and specifically EPA's Clean Data Policy, in the context of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009) (memorandum opinion). In rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the Clean Data Policy under subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit stated, “As the EPA explained, if an area is in compliance with PM10 standards, then further progress for the purpose of ensuring attainment is not necessary.”

    The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1 contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4, itself, contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 16, 1992) (the “General Preamble”). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent “subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM10 requirements.” Id. at 13538. These subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures.

    EPA has long interpreted the provisions of subpart 1 (section 171 and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP for an area already attaining the ozone NAAQS. For an area that is attaining, showing that the state will make RFP towards attainment “will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.” General Preamble, 57 FR 13564. See also 71 FR 40952 (July 19, 2006) and 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) (proposed and final determination of attainment for San Joaquin Valley); 75 FR 13710 (March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (proposed and final determination of attainment for Coso Junction).

    Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states that:

    Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress, as defined in section [section 171(1)] of this title, toward attainment by the applicable date.

    With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of part D, RFP “means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific RFP requirements for PM10 areas of section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date.

    Although section 189(c) states that revisions shall contain milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to attainment, such milestones are designed to show RFP “toward attainment by the applicable attainment date,” as defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section 189(c)(3), which mandates that a state that fails to achieve a milestone must submit a plan that assures that the state will achieve the milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no next milestone. Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve milestones does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.

    In the General Preamble, EPA noted with respect to section 189(c) that the purpose of the milestone requirement “is to `provide for emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable attainment date' (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).” 57 FR 13539. If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.5

    5 Thus, EPA believes that it is a distinction without a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as one to be achieved until an area is “redesignated attainment,” as opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the RFP requirements as applying until the “attainment date,” since section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the CAA. The reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific requirements may only be required “for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.” 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). As discussed in the text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated in section 189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies once the standard has been attained.

    Similarly, the requirements of section 189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:

    Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of such area is located shall submit to the Administrator a demonstration . . . that the milestone has been met.

    Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission showing that such milestones have been met. This is consistent with the position that EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstrations, and Related Requirements for the Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” (the “1995 Seitz memorandum”) with respect to the requirements of section 182(b) and (c). In the 1995 Seitz memorandum, EPA also noted that section 182(g), the milestone requirement of subpart 2, which is analogous to provisions in section 189(c), is suspended upon a determination that an area has attained. The memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, stated:

    Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not submit the related SIP submission either. See, 1995 Seitz memorandum at page 5.

    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for “a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date . . .” As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the 1995 Seitz memorandum. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.” 57 FR 13564.

    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted the contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9) 6 as no longer applying when an area has attained the standard because those “contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.” 57 FR 13564; 1995 Seitz memorandum, pp. 5-6.

    6 And section 182(c)(9) for ozone.

    Section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas:

    . . . shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].

    The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if RFP targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment by the attainment date, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: “The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.” See 57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the standard.

    Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require “provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures” (i.e., RACM) are implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble, (57 FR 13560; April 16, 1992), states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so that RACM requirements are a “component” of an area's attainment demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to RFP or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR 13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required.7 EPA is interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1).

    7 EPA's interpretation that the statute requires implementation only of RACM measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002), and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

    The suspension of the obligations to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, contingency measure and other related requirements exists only for as long as the area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If EPA determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has monitored a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would no longer exist. In that case, the area would again be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a final determination that the area need not submit one of the pertinent SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the requirements for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Only if and when EPA redesignates the area to attainment would the area be relieved of these submission obligations. Attainment determinations under the Clean Data Policy do not shield an area from obligations unrelated to attainment in the area, such as provisions to address pollution transport.

    As set forth previously, based on our proposed determination that the Libby nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes to find that any remaining obligations under subpart 4 to submit planning provisions to meet the requirements for an attainment demonstration, RFP plans, RACM, and contingency measures are suspended for so long as the area continues to monitor attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If in the future, EPA determines after notice-and-comment rulemaking that the area again violates the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for suspending the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measure obligations would no longer exist.

    VI. Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date

    As discussed in the Background section, on March 17, 2011 EPA approved April 2010 as the applicable attainment date for the Libby nonattainment area.8 Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's 2013 decision and its remand of the Implementation Rule, on June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA published a final rule classifying all areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards as Moderate under subpart 4. EPA also established a deadline of December 31, 2014 for states to submit attainment-related and nonattainment new source review SIP elements required for these areas under subpart 4. This rulemaking did not affect any action that EPA had previously taken under section 110(k) of the Act on a SIP for a PM2.5 nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA's March 17, 2011 approval of the April 2010 attainment date for the Libby nonattainment area remains in effect. Based on monitoring data from 2007-2009, EPA is proposing to determine that the Libby nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by that attainment date. If we finalize this proposal, this will discharge EPA's obligation under CAA section 188(b)(2) to determine whether the area attained the standard by the applicable attainment date.

    8 EPA's approval did not specifically identify the fifth of April as the attainment date. Regardless of the specific day in April, the monitoring data from the 2007-2009 period shows attainment by April 2010.

    VII. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to determine that the Libby nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the area's attainment date, April 2010. Separately and independently, EPA is proposing to determine, based on the most recent three years of quality-assured and certified data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, that the Libby nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In conjunction with and based upon our proposed determination that the Libby nonattainment area has attained and is currently attaining the standard, EPA proposes to determine that any remaining obligations under subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA to submit the following attainment-related planning requirements are not applicable for so long as the area continues to attain the PM2.5 standard: An attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C), and the RFP provisions of section 189(c). This proposed rulemaking action, if finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). These proposed determinations are based upon quality-assured and quality certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 monitoring periods.

    VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    This rulemaking action proposes to make determinations of attainment based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain federal requirements and would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed determinations of attainment:

    • Are 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);

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

    • are 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.);

    • do 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);

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

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

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

    • are 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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08405 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket Nos. 13-184 and 10-90; Report No. 3017] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Charles F. Hobbs, on behalf of AdTec, Inc.; Jennifer Hightower, et al., on behalf of Cox Communications, Inc.; Kathleen O'Brien Ham, et al., on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc.; and Derrick B. Owens, et al., on behalf of WTA—Advocates for Rural Broadband, et al.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before April 29, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan P. Boyle, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7924, email: [email protected], TTY (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3017, released April 8, 2015. The full text of Report No. 3017 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because this notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: Modernization of the Schools and Libraries “E-Rate” Program, published at 80 FR 5961, February 4, 2015, in WC Docket Nos. 13-184 and 10-90, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also § 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

    Number of Petitions Filed: 4.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08510 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0002; 4500030113] RIN 1018-AZ23 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the January 25, 2013, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, and amended required determinations of the proposed designation. In addition, we are proposing revisions to the proposed critical habitat boundaries that would decrease our total proposed critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead sucker from approximately 475.3 kilometers (291.3 miles) to approximately 228.4 kilometers (141.9 miles). We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revisions to the proposed critical habitat designation described in this document, the associated draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment, and the amended required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before May 14, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0002 or by mail from the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal, draft economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment by searching for Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0002, which is the docket for this rulemaking.

    (2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal, draft economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2013-0002; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505-346-2525; or by facsimile 505-346-2542. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Comments

    We are reopening the comment period for our proposed critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead sucker that was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351). We are specifically seeking comments on the revisions to the proposed critical habitat designation described in this document, and on the draft economic analysis and the draft environmental assessment, which are now available, for the critical habitat designation; see ADDRESSES for information on how to submit your comments. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are also particularly interested in comments concerning:

    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether there are threats to the subspecies from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.

    (2) Specific information on:

    (a) The amount and distribution of Zuni bluehead sucker habitat;

    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the conservation of the subspecies, should be included in the designation and why;

    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and

    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the subspecies and why.

    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.

    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the Zuni bluehead sucker and proposed critical habitat.

    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, we seek information on any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.

    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is complete and accurate and the description of the environmental impacts in the draft environmental assessment is complete and accurate.

    (7) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation, and specifically proposed critical habitat on Tribal lands owned by the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo, should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

    (8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.

    (9) Information about the habitat conditions within the proposed critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead sucker, especially the quality and quantities of the primary constituent elements (PCEs), particularly within the Rio Nutria above the Tampico Draw confluence, Rio Pescado, and Cebolla Creek.

    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR 5351; January 25, 2013) during the initial comment period from January 25, 2013, to March 26, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final rule. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments and other relevant information, we may, during the development of our final determination on the proposed critical habitat designation, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, draft economic analysis, or draft environmental assessment by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.

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

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0002, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0002, or by mail from the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the designation of critical habitat, refer to the proposed critical habitat rule, published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351). For more information on the Zuni bluehead sucker or its habitat, refer to the final listing rule, published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 43132) and the proposed critical habitat rule, published on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351), or contact the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Previous Federal Actions

    On January 25, 2013, we concurrently published a proposed rule to list as endangered and a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker (78 FR 5369 and 78 FR 5351, respectively). We proposed to designate approximately 475.3 kilometers (km) (291.3 miles (mi)) in three units in McKinley, Cibola, and San Juan Counties, New Mexico, and Apache County, Arizona as critical habitat. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending March 26, 2013.

    After the publication of the proposed rules, we found there was substantial scientific disagreement regarding the taxonomic status of some populations that we considered Zuni bluehead sucker in the proposed listing rule. On January 9, 2014, we published in the Federal Register a document that reopened the comment period for the proposed listing rule and extended the final determination for the Zuni bluehead sucker by 6 months due to substantial disagreement regarding the Zuni bluehead sucker's taxonomic status in some locations (79 FR 1615). That comment period closed on February 10, 2014. Based on information received during the comment period, we revised the Zuni bluehead sucker's range in the final listing rule. An error was reported in the genetic data evaluated for the proposed listing rule (Schwemm and Dowling 2008, entire); the correct information led to the determination that the bluehead suckers in the Lower San Juan River watershed (proposed critical habitat Unit 3; San Juan River Unit) were bluehead suckers (Catostomus discobolus), not Zuni bluehead suckers (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi). Thus, the San Juan River Unit populations were no longer included in the final listing rule. We published in the Federal Register a final listing determination for the Zuni bluehead sucker on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 43132).

    Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

    Changes From Previously Proposed Critical Habitat

    In this document, we are proposing revisions to the critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead that we proposed on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351). These revisions are based on information we received during the comment period. The best available information identifies that Zuni bluehead sucker does not occur in proposed Unit 3 (San Juan River Unit), and a portion of proposed Unit 1 (Zuni River Unit) does not meet the definition of critical habitat. We are not proposing any revisions to proposed Unit 2 (Kinlichee Creek Unit). As a result of the removal of proposed Unit 3 and a portion of Unit 1 from our proposed critical habitat designation, the total amount of proposed critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker is decreased from approximately 475.3 kilometers (km) (291.3 miles (mi)) to approximately 228.4 km (141.9 mi).

    Based on new information regarding the proposed Zuni River Unit (Unit 1), we are removing the Rio Pescado above Pescado Dam from the proposed critical habitat within the Zuni River Mainstem (Subunit 1b). We originally proposed 107.8 km (67.0 mi) along the Zuni River, Rio Pescado, and Cebolla Creek as critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker in Subunit 1b. Although we considered the entire subunit to be unoccupied, we stated in the proposed designation that this subunit is essential for the conservation of the Zuni bluehead sucker because it provides for connection between populations and also provides space for the growth and expansion of the subspecies in this portion of its historical range. However, the presence of primary constituent elements in this unit had not been investigated in any detail at the time of the proposed critical habitat designation. Based upon further investigation, this area of the Rio Pescado (above Pescado Dam) is a dry wash with no running water present except during periods of rain; this reach likely never had perennial flow. As a result, stream habitat (pools, runs, riffles) and substrate (gravel, cobble) are absent, and the area does not meet the habitat needs for any life stage, nor does it provide connectivity to any population of Zuni bluehead sucker, nor do we expect that it ever was habitat for the subspecies in the past. Therefore, we are removing this portion of Subunit 1b from our proposed critical habitat designation because suitable habitat is absent and is unlikely to develop, and the segment is not essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The removal of critical habitat above Pescado Dam in Subunit 1b will reduce the total proposed critical habitat designation for Unit 1 from 182 km (113.1 mi) to 131.8 km (81.9 mi).

    In addition to these revisions to proposed Unit 1, we are removing the entire San Juan River Unit (proposed Unit 3) from our proposed critical habitat designation; this area includes 196.8 km (118.2 mi) of Navajo Nation lands. We originally proposed two subunits within the San Juan River Unit. The proposed Subunit 3a (Canyon de Chelly) included 187.9 km (112.7 mi) along Tsaile Creek, Wheatfields Creek, Whiskey Creek, Coyote Wash, Crystal Creek, and Sonsela Creek in Apache County, Arizona, and San Juan County, New Mexico. In the proposed critical habitat designation, we stated that the Zuni bluehead sucker occupies all stream reaches in this subunit, and the subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The proposed Subunit 3b (Little Whiskey Creek) included 8.9 km (5.5 mi) along Little Whiskey Creek in San Juan County, New Mexico. We identified this area as unoccupied in the proposed critical habitat designation, but we concluded that the area was essential to the conservation of the subspecies.

    Since the proposed critical habitat designation, we concluded in the final listing determination (79 FR 43132, July 24, 2014) that the bluehead suckers in the Lower San Juan River watershed should not be recognized as part of the Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies. Rather, the best scientific and commercial information available, including peer review comments we received during the comment period for the 6-month extension (79 FR 1615, January 9, 2014), indicates that these populations in the proposed San Juan River Unit (Unit 3) are bluehead suckers rather than Zuni bluehead suckers. Therefore, while the originally proposed Unit 3 may be important for bluehead suckers, the originally proposed Unit 3 can no longer be considered essential for the conservation of the Zuni bluehead sucker. Therefore, we are removing the San Juan River Unit from proposed critical habitat.

    Revised Proposed Unit Descriptions for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker

    Table 1, below, shows the occupancy, land ownership, and approximate areas of the revised proposed critical habitat units for the Zuni bluehead sucker. Following the table, we present a revised description of Subunit 1b.

    Table 1—Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Zuni Bluehead Sucker [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] Stream segment Occupied at the time of listing Land ownership Length of unit in kilometers
  • (miles)
  • Unit 1-Zuni River Unit Subunit 1a—Zuni River Headwaters Agua Remora Yes Forest Service 6.6 (4.1) Private 2.4 (1.5) Rio Nutria Yes Zuni Pueblo 38.9 (24.2) Forest Service 4.1 (2.6) State of New Mexico 1.8 (1.1) Private 14.2 (8.8) Tampico Draw Yes Forest Service 2.3 (1.4) Private 3.7 (2.3) Tampico Spring Yes Private 0.2 (0.1) Total 74.2 (46.1) Subunit 1b—Zuni River Mainstem Zuni River No Zuni Pueblo 7.4 (4.6) Rio Pescado No Zuni Pueblo 18.3 (11.4) Cebolla Creek No Zuni Pueblo 3.7 (2.3) State of New Mexico 0.4 (0.2) Forest Service 6.4 (4.0) Private 21.4 (13.3) Total 57.6 (35.8) Unit 2—Kinlichee Creek Unit Subunit 2a—Kinlichee Creek Black Soil Wash Yes Navajo Nation 21.6 (13.4) Kinlichee Creek Yes Navajo Nation 47.1 (29.3) Scattered Willow Wash Yes Navajo Nation 18.2 (11.3) Total 86.9 (54.0) Subunit 2b—Red Clay Wash Red Clay Wash No Navajo Nation 9.6 (6.0) Total 9.6 (6.0) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
    Unit 1: Zuni River Unit

    Subunit 1b: Zuni River Mainstem: Subunit 1b consists of 57.6 km (35.8 mi) of potential Zuni bluehead sucker habitat along the Zuni River, Rio Pescado (below Pescado Dam), and Cebolla Creek in McKinley and Cibola Counties, New Mexico. Land within this subunit is primarily owned by Zuni Pueblo and private landowners, with a small amount of Forest Service and State land. The Zuni bluehead sucker historically occupied these streams but has not been found in the Zuni River or Rio Pescado since the mid-1990s (NMDGF 2004, p. 5), and has been extirpated from Cebolla Creek since at least 1979 (Hanson 1980, pp. 29, 34). We consider this unit unoccupied. When wetted, the Zuni River and Rio Pescado (below Pescado Dam) could provide important connections between occupied reaches in Subunit 1a and potential future populations in Cebolla Creek, which has been identified as containing suitable habitat in the past and could provide for significant population expansion. Therefore, this subunit is essential for the conservation of the Zuni bluehead sucker because it provides for connection between populations and also provides for the growth and expansion of the subspecies in this portion of its historical range.

    Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if the Secretary determines the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided that such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.

    When considering the benefits of inclusion of an area, we consider among other factors, the additional regulatory benefits that an area would receive through the analysis under section 7 of the Act addressing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of identifying areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any ancillary benefits triggered by existing local, State or Federal laws as a result of the critical habitat designation.

    When considering the benefits of excluding a particular area, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to incentivize or result in the conservation of the species and its habitat; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a conservation or management plan for the species and its habitat. However, we are considering exclusion of the proposed critical habitat areas owned by the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo to the extent consistent with the requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Areas owned by the Zuni Pueblo that we are considering for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation include 38.9 km (24.2 mi) in Subunit 1a and 29.4 km (18.3 mi) in Subunit 1b. In addition, the Navajo Nation owns all of the proposed critical habitat in Subunit 2a (86.9 km (54 mi)) and Subunit 2b (9.6 km (6.0 mi)). For the reasons described below, the Service is also considering all of these Navajo Nation lands for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

    In July 2012, we sent notification letters to the Tribes describing the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and we have engaged in conversations with both Tribes about the proposed designation to the extent possible without disclosing predecisional information. In March 2013, we attended a coordination meeting with the Navajo Nation to discuss the proposed designation, and the Navajo Nation provided additional information regarding their land management practices and the potential for developing a fisheries management plan for sport and native fisheries on their lands. Since the meeting, we have received information from the Navajo Nation that they are in the process of amending the Navajo Nation Fisheries Management Plan to ensure that native fishes are the priority in stream fisheries management. We are also working with the Zuni Pueblo to develop a management plan for their lands. The Navajo Nation provided for review a draft management plan that specifically addresses the Zuni bluehead sucker, and we anticipate a final draft will be developed. Although we have not yet received a draft management plan from the Zuni Pueblo, we are working with the Pueblo to assist in the preparation of these documents to provide for the benefit of the subspecies and its habitat.

    In addition to these management plans under development by the Tribes, the Service also is considering exclusion of these Tribal lands based on the working relationship we have established with the Tribes. We are aware that designation of critical habitat on tribal lands is generally viewed as an intrusion on their sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in accordance with their own policies, customs, and laws. To this end, we have received public comments indicating that Tribes prefer to work with us on a government-to-government basis. Therefore, we are considering exclusion of these Tribal lands in proposed Units 1 and 2 to maintain our working relationships with the Tribes.

    In the case of the Zuni bluehead sucker, the benefits of designating critical habitat include increasing public awareness of the presence of the Zuni bluehead sucker and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the Zuni bluehead sucker due to protection from destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

    A final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. We will take into account public comments and carefully weigh the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of these areas.

    Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a 4(b)(2) economic exclusion analysis.

    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker (IEc 2014, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and may require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation for the species. This screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM are what we consider our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead sucker and is summarized in the narrative below.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the Executive Orders' regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act, may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We assess to the extent practicable, the probable impacts, if sufficient data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker, first we identified, in the IEM dated June 21, 2013, probable incremental impacts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Federal lands management (Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation); (2) roadway and bridge construction; (3) agriculture; (4) grazing; (5) groundwater pumping; (6) in-stream dams and diversions; (7) storage and distribution of chemical pollutants; (8) dredging; (9) commercial or residential development; (10) timber harvest; and (11) recreation (including sport fishing and sport-fish stocking, off highway vehicle activity). We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Zuni bluehead sucker is present, Federal agencies are already required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the subspecies. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process that will also consider jeopardy to the listed subspecies.

    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that result from the subspecies being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Zuni bluehead sucker critical habitat. Because the designation of critical habitat for Zuni bluehead sucker was proposed concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical and biological features identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to the Zuni bluehead sucker would also likely adversely affect the essential physical and biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this subspecies. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.

    The proposed critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead sucker totals approximately 228.4 km (141.9 mi), of which approximately 70 percent (161.1 km (100.1 mi)) is currently occupied by the subspecies. In these areas, any actions that may affect the subspecies or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Zuni bluehead sucker. Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in approximately 70 percent of the proposed critical habitat designation. While this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.

    The remaining 67.3 km (41.8 mi) (30 percent of the total proposed critical habitat designation) are currently unoccupied by the subspecies but are essential for the conservation of the subspecies. In these unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the critical habitat designation. Within the 67.3 km (41.8 mi) of unoccupied critical habitat, few actions are expected to occur that would result in section 7 consultations or associated project modifications. In particular, Subunit 2b (9.6 km (6.0 mi)) occurs entirely on Navajo Nation lands, and based on the results of the coordination efforts with the Navajo Nation (see IEM), we do not anticipate that any projects will result in section 7 consultation within the proposed critical habitat areas on these lands. Subunit 1b (57.6 km (35.8 mi)) includes U.S. Forest Service (USFS), private, State, and Zuni Pueblo lands. Communications with affected entities indicate that critical habitat designation is likely only to result in more than just a few consultations in this unit, with minor conservation efforts that would likely result in relatively low probable economic impacts. While current projects are not planned in proposed critical habitat areas on Tribal lands, impacts to future Tribal planning efforts could be affected by proposed critical habitat designation. These future costs are unknown but expected to be relatively small given the projections by effected entities; they are unlikely to exceed $100 million in any single year and therefore would not be significant.

    The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities. Activities we expect will be subject to consultations that may involve private entities as third parties are residential and commercial development that may occur on Tribal or private lands. However, based on coordination efforts with Tribal partners and State and local agencies, the cost to private entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor (administrative costs of less than $10,000 per consultation effort) and therefore would not be significant.

    The probable incremental economic impacts of the Zuni bluehead sucker critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future section 7 consultations. This is due to two factors: (1) A large portion of proposed critical habitat stream reaches are considered to be occupied by the subspecies (70 percent), and incremental impacts of critical habitat designation, other than administrative costs, are unlikely; and (2) in proposed areas that are not occupied by Zuni bluehead sucker (30 percent), few actions are anticipated that will result in section 7 consultation or associated project modifications. At approximately $10,000 or less per consultation, in order to reach the threshold of $100 million of incremental administrative impacts in a single year, critical habitat designation would have to result in more than 11,000 consultations in a single year. Thus, the annual administrative burden is unlikely to reach $100 million. While current development or other projects are not planned in proposed critical habitat areas on Tribal lands, future Tribal planning efforts could be affected by proposed critical habitat designation, but future probable incremental economic impacts are not likely to exceed $100 million in any single year. Additionally, as described above, our consideration of exclusions on Tribal lands in proposed Units 1 and 2 may result in the probable economic impact being less than anticipated.

    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on our consideration of economic impacts, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.

    Draft Environmental Assessment

    The purpose of the draft environmental assessment, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), is to identify and disclose the environmental consequences resulting from the proposed action of designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker. In the draft environmental assessment, three alternatives are evaluated: Alternative A, the no action alternative; Alternative B, the proposed rule without exclusion or exemption areas; and Alternative C, the proposed rule with exclusion or exemption areas. The no action alternative is required by NEPA for comparison to the other alternatives analyzed in the draft environmental assessment. The no action alternative is equivalent to no designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker. Under Alternative B, critical habitat would be designated, as proposed, with no exclusions. Under Alternative C, critical habitat would be designated; however, Tribal lands on the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo would be excluded from critical habitat designation. Our preliminary determination is that designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker will not have direct significant impacts on the human environment. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we complete our final environmental assessment.

    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the draft environmental assessment, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the comment period on the environmental consequences resulting from our designation of critical habitat.

    Required Determinations—Amended

    In our January 25, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 5351), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable effects on landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable economic impacts of the designation. Following our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker, we have amended or affirmed our determinations below. Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). However, based primarily on our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker, we are amending our required determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's Memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an 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 effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our evaluation of the probable economic impacts of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.

    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    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.), we make the following findings:

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

    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.

    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA in conjunction with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1966)). However, when the range of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of Zuni bluehead sucker, under the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA analysis for critical habitat designation. In accordance with the Tenth Circuit, we have completed a draft environmental assessment to identify and disclose the environmental consequences resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat. Our preliminary determination is that the designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker would not have direct significant impacts on the human environment. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we complete our final environmental assessment.

    Government-To-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In July 2012, we sent notification letters in to both the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo describing the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and we have engaged in conversations with both Tribes about the proposed designation to the extent possible without disclosing predecisional information. We coordinated with the Navajo Nation in May, October, and November 2012, to organize Zuni bluehead surveys on Navajo lands. We sent out notification letters in January and February 2013 notifying the Tribes that the proposed rule had published in the Federal Register to allow for the maximum time to submit comments. Following those letters, we scheduled a meeting with the Navajo Nation in March 2013, to discuss the proposed rule, and the Navajo Nation provided additional information regarding their land management practices and expressed their interest in developing a fisheries management plan for sport and native fisheries. In addition to the letters sent to Zuni Pueblo, a few telephone inquiries were initiated to see if the Pueblo would like to meet to discuss the proposed rule. At this time, no meeting has been scheduled. However, we are working with Zuni Pueblo to develop a management plan for their lands. In addition, we sent coordination letters on April 12, 2013, to both the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo seeking information for our economic analysis. We will continue to communicate with all affected Tribes.

    Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

    Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351), 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 § 17.95(e) by revising paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), and by removing paragraph (8), under the entry for “Zuni Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi)” as proposed to be amended on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351), to read as follows:
    § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

    (e) Fishes.

    Zuni Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi)

    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the Zuni bluehead sucker follows:

    BILLING CODE 4310-55-P EP14ap15.000

    (6) Unit 1: Zuni River Unit, McKinley and Cibola Counties, New Mexico. Map of Unit 1 follows:

    EP14AP15.001

    (7) Unit 2: Kinlichee Creek Unit, Apache County, Arizona, and McKinley County, New Mexico. Map of Unit 2 follows:

    EP14AP15.002
    Dated: March 23, 2015. Michael Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08277 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; 4500030113] RIN 1018-BA05 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final Determination on the Proposed Threatened Status for the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 6-month extension of the final determination of whether to list the West Coast distinct population segment (DPS) of fisher (Pekania pennanti) as a threatened species. We also reopen the comment period on the proposed rule to list the species for an additional 30 days. We are taking this action based on substantial disagreement regarding available information related to toxicants and rodenticides (including law enforcement information and trend data) and related to surveyed versus unsurveyed areas (including data on negative survey results) to help assess distribution and population trends. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they are already incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final rule. We will submit a final listing determination to the Federal Register on or before April 7, 2016.

    DATES:

    We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May 14, 2015. If you comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), you must submit your comments by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number for this proposed rule, which is FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. Then click on the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.

    (2) U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, 1829 South Oregon Street, Yreka, CA 96097; telephone 530-842-5763; facsimile 530-842-4517. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 7, 2014, we published a proposed rule (79 FR 60419) to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). That proposal had a 90-day comment period, ending January 5, 2015. On December 23, 2014, we extended the proposal's comment period for an additional 30 days, ending February 4, 2015 (79 FR 76950). For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the West Coast DPS of fisher, please refer to the October 7, 2014, proposed listing rule (79 FR 60419). We also solicited and received independent scientific review of the information contained in the proposed rule from peer reviewers with expertise in the West Coast DPS of fisher or similar species biology, in accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270).

    Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a) require that we take one of three actions within 1 year of a proposed listing and concurrent proposed designation of critical habitat: (1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) extend the final determination by not more than 6 months, if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination.

    Since the publication of the October 7, 2014, proposed listing rule, there has been substantial disagreement regarding available information related to toxicants and rodenticides (including law enforcement information and trend data) and related to surveyed versus unsurveyed areas (including data on negative survey results) to help assess distribution and population trends.

    We find that there is substantial scientific uncertainty and disagreement about certain data relevant to our listing determination. Therefore, in consideration of these disagreements, we have determined that a 6-month extension of the final determination for this rulemaking is necessary, and we are hereby extending the final determination for 6 months in order to solicit and consider additional information that will help to clarify these issues and to fully analyze data that are relevant to our final listing determination. With this 6-month extension, we will make a final determination on the proposed rule no later than April 7, 2016.

    Information Requested

    We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing for the West Coast DPS of fisher that was published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal be as accurate as possible and based on the best available scientific and commercial data.

    In consideration of the scientific disagreements about certain data, we are particularly interested in new information and comments regarding:

    (1) Information related to toxicants and rodenticides (including law enforcement information and trend data);

    (2) Information regarding areas that have been surveyed compared to areas that have not been surveyed. We are also interested in negative survey results to help assess distribution and population trends.

    If you previously submitted comments or information on the October 7, 2014, proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated previously submitted comments into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the proposed listing will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. We request that you send comments only by the methods described 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 your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the 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, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. Copies of the proposed rule are also available at http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/fisher/.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 26, 2015. James W. Kurth, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08275 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    80 71 Tuesday, April 14, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0002] Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing a Marek's Disease-Newcastle Disease Vaccine, Serotype 3, Live Marek's Disease Vector AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment concerning authorization to ship for the purpose of field testing, and then to field test, an unlicensed Marek's disease-Newcastle disease vaccine, serotype 3, live Marek's disease vector. The environmental assessment, which is based on a risk analysis prepared to assess the risks associated with the field testing of this vaccine, examines the potential effects that field testing this veterinary vaccine could have on the quality of the human environment. Based on the risk analysis and other relevant data, we have reached a preliminary determination that field testing this veterinary vaccine will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, and that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. We intend to authorize shipment of this vaccine for field testing following the close of the comment period for this notice unless new substantial issues bearing on the effects of this action are brought to our attention. We also intend to issue a U.S. Veterinary Biological Product license for this vaccine, provided the field test data support the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the issuance of a finding of no significant impact and the product meets all other requirements for licensing.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0002.

    • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0002, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0002 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Donna Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; phone (301) 851-3426, fax (301) 734-4314.

    For information regarding the environmental assessment or the risk analysis, or to request a copy of the environmental assessment (as well as the risk analysis with confidential business information removed), contact Dr. Patricia L. Foley, Risk Manager, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 1920 Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844, Ames, IA 50010; phone (515) 337-6100, fax (515) 337-6120.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), a veterinary biological product must be shown to be pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product license may be issued. A field test is generally necessary to satisfy prelicensing requirements for veterinary biological products. Prior to conducting a field test on an unlicensed product, an applicant must obtain approval from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as well as obtain APHIS' authorization to ship the product for field testing.

    To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS considers the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment. Using the risk analysis and other relevant data, APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) concerning the field testing of the following unlicensed veterinary biological product:

    Requester: Merial, Inc.

    Product: Marek's Disease-Newcastle Disease Vaccine, Serotype 3, Live Marek's Disease Vector.

    Possible Field Test Locations: Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

    The above-mentioned product is a live Marek's disease serotype 3 vaccine virus containing a gene from the Newcastle disease virus. The attenuated vaccine is intended for use in healthy 18-day-old or older embryonated eggs or day-old chickens, as an aid in the prevention of Marek's disease and Newcastle disease.

    The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    Unless substantial issues with adverse environmental impacts are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on the EA and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice.

    Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI to support the issuance of the product license, and would determine that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue a veterinary biological product license for this vaccine following completion of the field test provided no adverse impacts on the human environment are identified and provided the product meets all other requirements for licensing.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 151-159.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08602 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0025] Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health; Meeting AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice to inform the public of an upcoming meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health. The meeting is being organized by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to discuss matters of animal health.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 28 and 29, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. R.J. Cabrera, Designated Federal Officer, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 34, Riverdale, MD 20737; phone (301) 851-3478, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters of animal health, including means to prevent, conduct surveillance on, monitor, control, or eradicate animal diseases of national importance. In doing so, the Committee will consider public health, conservation of natural resources, and the stability of livestock economies.

    Tentative topics for discussion at the meeting include:

    • Follow-on discussion of antimicrobial resistance, mitigations, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) action plan,

    • Comprehensive discussion on porcine epidemic diarrhea,

    • Follow-on discussion on foot-and-mouth disease,

    • USDA draft framework for emerging diseases,

    • Proposed national list of reportable animal diseases,

    • Avian influenza, and

    • Bovine tuberculosis program—understanding the disease.

    A final agenda will be posted on the Committee Web site by April 13, 2015.

    Those wishing to attend the meeting in person must complete a brief registration form by clicking on the “SACAH Meeting Sign-Up” button on the Committee's Web site (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/sacah). Members of the public may also join the meeting via teleconference in “listen-only” mode. Participants who wish to listen in on the teleconference may do so by dialing 1-888-469-3079 and then entering the public passcode, 2061888#.

    Due to time constraints, members of the public will not have an opportunity to participate in the Committee's discussions. However, questions and written statements for the Committee's consideration may be submitted up to 5 working days before the meeting. They may be sent to [email protected] or mailed to the person listed on the notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Statements filed with the Committee should specify that they pertain to the April 2015 Committee meeting.

    This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08603 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0003] Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing a Marek's Disease Vaccine, Serotype 1, Live Virus AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment concerning authorization to ship for the purpose of field testing, and then to field test, an unlicensed Marek's disease vaccine, serotype 1, live virus. The environmental assessment, which is based on a risk analysis prepared to assess the risks associated with the field testing of this vaccine, examines the potential effects that field testing this veterinary vaccine could have on the quality of the human environment. Based on the risk analysis and other relevant data, we have reached a preliminary determination that field testing this veterinary vaccine will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, and that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. We intend to authorize shipment of this vaccine for field testing following the close of the comment period for this notice unless new substantial issues bearing on the effects of this action are brought to our attention. We also intend to issue a U.S. Veterinary Biological Product license for this vaccine, provided the field test data support the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the issuance of a finding of no significant impact and the product meets all other requirements for licensing.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0003.

    • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0003, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0003 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Donna Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; phone (301) 851-3426, fax (301) 734-4314.

    For information regarding the environmental assessment or the risk analysis, or to request a copy of the environmental assessment (as well as the risk analysis with confidential business information removed), contact Dr. Patricia L. Foley, Risk Manager, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 1920 Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844, Ames, IA 50010; phone (515) 337-6100, fax (515) 337-6120.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), a veterinary biological product must be shown to be pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product license may be issued. A field test is generally necessary to satisfy prelicensing requirements for veterinary biological products. Prior to conducting a field test on an unlicensed product, an applicant must obtain approval from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as well as obtain APHIS' authorization to ship the product for field testing.

    To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS considers the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment. Using the risk analysis and other relevant data, APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) concerning the field testing of the following unlicensed veterinary biological product:

    Requester: Merial, Inc.

    Product: Marek's Disease Vaccine, Serotype 1, Live Virus.

    Possible Field Test Locations: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

    The above-mentioned product is a live Marek's Disease serotype 1 vaccine virus containing the long terminal repeat of the reticuloendotheliosis virus. The attenuated vaccine is intended for use in healthy day-old chickens, as an aid in the prevention of Marek's disease caused by very virulent Marek's disease virus.

    The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    Unless substantial issues with adverse environmental impacts are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on the EA and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice.

    Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI to support the issuance of the product license, and would determine that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue a veterinary biological product license for this vaccine following completion of the field test provided no adverse impacts on the human environment are identified and provided the product meets all other requirements for licensing.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 151-159.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08604 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Comparing Health Insurance Measurement Error (CHIME).

    OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.

    Form Number(s): No forms; respondent information collected by telephone interview.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000 Households.

    Average Hours per Response: 13 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 3,028 hours.

    Needs and Uses: The goal of the study is to assess measurement error in health coverage estimates that is ascribable to the questionnaire across the CPS and ACS health insurance modules using administrative records as a truth source. Both “absolute” reporting accuracy (the survey report compared to the administrative record data) and “relative” reporting accuracy (comparing absolute accuracy across questionnaire treatments) will be evaluated. The analysis will be used to understand the magnitude, direction and patterns of misreporting for three main purposes: (1) To provide Census program staff with empirical data to develop and refine edits and/or to include research notes for data users so they can make their own adjustments for misreporting; (2) to equip the wider research community with information that could serve as a guide for deciding which among the various surveys best suits their needs; and (3) to contribute to the general survey methods research literature on measurement error. Analysis will also inform reporting accuracy of health coverage related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Specifically, for coverage that is known to be obtained from the marketplace, we will explore whether respondents report that coverage, the source they cite (direct-purchase, government, etc.), and the accuracy with which they answer a question on subsidized premiums.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, sections 141, 182 and 193.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202)395-5806.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08473 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-86-2014] Production Activity Not Authorized; Foreign-Trade Zone 57—Charlotte, North Carolina; Gildan Yarns, LLC; (Cotton, Cotton/Polyester Yarns); Salisbury, North Carolina

    On December 8, 2014, the Charlotte Regional Partnership, grantee of FTZ 57, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Gildan Yarns, LLC, in Salisbury, North Carolina.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (79 FR 75532, 12-18-2014). Pursuant to Section 400.37, the FTZ Board has determined that further review is warranted and has not authorized the proposed activity. If the applicant wishes to seek authorization for this activity, it will need to submit an application for production authority, pursuant to Section 400.23.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08592 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-20-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 50—Long Beach, California; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Motor Vehicles); Long Beach, California

    The Port of Long Beach, grantee of FTZ 50, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), located in Long Beach, California. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 24, 2015.

    The MBUSA facility is located within Site 41 of FTZ 50. The facility is used for accessorizing passenger motor vehicles. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MBUSA from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, MBUSA would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to passenger motor vehicles (duty rate−2.5%) for the foreign status components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: Plastic door sills and strips; wheel rim locks; metal door sills and strips; memory cards; navigation systems and related parts; entertainment systems; wiring sets and harnesses; storage compartments; spoilers; and, cup holders (duty rate ranges from free to 5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 26, 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] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08590 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1974] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 286; (Expansion of Service Area); Under Alternative Site Framework; Caledonia, Essex and Orleans Counties, Vermont

    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 Northeastern Vermont Development Association, grantee of FTZ 286, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-60-2014, docketed 08-27-2014) for authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Lamoille County, as described in the application, adjacent to the Derby Line Customs and Border Protection port of entry;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 52300, 09-03-14) 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 286 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

    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. ATTEST: ___ Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08584 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1971] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 63 Under Alternative Site Framework; Prince George's County, Maryland

    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, Prince George's County, grantee of FTZ 63, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-52-2014, docketed 07-29-2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area that includes Prince George's County, Maryland, adjacent to the Washington-Dulles Customs and Border Protection port of entry, and FTZ 63's existing Site 1 would be categorized as a magnet site;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 45177, 08-04-2014) 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 63 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

    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. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08585 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on April 29 and 30, 2015, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.

    Wednesday, April 29 Open Session 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Working Group Reports 3. Old Business 4. Industry Presentations: PECVD for Non-Electronic Substrates 5. Industry Presentation: ECR and Wideband DRFM Platforms 6. Implementation of the Wassenaar 2013 Cyber-Related Provisions 7. New business Thursday, April 30 Closed Session

    8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than April 22, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 23, 2015, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section (l0)(d)), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and l0(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08575 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Transportation And Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on May 6, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW. Washington, DC The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

    Agenda Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Status reports by working group chairs.

    3. Public comments and Proposals.

    Closed Session

    4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than April 29, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on August 19, 2014, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482·2813.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08574 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on May 7, 2015, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

    Agenda Open Session

    1. Opening Remarks and Introductions.

    2. Remarks from Bureau of Industry and Security senior management.

    3. Report from Composite Working Group and other working groups.

    4. Report on regime-based activities.

    5. Public Comments and New Business.

    Closed Session

    6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ l0(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than April 30, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 18, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08573 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on April 28, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

    Agenda Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.

    3. Industry Presentations.

    4. New Business.

    Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than April 21, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on September 6, 2013 pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08578 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on May 19, 2015, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.

    Agenda Open Session

    1. Opening remarks and introductions.

    2. Presentation of papers and comments by the Public.

    3. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.

    4. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.

    5. Other business.

    Closed Session

    6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10 (a) (1) and 10 (a) (3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than May 12, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 20, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a) (1) and 10(a) (3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08580 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-954] Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the Preliminary Results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain magnesia carbon bricks from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on October 9, 2014.1 We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we made no change to the Preliminary Results. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results of Administrative Review” section of this notice. The period of review (“POR”) is September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013.

    1See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 61052 (October 9, 2014) (“Preliminary Results”), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective date: April 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4047.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On October 9, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results. On November 10, 2014, the Department received a case brief from Resco Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Magnesita Refractories Company, a domestic interested party.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order includes certain magnesia carbon bricks. Certain magnesia carbon bricks that are the subject of this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 6902.10.1000, 6902.10.5000, 6815.91.0000, 6815.99.2000 and 6815.99.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.2

    2 For a full description of the scope of the Order, see Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China,” (“I&D Memo”) dated concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    We addressed all issues raised in the case brief by parties in this review in the Decision Memo. A list of issues included in the Decision Memo is attached as Appendix I to this notice. The Decision Memo is a public document and it is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on Enforcement and Compliance's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Decision Memo and the electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

    Final Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department indicated its intention to rescind this review with respect to Fedmet Resources Corporation (“Fedmet”), based on Fedmet's statement and supplemental information that it is a U.S. importer, not a PRC producer.3 Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, no information was submitted on the record contrary to Fedmet's claim, and no party provided written arguments regarding this issue. Thus, we are rescinding this review with respect to Fedmet, and Fedmet's entries will be subject to the appropriate exporter's cash deposit requirements and assessment rates, as outlined below.

    3See Preliminary Results, 79 FR 61053.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, Fengchi Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City (“Fengchi”) submitted a timely-filed certification that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Thus, we preliminarily determined that Fengchi had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.4 We received no contradictory information from CBP indicating that there were suspended entries of subject merchandise into the United States exported by Fengchi. Accordingly, for the final results we continue to find that Fengchi had no shipments of subject merchandise, and it will retain its separate-rate status which was in effect at the initiation of this administrative review.5 Consistent with our assessment clarification, the Department will issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on our final results.6

    4Id.

    5 Fengchi's no shipments certification also applied to Fengchi Refractories Co., of Haicheng City; however, that company did not previously qualify for a separate rate and remains subject to the cash deposit requirements for the PRC-Wide Entity as discussed below. See letter to the Department from Fengchi, “Magnesia Carbon Bricks from China Case No. A-570-954: No Shipments Letter,” dated January 2, 2014.

    6See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (“Assessment Practice Refinement”); see also the “Assessment” section of this notice, below.

    PRC-Wide Entity

    In the Preliminary Results, for the PRC-Wide Entity, the Department assigned the rate of 236 percent, the only rate ever determined for the PRC-Wide Entity in this proceeding.7 Because this rate is the same as the rate for the PRC-Wide Entity from previous completed segments in this proceeding and nothing on the record of the instant review calls into question the reliability of this rate, we find it appropriate to continue to apply a rate of 236 percent to the PRC-Wide Entity.8

    7See Preliminary Results, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 4.

    8See, e.g., Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 8907, 8910 (February 27, 2009).

    Further, in the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that those companies which did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate are properly considered part of the PRC-Wide Entity.9 Since the Preliminary Results, none of these companies submitted comments regarding these findings. Therefore, we continue to treat these companies as part of the PRC-Wide Entity.10

    9See Preliminary Results, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 4.

    10 For a list of companies that are subject to this administrative review as part of the PRC-Wide Entity, see Appendix II to this notice.

    Additionally, in the Preliminary Results, for 155 companies, the Department found that, while the request for review had been withdrawn, none of these companies was eligible for a separate rate at the time of the initiation of this review. Accordingly, these 155 companies will continue to be considered part of the PRC-Wide Entity, which remained under review for the Preliminary Results. 11 Thus, the Department did not rescind the review for any of these 155 companies in the Preliminary Results. 12 Since the Preliminary Results, no party has presented information to the contrary, and, thus, these 155 companies continue to be considered as part of the PRC-Wide Entity, which remains under review for the final results.13

    11See Preliminary Results, 79 FR 61503.

    12See, e.g., Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 47363, 47365 (August 8, 2012), unchanged in Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010- 2011, 78 FR 10130 (February 13, 2013). A change in practice with respect to the conditional review of the PRC-wide entity is not applicable to this administrative review. See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65964, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    13 For a list of companies that are subject to this administrative review as part of the PRC-Wide Entity, see Appendix II to this notice.

    Final Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013:

    Exporter Weighted-average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • PRC-Wide Entity 236.00
    Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. For all appropriate entries exported by the PRC-Wide Entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at an antidumping assessment rate of 236.00 percent.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are eligible for a separate rate from a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-Wide Entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which are not eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notifications

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

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Issues (1) Whether the Department Should Limit CBP Data Query to Suspended AD/CVD Entries (2) Whether the Department Should Issue Q&V Questionnaires to All Companies Under Review (3) Whether Identifying Misclassified Entries Falls Under the Department's Authority V. Conclusion Appendix II Companies Subject to the Administrative Review that Are Part of the PRC-Wide Entity 1. ANH (Xinyi) Refractories Co. Ltd. 2. Anyang Rongzhu Silicon Industry Co., Ltd. 3. Barsan Global Lojistik Ve Gum. Mus. 4. Bayuquan Refractories Co., Ltd. 5. Beijing Tianxing Ceramic Fiber Composite Materials Corp. 6. Benxi Iron & Steel (Group) International Economic & Trading Co. 7. Changxing Magnesium Furnace Charge Co., Ltd. 8. Changxing Wangfa Architectural & Metallurgical Materials Co., Ltd. 9. Changzing Zhicheng Refractory Material Factory. 10. China Metallurgical Raw Material Beijing Company. 11. China Quantai Metallurgical (Beijing) Engineering & Science Co., Ltd. 12. Chosun Refractories. 13. Cimm Group of China. 14. CNBM International Corporation. 15. Dalian Cerax Co., Ltd. 16. Dalian Dalmond Trading Co., Ltd. 17. Dalian F.T.Z. Huaxin International. 18. Dalian F.T.Z. Maylong Resources Co., Ltd. 19. Dalian Huayu Refractories International Co., Ltd. 20. Dalian LST Metallurgy Co., Ltd. 21. Dalian Masoo International Trading. 22. Dalian Mayerton Refractories Ltd. 23. Dalian Morgan Refractories Ltd. 24. Dashiqiao Bozhong Mineral Products Co., Ltd. 25. Dashiqiao City Magnesite. 26. Dashiqiao City Guangcheng Refractory Co., Ltd. 27. Dashiqiao Jia Sheng Mining Co., Ltd. 28. Dashiqiao Jinlong Refractories Co., Ltd. 29. Dashiqiao RongXing Refractory Material Co., Ltd. 30. Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Material Co., Ltd. 31. Dashiqiao Yutong Packing Factory. 32. Dashiqiao Zhongjian Magnesia. 33. Dengfeng Desheng Refractory Co., Ltd. 34. DFL Minmet Refractories Corp. 35. Duferco SA. 36. Duferco BarInvest SA Beijing Office. 37. Duferco Ironet Shanghai Representative Office. 38. Eastern Industries & Trading Co., Ltd. 39. Far Horizon Trading Limited. 40. Fengchi Mining Co., Ltd of Haicheng City. 41. Fengchi Refractories Co., of Haicheng City. 42. Fengchi Refractories Corp. 43. Ferro Alliages & Mineraux Inc. 44. Firma. 45. Haicheng City Qunli Mining Co., Ltd. 46. Haicheng City Xiyang Import & Export Corporation. 47. Haicheng Donghe Taidi Refractory Co., Ltd. 48. Haicheng Ruitong Mining Co., Ltd. 49. Haiyuan Talc Powder Manufacture Factory. 50. Henan Boma Co. Ltd. 51. Henan Kingway Chemicals Co., Ltd. 52. Henan Tagore Refractories Co., Ltd. 53. Henan Xinmi Changzxing Refractories, Co., Ltd. 54. Hebei Qinghe Refractory Group Co. Ltd. 55. Huailin Refractories (Dashiqiao) Pte. Ltd. 56. Hualude Hardware Products Co. Ltd. 57. Indian Technomac Co., Ltd. 58. Jfe Refractories Corporation. 59. Jiangsu Sujia Group New Materials Co., Ltd. 60. Jiangsu Sujia Joint-Stock Co., Ltd. 61. Jinan Forever Imp. & Emp. Trading Co., Ltd. 62. Jinan Linquan Imp. & Emp. Co. Ltd. 63. Jinan Ludong Refractory Co., Ltd. 64. Kosmokraft Refractory Limited. 65. Kuehne & Nagel Ltd. Dalian Branch Office. 66. Kumas Sanayi Urunleri Ve Insaat Paz. 67. Lechang City Guangdong Province SongXin Refractories Co., Ltd. 68. Liaoning Fucheng Refractories Group Co., Ltd. 69. Liaoning Fucheng Special Refractory Co., Ltd. 70. Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Ltd. 71. Liaoning Jinding Magnesite Group. 72. Liaoning Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd. 73. Liaoning Mineral & Metallurgy Group Co., Ltd. 74. Liaoning Qunyi Group Refractories Co., Ltd. 75. Liaoning Qunyi Trade Co., Ltd. 76. Liaoning RHI Jinding Magnesis Co., Ltd. 77. Liaoning Zhongxing Mining Industry Group Co., Ltd. 78. LiShuang Refractory Industrial Co., Ltd. 79. Lithomelt Co., Ltd. 80. Lua Viet Bestref Joint Venture Co. 81. Luheng Refractory Co., Ltd. 82. Luoyang Refractory Group Co., Ltd. 83. Mayerton Refractories. 84. Minsource International Ltd. 85. Minteq International Inc. 86. National Minerals Co., Ltd. 87. Navis Zufall Ueberseespeditions. 88. North Refractories Co., Ltd. 89. Orestar Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd. 90. Oreworld Trade (Tangshan) Co., Ltd. 91. Puyang Refractories Co., Ltd. 92. Qingdao Almatis Co., Ltd. (HQ). 93. Qingdao Almatis Co., Ltd. (Manufacturing). 94. Qingdao Almatis Trading Co., Ltd. (Sales Office). 95. Qingdao Blueshell Import & Emport Corp. 96. Qingdao Fujing Group Co., Ltd. 97. Qingdao Huierde International Trade Co., Ltd. 98. Refratechnik Cement GmbH. 99. Refratechnik Steel GmbH. 100. RHI AG. 101. RHI GLAS GmbH. 102. RHI Refractories Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. 103. RHI Refractories (Dalian) Co., Ltd. 104. RHI Trading Shanghai Branch. 105. RHI Trading (Dalian) Co., Ltd. 106. Rongyuan Magnesite Co., Ltd. of Dashiqiao City. 107. Shandong Cambridge International Trade Inc. 108. Shandong Lunai Kiln Refractories Co., Ltd. 109. Shandong Refractories Corp. 110. Shanghai Pudong Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd. 111. Shanghai Vista Packaging Co., ltd. 112. Shanxi Dajin International (Group) Co., Ltd. 113. Shanxi Xinrong International Trade Co. Ltd. 114. Shenyang Shenghui Refractory Imp. 115. Shenyang Yi Xin Sheng Lai Refractory Materials Co., Ltd. 116. Shinagawa Refractories Co., Ltd. 117. Shinagawa Rongyuan Refractories Co., Ltd. 118. Sinosteel Corporation. 119. SMMC Group Co., Ltd. 120. Store System Inc. O B Dongning Shunf. 121. Syndicate Exp. Pvt., Ltd. 122. Tangshan Success Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. 123. Tianjin New Century Refractories, Ltd. 124. Tianjin New World Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. 125. Tianjin Weiyuan Refractory Co., Ltd. 126. The Economic Trading Group of Haicheng Huoying Corporation Ltd. 127. Vereeniging Refractories (Pty). 128. Vesuvius Advanced Ceramics (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. 129. Wonjin Refractories Co., Ltd. 130. Wuxi Tian Liang Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. 131. Xiyuan Xingquan Forsterite Co., Ltd. 132. Yanshi City Guangming High-Tech Refractories Products Co., Ltd. 133. YHS Minerals Co., Ltd. 134. Yingkou Bayuquan Refractories Co., Ltd. 135. Yingkou Bl Mining Co., Ltd. 136. Yingkou Dalmond Refractories Co., Ltd. 137. Yingkou Guangyang Refractories Co., Ltd. 138. Yingkou Guangyang Refractories Co., Ltd. (YGR). 139. Yingkou Heping Samwha Minerals Co., Ltd. 140. Yingkou Jiahe Refractories Co., Ltd. 141. Yingkou Jinlong Refractories Group. 142. Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co., Ltd. 143. Yingkou Qinghua Group Imp. & Emp. Co., Ltd. 144. Yingkou Qinghua Refractories Co., Ltd. 145. Yingkou Sanhua Refractory Materials Co., Ltd. 146. Yingkou Tianrun Refractory Co.,Ltd. 147. Yingkou Wonjin Refractory Material Co., Ltd. 148. Yingkou Yongji Mag Refractory, Ltd. 149. Yixing Runlong Trade Co., Ltd. 150. Yixing Xinwei Leeshing Refractory Material Co., Ltd. 151. Yixing Zhenqiu Charging Ltd. 152. Zhejiang Changxing Guangming Special Refractory Material Foundry, Co., Ltd. 153. Zhejiang Deqing Jinlei Refractory Co., Ltd. 154. Zhejiang Huzhou Fuzilin Refractory Metals Group Co., Ltd. 155. Zhengzhou Annec Industrial Co., Ltd. 156. Zhengzhou Huachen Refractory Co., Ltd. 157. Zhengzhou Huawei Refractories Co., Ltd. 158. Zibo Lianzhu Refractory Materials Co., Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08591 Filed 4-13-15; 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: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On December 8, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film (PET Film) from the United Arab Emirates.1 This review covers one producer/exporter of subject merchandise, JBF RAK LLC (JBF). Based on our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to the Preliminary Results, which are discussed below. The final weighted-average dumping margin is listed below in the section titled “Final Results of Review.”

    1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 72624 (December 8, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 8, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results. Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have taken place: The Department received timely case briefs from JBF on January 14, 2015, and from DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., and SKC, Inc., (collectively, Petitioners) on January 15, 2015.2 JBF filed a timely rebuttal brief on January 20, 2015.3

    2See “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet and Strip from the United Arab Emirates (A-520-803); Case Briefof JBF RAK, LLC,” dated January 14, 2015 and “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United ArabEmirates: Petitioners' Case BriefCite briefs” dated January 15, 2015.

    3See “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet and Strip from the United Arab Emirates (A-520-803); Rebuttal Brief of JBF RAK, LLC,” dated January 20, 2015.

    Period of Review

    The period of review is November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film (PET Film), whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET Film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised by parties in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results” (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit of the main Commerce Building, Room 7046. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum is also accessible on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made adjustments to our margin calculations for JBF. Specifically, we have made adjustments for commissions JBF received in the home and U.S. markets, we have adjusted JBF's finance expense ratio, and we have adjusted the materials cost to account for certain inputs JBF purchased from an affiliated party.4 A complete discussion of these adjustments and changes can be found in the Decision Memorandum.

    4See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, “Final Analysis Memorandum for JBF RAK LLC,” April 7, 2015.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period of November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013:

    Producer or
  • exporter
  • Weighted-average dumping margin
  • (percent ad valorem)
  • JBF RAK LLC 11.49
    Disclosure

    We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these final results within five days of the publication of this notice, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.5 The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    5 The Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    For assessment purposes we calculated importer-specific, ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales.6 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.

    6See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.7 This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies under review in these final results for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate of 4.05 percent from the less-than-fair-value investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.8

    7See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    8Id.; see also Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595, 66596 (November 10, 2008).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above in the section “Final Results of Review;” (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previously completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the final results for the most recent period in which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the final results for the most recent period in which that producer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be 4.05 percent, the all-others rate established in the less than fair value investigation.9 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    9Id.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Importers

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

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Adjustments for Commissions in U.S. Dollars Rather than Local Currency Comment 2: Financing Expense Ratio is Not Supported by Information on the Record Comment 3: The Financing Expense Ratio Does Not Include All Elements of Financing Comment 4: Differences in Prices Paid to Affiliated and Unaffiliated Suppliers in Material Cost Adjustments Comment 5: Commissions to Offset Normal Value
    [FR Doc. 2015-08581 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-844] Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective date: April 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682 and (202) 482-3693, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (narrow woven ribbons) from Taiwan.1 On September 2, 2014, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order, covering the period September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014.2 On September 30, 2014, the Department received a timely request for an antidumping duty administrative review from the petitioner, Berwick Offray LLC, and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc. (the petitioner), for the following companies: (1) A-Madeus Textile Ltd. (A-Madeus); (2) Cheng Hsing Ribbon Factory (Cheng Hsing); (3) Fujian Rongshu Industry Co., Ltd. (Fujian Rongshu); (4) Guangzhou Complacent Weaving Co., Ltd. (Guangzhou Complacent); (5) Hen Hao Trading Co. Ltd. a.k.a. Taiwan Tulip Ribbons and Braids Co. Ltd. (Hen Hao); (6) King Young Enterprises Co., Ltd. (King Young); (7) Roung Shu Industry Corporation (Roung Shu); (8) Xiamen Especial Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Especial); (9) Xiamen Yi He Textile Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Yi He); (10) L'Emballage Tout; (11) Rubans G A R Inc (Les) (Rubans); (12) Bon-Mar Textiles; (13) Antonio Proietti Int Inc (Antonio Proietti Int); and (14) Imprimerie Mikan Inc. (Imprimerie Mikan).

    1See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 53632 (September 1, 2010).

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 79 FR 51958 (September 2, 2014).

    On October 15, 2014, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of the following companies: (1) L'Emballage Tout; (2) Rubans; (3) Bon-Mar Textiles; (4) Antonio Proietti Int; and (5) Imprimerie Mikan. On October 30, 2014, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to the remaining nine companies.3

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 64565, 64567 (October 30, 2014).

    On January 27, 2015, the petitioner withdrew its request with respect to King Young. On January 28, 2015, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of the following companies: (1) Cheng Hsing; (2) Fujian Rongshu; (3) Guangzhou Complacent; (4) Hen Hao; (5) Xiamen Especial; and (6) Xiamen Yi He.

    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 petitioner's withdrawals of its requests were submitted within the 90-day period and, thus, are timely. Because the petitioner's withdrawals of its requests for an antidumping duty administrative review are timely, and because no other party requested a review of the companies listed above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review, in part, with respect to the following companies: (1) Cheng Hsing; (2) Fujian Rongshu; (3) Guangzhou Complacent; (4) Hen Hao; (5) Xiamen Especial; (6) Xiamen Yi He; and (7) King Young.

    Assessment

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

    Notification to Importers

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

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

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

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

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08593 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD861 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Stock Assessment Review Panels (STAR Panels) will hold work sessions to review stock assessments for canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish; bocaccio and China rockfish; black rockfish; and widow rockfish and kelp greenling, all of which are open to the public.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times of the STAR Panel meetings.

    ADDRESSES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific locations of the STAR Panel meetings.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Jim Hastie, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center; telephone: (206) 860-3412; or Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The dates of the meetings are as follows:

    The STAR Panel for canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish assessments will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, April 27, 2015 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, April 28, and will continue through Friday, May 1, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, May 1.

    The STAR Panel for bocaccio and China rockfish stock assessments will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, July 6, 2015 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, July 7 and will continue through Friday, July 10, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, July 10.

    The STAR Panel for the black rockfish stock assessments will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, July 20, 2015 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, July 21 and will continue through Friday, July 24, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, July 24.

    The STAR Panel for the widow rockfish and kelp greenling stock assessments will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, July 27, 2015 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, July 28, and will continue through Friday, July 31, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, July 31.

    The locations of the meetings are as follows:

    The STAR Panel for canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish will be held the Hotel Deca, 4507 Brooklyn Avenue NE., Seattle, WA 98105; telephone: (206) 634-2000.

    The STAR Panel for the bocaccio and China rockfish stock assessments will be held at the NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz Laboratory, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; telephone: (831) 420-3900.

    The STAR Panels for the black rockfish stock assessments and the widow rockfish and kelp greenling stock assessments will be held at the NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Newport Research Station, 2032 SE OSU Drive, Building 955, Newport, OR 97365; telephone: (541) 867-0500.

    The purpose of the STAR Panels is to review draft 2015 stock assessment documents and any other pertinent information for new benchmark stock assessments for canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, bocaccio, China rockfish, black rockfish, widow rockfish, and kelp greenling; work with the Stock Assessment Teams to make necessary revisions; and produce STAR Panel reports for use by the Pacific Council and other interested persons for developing management recommendations for fisheries in 2017 and beyond. No management actions will be decided by the STAR Panels. The Panel's role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Pacific Council at its June meeting in Spokane, WA and its September meeting in Sacramento, CA.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STAR Panels participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STAR Panel action during these meetings. Panel action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed 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 Panel participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    All visitors to the NMFS science centers should bring photo identification to the meeting location. Visitors who are foreign nationals (defined as a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States) will require additional security clearance to access the NOAA facilities. Foreign national visitors should contact Dr. Jim Hastie at (206) 860-3412 at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting date to initiate the security clearance process.

    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. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. William D. Chappell, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08471 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3501-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0605.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Emergency revision of a currently approved information collection. Per the Paperwork Reduction Act regulations, 5 CFR 1320.13, we believe that use of this emergency process is essential to the mission of the agency, and the agency cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures under this part because public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed.

    Number of Respondents: 100.

    Average Hours per Response: The daily catch report is estimated to take 15 minutes to complete.

    Burden Hours: Based on trips to multiple broad stock areas taken during the 2013 fishing year, the average trip length for vessels that fish in multiple broad stock areas on a single trip is 5 days. If vessels take 7 trips per year, the burden estimate for daily trip reports is 8 hr, 45 min.

    Needs and Uses: This is a request for comments on the proposed revision of OMB Control No. 0648-0605, the Information Collection for Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, in conjunction with Final Rule 0648-BE75. The information collection currently approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0605 includes a number of reporting requirements necessary to end overfishing, rebuild overfished groundfish stocks, and mitigate the adverse economic impacts of increased effort controls. This revision proposes to modify only the broad stock area reporting requirements currently approved under the Information Collection for Amendment 16. We are seeking comments on a provision that, if approved, would require vessels that declare trips into the Gulf of Maine Broad Stock Area and any other broad stock area (i.e., Georges Bank or Southern New England) on the same trip submit a daily catch report via vessel monitoring system (VMS). We have determined the daily VMS trip reports may be necessary to ensure accurate apportionment catch and help enforcement efforts. Vessels are currently required to submit trip level catch reports when declared into multiple broad stock areas, so the proposed change would affect only the frequency of submission.

    Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion, but daily submission would be required on trips declared into multiple broad stock areas.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 10 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08667 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 15-05] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 15-05 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN14AP15.003 Transmittal No. 15-05 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Pakistan

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment $645 million Other 307 million Total 952 million * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: 15 AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters, 32 T-700 GE 401C Engines (30 installed and 2 spares), 1000 AGM-114 R Hellfire II Missiles in containers, 36 H-1 Technical Refresh Mission computers, 17 AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight Systems, 30 629F-23 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency Communication Systems, 19 H-764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems, 32 Helmet Mounted Display/Optimized Top Owl, 17 APX-117A Identification Friend or Foe, 17 AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, 17 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Sets, 18 APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receivers, 15 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and 17 M197 20mm Gun Systems. Also included are system integration and testing, software development and integration, aircraft ferry, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (SBO); Army (WAX)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

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

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

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 06 April 2015

    Policy Justification Pakistan—AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters and AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles

    The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of 15 AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters, 32 T-700 GE 401C Engines (30 installed and 2 spares), 1000 AGM-114 R Hellfire II Missiles in containers, 36 H-1 Technical Refresh Mission computers, 17 AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight Systems, 30 629F-23 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency Communication Systems, 19 H-764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems, 32 Helmet Mounted Display/Optimized Top Owl, 17 APX-117A Identification Friend or Foe, 17 AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, 17 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Sets, 18 AN/APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receivers, 15 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and 17 M197 20mm Gun Systems. Also included are system integration and testing, software development and integration, aircraft ferry, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $952 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a country vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals in South Asia.

    This proposed sale of helicopters and weapon systems will provide Pakistan with military capabilities in support of its counterterrorism and counter-insurgency operations in South Asia.

    This proposed sale will provide Pakistan with a precision strike, enhanced survivability aircraft that it can operate at high-altitudes. By acquiring this capability, Pakistan will enhance its ability to conduct operations in North Waziristan Agency (NWA), the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and other remote and mountainous areas in all-weather, day-and-night environments. Pakistan will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.

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

    The principal contractors will be Bell Helicopter, Textron in Fort Worth, Texas; General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts; The Boeing Company in Huntsville, Alabama; and Lockheed Martin in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in conjunction with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in program and technical reviews, as well as training and maintenance support in country for a period of 66 months. It will also require three contractor representatives to reside in country for a period of three years to support this program.

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

    Transmittal No. 15-05 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopter is a twin-engine attack helicopter that features a four-blade, bearingless, composite main rotor system, upgraded transmission, and a new target sighting system. The AH-1Z incorporates new rotor technology with upgraded military avionics, weapons systems, and electro-optical sensors in an integrated weapons platform. It has improved survivability and can find targets at longer ranges and attack them with precision weapons. The blades are made of composites, which have an increased ballistic survivability, and there is a semiautomatic folding system for stowage aboard amphibious assault ships. Its two redesigned wing stubs are longer, having stations for 2.75-inch (70 mm) Hydra 70 rocket pods and AGM-114 R NON-NATO Hellfire quad missile launchers.

    a. The integrated avionics system (IAS) includes two mission computers and an automatic flight control system. Each crew station has two 8x6-inch multifunction liquid crystal displays (LCD) and one 4.2x4.2-inch dual function LCD display. The communications suite will have an ARC 210 629F-23 (NON COMSEC) Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) radio, and associated communications equipment. The navigation suite includes a Honeywell H-764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (EGIs), a digital map system and a low-airspeed air data subsystem, which allows weapons delivery when hovering.

    b. The crew is equipped with the Optimized Top Owl (OTO) helmet-mounted sight and display system. The OTO has a Day Display Module (DDM) and a Night Display Module (NDM) harmonized to a night vision goggle to provide day/night capability. The AH-1Z has survivability equipment including the AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning and Laser Detection System, AN/ALE-47 Counter Measure Dispensing System (CMDS) and the AN/APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver to cover countermeasure dispensers, radar warning, incoming/on-way missile warning and on-fuselage laserspot warning systems.

    c. The AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight System (TSS) is the multi-sensor electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) fire control system. The TSS provides target sighting in day, night or adverse weather conditions. It has a large aperture midwave Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensor, color television, laser designator/rangefinder and an on-gimbal inertial measurement unit integrated into a highly stabilized turret mounted to the nose of the aircraft. The TSS provides the capability to identify and laser-designate targets at maximum weapon range, significantly enhancing platform survivability and lethality. The TSS hardware is unclassified, but the laser designation implementation is classified Confidential.

    d. The AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System is unclassified. The AN/AAR-47 is a missile approach warning system used to notify the pilot of threats and to trigger the aircraft's countermeasures systems. The Operational Flight Program (OFP) and User Data Files used on the AN/AAR-47 are classified Secret. The software programs contain threat parametric data used to identify and establish priority of detected radar emitters.

    e. The AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing System is Unclassified. AN/AAR-47 is a threat-adaptive dispensing system that dispenses chaff, and flares for self-protection against airborne and ground-based Radio Frequency and Infrared threats. The AN/AAR-47OFP and Mission Data Files used in the AN/AAR-47 are classified Secret.

    f. The AN/APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver is unclassified. The AN/APR-39C(V)2 system detects the radio emissions of radar systems that might be a threat. The warning can then be used, manually or automatically, to evade the detected threat. The AN/APR-39C(V)2, OFP, and Mission Data Files used in the AN/AAR-47 are classified Secret.

    g. The Rockwell Collins 629F-23 is an exportable version the ARC-210 programmable digital communication system. The 629F-23 is a fully digital transceiver, with performance from 30 to 512 MHz and provides interoperability between ground and airborne military forces and land-based civil agencies. The 629F-23 is Unclassified. This version does not offer a SAT COM or COMSEC capability.

    h. The AN/APX-117 is a combined interrogator/transponder and is unclassified. The AN/APX-117 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) is an exportable version of the USMC AN/APX-118 IFF with Modes 1,2,3,4, and Mode 5 capable being provided.

    i. The H-1 Technical Refresh Mission Computer (TRMC) is an upgrade to the H-1 weapon system. The TRMC will contain the mission processor, video/graphics processing, and I/O required interfacing the TRMC with other elements of the Integrated Avionics Suite. The TRMC hardware is Unclassified. The OFP and Data Files used in the TRMC are classified Secret.

    j. The crew is equipped with the Optimized Top Owl (OTO) helmet-mounted sight and display system. The OTO has a Day Display Module (DDM) and a Night Display Module (NDM to provide day/night capability.)

    k. The H764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGIs) is a modification of the H-1 CN-1689(V)13 units used on the USMC AH-1Z and UH-1Y to meet export requirements. The export version will remove the Precise Positioning Service-Security Module (PPS_SM) and replace it with a Standard Positioning service (SPS) GPS Receiver. The classification of the EGI is Unclassified.

    l. The AGM-114 R Hellfire II missile is an air-to-surface missile with a multi-mission, multi-target, precision strike capability. The Hellfire can be launched from multiple air platforms and is the primary precision weapon for the United States Army.

    m. The highest level for release of the AGM-114 R Hellfire II is Secret, based upon the software. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is Secret; the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is Confidential. Reverse engineering could reveal Confidential information. Vulnerability data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions are classified Secret or Confidential.

    n. The M197 20mm Gun System is a three-barreled electric Gatling-type rotary cannon used by the USMC AH-1Z aircraft. The Gun System incorporates a link less feed system that corrects problems with jamming. The system is capable of holding 650 rounds in the storage unit. The Gun system is Unclassified.

    o. The Joint Mission Planning Systems (JMPS) provide support for unit-level mission planning for all phases of military flight operations and have the capability to provide necessary mission data for the aircrew. JMPS will support the downloading of data to electronics data transfer devices for transfer to aircraft and weapon systems. The JMPS will be tailored to the specific releasable configuration for the AH-1Z. The Joint Mission Planning System is Secret.

    2. If a technologically advance adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent system with might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

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

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

    [FR Doc. 2015-08525 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Independent Review Panel on Military Medical Construction Standards; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Independent Review Panel on Military Medical Construction Standards (“the Panel”).

    DATES:

    Thursday, April 30, 2015

    8:00 a.m.-8:45 a.m. EDT (Preparatory Session)

    8:45 a.m.-11:45 a.m. EDT (Open Session)

    11:45 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT (Preparatory Session)

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ), Pavilion Executive Conference Room 4P143, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22042 (escort required; see guidance in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, “Public's Accessibility to the Meeting”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Executive Director is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, [email protected], (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-9539. For meeting information, please contact Ms. Kendal Brown, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, [email protected], (703) 681-6670, Fax: (703) 681-9539.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Purpose of the Meeting

    At this meeting, the Panel will address the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383), Section 2852(b) requirement to provide the Secretary of Defense independent advice and recommendations regarding a construction standard for military medical centers to provide a single standard of care, as set forth in this notice:

    a. Reviewing the unified military medical construction standards to determine the standards consistency with industry practices and benchmarks for world class medical construction;

    b. Reviewing ongoing construction programs within the DoD to ensure medical construction standards are uniformly applied across applicable military centers;

    c. Assessing the DoD approach to planning and programming facility improvements with specific emphasis on facility selection criteria and proportional assessment system; and facility programming responsibilities between the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Secretaries of the Military Departments;

    d. Assessing whether the Comprehensive Master Plan for the National Capital Region Medical (“the Master Plan”), dated April 2010, is adequate to fulfill statutory requirements, as required by section 2714 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Pub. L. 111-84; 123 Stat. 2656), to ensure that the facilities and organizational structure described in the Master Plan result in world class military medical centers in the National Capital Region; and

    e. Making recommendations regarding any adjustments of the Master Plan that are needed to ensure the provision of world class military medical centers and delivery system in the National Capital Region.

    Agenda

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the Panel meeting is open to the public from 8:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. on April 30, 2015, as the Panel will meet in an open forum to receive briefings on the Military Health System plan and Defense Health Agency's Facilities Division flexibility studies.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting

    A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the April 30, 2015, meeting, as well as any other materials presented, may be obtained at the meeting.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Kendal Brown at the number listed in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 23, 2015, to register and make arrangements for an escort, if necessary. Public attendees requiring escort should arrive with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification and one must be a picture identification card.

    Special Accommodations

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Statements

    Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the Panel may do so in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the procedures described in this notice.

    Individuals desiring to provide comments to the Panel may do so by submitting a written statement to the Executive Director (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Written statements should address the following details: the issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included, as needed, to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information.

    If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the Executive Director may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.

    The Executive Director will review all timely submissions with the Panel Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the Panel before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the Panel Chairperson and the Executive Director may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Executive Director, in consultation with the Panel Chairperson, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Panel.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08512 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, 2.0, for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Voting System Testing and Certification Program AGENCY:

    United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

    ACTION:

    Notice; publication of Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0, for 30 day public comment period on EAC Web site.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is publishing a procedural manual for its Voting System Testing and Certification Program. This manual sets the administrative procedures for voting system test laboratories in the EAC testing and certification program. Participation in the program is strictly voluntary. The program is mandated by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) at 42 US.C. 15371.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    HAVA requires that the EAC certify and decertify voting systems. Section

    231(a)(1) of HAVA (42 U.S.C. 15371) specifically requires the EAC to “. . . provide for the testing, certification, decertification and recertification of voting system hardware and software by accredited laboratories.” To meet this obligation, the EAC has created a voluntary program to test voting systems to Federal voting system standards. The Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, published below, will set the procedures for laboratories in this program.

    EAC is required to submit the Testing and Certification Manual for approval in accordance with Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requirements. The Testing and Certification Division has updated sections of the manual to reflect proposed changes in certification procedures.

    Comments

    This notice is published in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to request comments regarding the burden of responding to the information collection activities of the proposed manual; please refer to the EAC's Web site, www.eac.gov, for further information about the submission of comments regarding burden.

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on this draft procedural manual on or before 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments via email to [email protected]; via mail to Jessica Myers, Certification Program Specialist, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or via fax to 202-566-1392. An electronic copy of the proposed manual may be found on the EAC's Web site http://www.eac.gov/open/comment.aspx.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Hancock, Director, Voting System Certification, Washington, DC, (202) 566-3100, Fax: (202) 566-1392.

    Bryan Whitener, Director of Communications and Clearinghouse, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08567 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
    ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Procedural Manual for the Election Assistance Commission's Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Version 2.0 AGENCY:

    United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

    ACTION:

    Notice; publication of Voting System Testing and Certification Manual, Version 2.0, for 30 day public comment period on EAC Web site.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is publishing a procedural manual for its Voting System Testing and Certification Program. This manual sets the administrative procedures for obtaining an EAC Certification for voting systems. Participation in the program is strictly voluntary. The program is mandated by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) at 42 U.S.C. 15371.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background. HAVA requires that the EAC certify and decertify voting systems. Section 231(a)(1) of HAVA (42 U.S.C. 15371) specifically requires the EAC to “. . . provide for the testing, certification, decertification and recertification of voting system hardware and software by accredited laboratories.” To meet this obligation, the EAC has created a voluntary program to test voting systems to Federal voting system standards. The Voting System Testing and Certification Manual, published below, will set the procedures for this program.

    EAC is required to submit the Testing and Certification Manual for approval in accordance with Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requirements. The Testing and Certification Division has updated sections of the manual to reflect proposed changes in certification procedures.

    Comments. This notice is published in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to request comments regarding the burden of responding to the information collection activities of the proposed manual; please refer to the EAC's Web site, www.eac.gov, for further information about the submission of comments regarding burden.

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on this draft procedural manual on or before 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments via email to [email protected]; via mail to Jessica Myers, Certification Program Specialist, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD, 20910; or via fax to 202-566-1392. An electronic copy of the proposed manual may be found on the EAC's Web site http://www.eac.gov/open/comment.aspx.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Hancock, Director, Voting System Certification, Washington, DC, (202) 566-3100, Fax: (202) 566-1392.

    Bryan Whitener, Director of Communications and Clearinghouse, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08534 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002] DOE Participation in Development of the International Energy Conservation Code AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) participates in the public process administered by the International Code Council (ICC), which produces the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). DOE develops and publishes code change proposals for the IECC, prior to submitting them to the ICC, to allow interested parties an opportunity to suggest revisions, enhancements and comments. This notice outlines the process by which DOE produces its code change proposals for the IECC, and otherwise participates in the ICC code development process. This process will be used when DOE participates in the development of the 2018 IECC and other codes developed by the ICC.

    DATES:

    DOE is requesting written comments on the proposed process by which DOE will develop code change proposals for submission to the ICC by May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any comments submitted must identify the Notice for DOE Participation in Development of the International Energy Conservation Code, and provide docket number EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002. Comments may be submitted by using either of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected]. Include EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002 in the subject line of the message.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name (U.S. DOE) and docket number. Additional information is included in the following sections.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 287-1941; Email: [email protected].

    For legal issues:

    Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-0669; Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Statutory Authority B. Background II. DOE Participation in the ICC Development Process A. Technical Analysis B. Proposal Development C. ICC Public Hearings III. Public Participation in the Development of DOE Proposals A. Stakeholder Input B. Ex-Parte Guidance I. Introduction

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supports the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) by participating in the code development processes administered by the International Code Council (ICC). As a participant in this process, DOE considers and evaluates concepts to be submitted as proposed changes to the IECC (“code”). This Notice outlines the process by which DOE produces code change proposals and participates in the ICC code development process, including the 2018 IECC, as well as other codes published by the ICC.

    A. Statutory Authority

    Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended (ECPA), establishes requirements related to energy conservation standards for new buildings. (42 U.S.C. 6831-6837) Section 307 (b) of ECPA directs DOE to support voluntary building energy codes by periodically reviewing the technical and economic basis of the voluntary building codes, recommending amendments to such codes, seeking adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures, and otherwise participate in any industry process for review and modification of such codes. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b))

    B. Background

    The DOE Building Energy Codes Program mission supports the development and implementation of model building energy codes and standards to achieve the maximum practicable and cost-effective improvements in energy efficiency, while providing safe, healthy buildings for occupants.1 Part of this mission is directed at the IECC, which serves as a model energy code, and is adopted by many U.S. states, territories, the District of Columbia, and localities across the nation. The ICC administers development of the IECC through a public process, with revisions taking place every three years under the ICC governmental consensus process. As part of this process, any interested party can propose changes to the IECC, with proposed code changes subject to the bylaws, policies and procedures defined by the ICC.2

    1See http://www.energycodes.gov/about.

    2See http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/pages/default.aspx.

    II. DOE Participation in the ICC Development Process

    The Department seeks to advance energy efficiency by cost-effectively strengthening the code and clarifying provisions to be more easily understood, implemented and enforced. DOE is directed to participate in the development of model building energy codes, such as the IECC, for residential and commercial buildings. DOE participates in the ICC development process by:

    • Conducting technical analyses to identify concepts for consideration;

    • Developing and submitting proposals based on concepts deemed credible and cost-effective; and

    • Supporting proposals through the ICC public hearing process.

    A. Technical Analyses

    In preparation for the development of code change proposals, DOE conducts analyses to ensure that its proposals are technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE analyses will identify anticipated energy and economic savings impact associated with its energy savings concepts. This ensures that DOE proposals are cost-effective as defined by established, publicly reviewed DOE methodologies.3

    3See http://www.energycodes.gov/development.

    Analyses performed by DOE or its contractors for the purposes of developing code change proposals are technical in nature. DOE is not obligated to conduct analyses for outside parties, but reserves the right to do so where it believes they will support DOE statutory obligations. In conducting such analyses, DOE does not represent or endorse particular individuals or organizations. DOE also cannot enter into joint code change proposals with the exception of proposals submitted jointly with another federal agency.

    B. Proposal Development and Submission

    Satisfactory concepts will be turned into draft code change proposals. To allow interested parties to comment, DOE will post these, along with supporting data and analyses, prior to submitting them to the ICC. DOE will modify its proposals as comments and new information become available; modified versions, with preceding versions of each proposal archived, and changes annotated between each version will also be posted. Final proposals will be clearly identified, and will be posted prior to submission to the ICC. All posted information will be available at http://www.energycodes.gov/development.

    C. ICC Public Hearings

    DOE maintains organizational membership with the ICC. As a Governmental Member, DOE intends to participate as defined by the guiding ICC rules and procedures, including participation in the ICC public hearings and exercising assigned voting privileges. At ICC hearings, DOE:

    • Will present and defend its own proposals; and

    • May present the results of technical analyses it has conducted, including analyses of other parties' proposals when it believes the development process will be improved by providing such information.

    The presentation of a DOE proposal or technical analysis does not constitute an endorsement of any particular proposal or product. DOE may alter its proposals based on the procedural events of the official ICC hearing process without seeking further public comment. DOE may also seek additional public comment, such as in cases when a particular proposal is significantly modified for resubmission, following the ICC Committee Action Hearings.

    III. Public Participation in the Development of DOE Proposals A. Stakeholder Input

    The public will have the following opportunities to provide DOE with input:

    1. Comments on posted proposals and

    2. Participation in public meetings.

    Public Comment on DOE Proposals: DOE intends to make information available to the general public as it comes available. As information will be updated continually throughout the process, interested parties are urged to closely monitor the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web page and stakeholder mailing lists to remain current with DOE activities. As materials will be posted over an extended period of time, the Web site will provide additional instructions on submitting comments on DOE proposals, including associated comment deadlines.

    DOE will publish a notice in the Federal Register when its draft proposals and supporting materials begin to become available for public review. Note that DOE will not provide responses to individual public comments, but will consider all information received, and will incorporate all appropriate information into updated versions of its proposals. All DOE proposals and supporting documentation will be made available for review at http://www.energycodes.gov/development.

    Participation in Public Meetings. DOE intends to convene one or more public meetings during each code cycle to present its proposals and supporting information, and to receive questions and feedback from interested and affected stakeholders. Such meetings will also be used to encourage and facilitate the free exchange of ideas, with the intent of improving proposals from all parties. DOE will both moderate and participate in these meetings. Note that DOE will not attempt to bring stakeholders to a consensus; rather DOE's role will be to increase understanding of the concepts discussed. These meetings will also be announced in the Federal Register.

    B. Ex-Parte Guidance

    DOE anticipates that it or its contractors may be contacted regarding code concepts, ideas or change proposals prior to and during the code hearings. While DOE code change proposals submitted to the ICC are not regulations, DOE will follow its ex parte communication policy for such communications prior to the code hearings. DOE guidance on ex parte communications was published on January 21, 2009 (74 FR 4685).4 As described in the guidance, individuals or entities that communicate with DOE or its contractors prior to the code hearing must provide a memorandum summarizing the communication, which will be included in the public docket consistent with the ex parte guidance.

    4See http://energy.gov/gc/downloads/guidance-ex-parte-communications.

    During each ICC hearing process, DOE will maintain a published Web site containing submitted DOE proposals, which will also contain a link directed to the Web site and materials maintained by the ICC. DOE recognizes that the code development and public hearing process is based on processes established by the ICC, which do not constitute ex parte communications, and therefore, any discussions of the process at code hearings do not need to follow the guidance.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2015. David Cohan, Manager, Building Energy Codes Program, Building Technologies Office, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08599 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Docket Number EERE-2015-BT-BC-0001] Request for Information: Updating and Improving the DOE Methodology for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Building Energy Codes AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking input on how it may update and improve its methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness (which includes an energy savings assessment) of residential and commercial building energy codes. DOE is directed by statute to provide technical assistance to states to support the implementation of model building energy codes. As part of this role, DOE conducts national and state-level analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of building energy codes and proposed changes. DOE is interested in feedback on its analysis methodology, preferred sources of cost data, and parameter assumptions surrounding its cost-effectiveness assessment. In addition, DOE is seeking information on the general costs, benefits, and economic impacts associated with building energy codes. This notice identifies several areas where interested parties may provide suggestions, comments, and other information.

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested by May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments must identify the docket number EERE-2015-BT-BC-0001 and may be submitted using any of the following methods:

    1. Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-BC-0001. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected] Include EERE-2015-BT-BC-0001 in the subject line of the message.

    3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards; U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed paper original.

    Further instructions, including the use of topic identifiers, are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice. Comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public records and will be made publicly available.

    Public Docket: The docket, which includes notices published in the Federal Register and public comments received, is available for review at Regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the Regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    A link to the docket Web page can be found under Public Participation at: http://www.energycodes.gov/events. This Web page will also contain a link to the docket for this notice on Regulations.gov. The Regulations.gov site will contain instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    For further information on how to submit a comment, review comments received, or otherwise participate in the public comment process, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards by phone at (202) 586-2945 or email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 287-1941, Email: [email protected]

    For legal matters, contact: Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-33, 1000 Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-0669, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Authority and Background II. Analysis of Residential Buildings A. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of Code Changes 1. Prototypes 2. Weather Locations B. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating the Cost-effectiveness of Code Changes III. Analysis of Commercial Buildings A. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of Code Changes B. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of Code Changes 1. Property Tax Impact IV. Common Issues for Both Residential and Commercial Buildings A. Addressing Code Changes With Multiple Approaches to Compliance B. Economic Parameters and Inputs V. Public Participation A. Submission of Information B. General Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information C. Residential Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information D. Commercial Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information I. Authority and Background

    Section 307(b) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA, Pub. L. 102-486), as amended, directs DOE to support voluntary building energy codes by periodically reviewing the technical and economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes and to “seek adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures; and . . . otherwise participate in any industry process for review and modification of such codes” (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)(2) and (3)). DOE participates in the development of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), maintained by the International Code Council (ICC) for residential and commercial buildings, and in the development of Standard 90.1, maintained by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for commercial buildings.

    This Request for Information (RFI) seeks public input on revisions to DOE's established methodologies for assessing the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to residential and commercial building energy codes and new editions of such codes. DOE has previously expressed interest in receiving information surrounding the costs and benefits associated with building energy codes (78 FR 47677 and 79 FR 27778). The current request for information will ensure that DOE is able to maintain appropriate means of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of building energy codes, including the selection of appropriate data sources and methods to analyze the economic impacts associated with code updates. This notice is intended to communicate relevant updates to the general public and solicit feedback on the specific analysis parameters subject to revision. In addition, this request provides a broader opportunity for input on DOE's designated methods. DOE uses these methodologies to inform its participation in the update processes of the IECC, ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and other building energy codes—both in developing proposals and in assessing the proposals of others, when necessary. DOE also uses these methodologies in assessing the cost-effectiveness of new code editions. DOE evaluates energy codes and code proposals based on life-cycle cost analysis, accounting for energy savings, incremental investment for energy efficiency measures, and other economic impacts.

    The value of future savings and costs are discounted to a present value, with improvements deemed cost-effective when the net savings is positive. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a proposed code change or a newly revised code involves three primary steps:

    1. Estimating the energy savings of the changed code provision(s),

    2. estimating the first cost of the changed provision(s), and

    3. calculating the corresponding economic impacts of the changed provision(s).

    These steps are detailed in the established residential and commercial methodologies, as referenced later in this RFI (see the Analysis of Residential Buildings and Analysis of Commercial Buildings sections of this notice). The DOE methodologies for residential and commercial buildings have the same life-cycle cost basis and parallel one another closely. However, because there is variation in the economic criteria associated with different types of commercial building ownership, up to three scenarios may be used for commercial cost-effective analysis:

    • Scenario 1 (also referred to as the Publicly-Owned Method): Life-cycle cost analysis method representing government or public ownership (without borrowing or taxes).

    • Scenario 2: (also referred to as the Privately-Owned Method): Life-cycle cost analysis method representing private or business ownership (includes loan and tax impacts).

    • Scenario 3: (also referred to as the ASHRAE 90.1 Scalar Method1 ): Represents a pre-tax private investment point of view, and uses economic inputs established by the ASHRAE 90.1 Standing Standard Project Committee (SSPC).

    1 McBride M.F., “Development of Economic Scalar Ratios for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 R,” in Proceedings of Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings VI, ASHRAE (presented at the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings VI, ASHRAE, 1995), http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/2010-Florida-Energy-Code/901_Scalar_Ratio_Development.pdf.

    For the commercial methodology DOE is seeking public input only on the method and sources for parameters of Scenario 2, as the method and parameters for Scenario 1 are established by federal regulation, and the method and parameters for Scenario 3 are established by the ASHRAE 90.1 SSPC. DOE intends to continue to rely on Scenarios 1 and 3 since they are required for federal projects and addenda to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, respectively.

    In preparation for this RFI, DOE reviewed the established residential and commercial methodologies and is proposing revisions. These revisions are limited to minor clarifications and attempts to streamline certain portions; the overall methodology remains unchanged in terms of procedure and content. For brevity, only the proposed revisions to the methodologies are discussed here; the entire residential methodology and commercial methodology are available for review, as referenced below (see Analysis for Residential Buildings and Analysis for Commercial Buildings sections of this notice) and are not published in full within the current RFI.

    II. Analysis of Residential Buildings

    The focus of this section of the RFI is residential buildings, which DOE defines in a manner consistent with the IECC—one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses, and low-rise (three stories or less above grade) multifamily residential buildings. DOE previously established a methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness of changes made to the residential building energy code through an RFI process published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2011 (76 FR 56413). DOE took into consideration the information it received during the public comment period, and published the final methodology in 2012.2 This methodology, hereafter referred to as the “established residential methodology,” was used for assessing cost-effectiveness of the 2009 and 2012 IECC compared with the 2006 IECC at the national and state levels,3 and in analyzing cost-effectiveness of code change proposals developed by DOE for submission to the ICC in the development of the 2015 IECC.4

    2 Taylor, T, N. Fernandez, and R. Lucas. 2012. Methodology for Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Residential Energy Code Changes. DOE EERE Building Energy Codes Program. Available at: www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/residential_methodology.pdf.

    3 See: www.energycodes.gov/development/residential/iecc_analysis.

    4 See: www.energycodes.gov/residential-code-change-proposals-2015-iecc.

    A. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of Code Changes

    The established methodology for estimating energy savings of residential code changes remains unchanged except for the following proposed revisions:

    1. Prototypes

    Single-family and multifamily residential building prototypes are used to assess the energy and cost impact of residential energy codes.5 Minor revisions are proposed to prototype building characteristics to better align them with current construction practices or simplify the energy modeling process. These characteristics are summarized in are summarized in are summarized in Table II.1 and Table II.2 with proposed changes indicated in italics (with the unchanged characteristics included to provide context).

    5 Mendon, V., and Z.T. Taylor. 2014. Development of Residential Prototype Building Models and Analysis System for Large-Scale Energy Efficiency Studies Using EnergyPlus. 2014 ASHRAE/IBPSA-USA Building Simulation Conference. Atlanta, GA.

    The first proposed change to the DOE residential building prototypes surrounds the assumption for “area below roofs/ceilings” for both single- and multifamily buildings. DOE proposes to modify the former value of 70 percent with attic (and the remaining 30 percent cathedral) to a revised value of 100 percent with attic. This change is intended to simplify the energy modeling process. The second proposed change focuses on the “internal gains” assumption for the single-family prototype, which is revised from a value of 91,436 Btu/day to 87,332 Btu/day. This change updates the previous assumption to align with Section 405 of the 2015 IECC. The third and final change modifies the “window area” assumption for the multifamily prototype, revised from a value of 14 percent relative to conditioned floor area to 23 percent relative to exterior wall area not including breezeway walls. Note that the revised exterior wall area metric is the target of the change (i.e., not the actual quantity of window area), and is considered to better reflect typical multifamily building construction.

    DOE is seeking public input on these proposed revisions (Topic R01). Note that the non-revised content in the tables remains unchanged from the established methodology.

    Table II.1—Single-Family Prototype Characteristics Parameter Assumption Conditioned floor area 2,400 ft2 (plus 1,200 ft2 of conditioned basement, where applicable). Footprint and height 30-ft-by-40 ft, two-story, 8.5-ft-high ceilings. Area above unconditioned space 1,200 ft2. Area below roofs/ceilings 1,200 ft2, 100% with attic. Perimeter length 140 ft. Gross exterior wall area 2,380 ft2. Window area (relative to conditioned floor area) Fifteen percent equally distributed to the four cardinal directions (or as required to evaluate glazing-specific code changes). Door area 42 ft2. Internal gains 87,332 Btu/day. Heating system Natural gas furnace, heat pump, electric furnace, or oil-fired furnace. Cooling system Central electric air conditioning. Water heating Natural gas, or as required to evaluate domestic hot water-specific code changes. Foundation type Slab-on-grade, vented crawlspace, heated basement and unheated basement. Note: Proposed changes indicated in italics. Table II.2—Multifamily Prototype Characteristics Parameter Assumption Conditioned floor area 1,200 ft 2 per unit, or 21,600 ft 2 total (plus 1,200 ft 2 of conditioned basement on ground-floor units, where applicable). Footprint and height Each unit is 40 ft wide by 30 ft deep, with 8.5-ft-high ceilings. The building footprint is 120 ft by 65 ft. Area above unconditioned space 1,200 ft2 on ground-floor units. Wall area adjacent to unconditioned space None. Area below roofs/ceilings 1,200 ft 2, 100% with attic on top-floor units. Perimeter length 370 ft (total for the building), 10 ft of which borders the open breezeway. Gross wall area 5,100 ft 2 per story, 2,040 ft 2 of which faces the open breezeway (15,300 ft 2 total). Window area (relative to exterior wall area not including breezeway walls) 23%. Door area 21 ft2 per unit (378 ft2 total) Internal gains 54,668 Btu/day per unit (984,024 Btu/day total) Heating system Natural gas furnace, heat pump, electric furnace, or oil-fired furnace. Cooling system Central electric air conditioning. Water heating Natural gas, or as required to evaluate domestic hot water-specific code changes. Foundation type Slab-on-grade, vented crawlspace, heated basement and unheated basement. Note: Proposed changes indicated in italics. 2. Weather Locations

    DOE will continue to draw from a set of 119 climate locations comprised of one representative location for each climate zone and moisture regime within each state. The overall set of climate locations are described in the established residential methodology. However, DOE is proposing to apply fewer climate locations when a subset of locations is sufficient for specific analyses, such as DOE has applied in the past as part of its analysis surrounding commercial buildings.

    In conducting national analyses, which tend to be less sensitive to regional variations in climates, DOE intends to utilize one representative weather location per climate zone, including a separate location for each moisture regime. This approach is intended to conserve time and computing resources in situations where regional variation does not significantly impact overall findings. In addition, DOE may apply this approach in performing analyses that are preliminary or limited in nature, such as in analyzing individual code change proposals. The simulation results will be weighted to the national level using weighting factors from the established methodology rolled up to the national climate zone level for consistency between the two schemes. For aggregating results across foundation, heating system and building types the method will be similar to the current approach, but with fewer discrete weather locations.

    A similar approach will be followed for state-level or other regional analyses, with DOE utilizing those climate locations (from the overall set) that are representative of the geographic area being analyzed. This selection will often include a number of distinct locations that adequately capture regional variation within the scope of the analysis, such as within a target state. In addition, the selection of locations in conducting state-level analyses may be modified based on what is deemed credible by the target audience. For analyses targeting a particular climate zone, results will be weighted using the regime weight within the climate zone.

    The weather locations and resulting overall location construction weights for the national climate zones are summarized in Table II.3. DOE is seeking public input on the appropriateness of using fewer weather stations for national and preliminary analysis (Topic R02).

    Table II.3—Climate Locations for the National Scheme With Weighting Factors Climate
  • zone
  • Moisture regime Representative location State City Regime weight
  • within zone
  • (%)
  • Overall
  • location weight
  • (%)
  • 1 Tropical Hawaii Honolulu 42 0.5 Moist Florida Miami 58 0.7 2 Dry Arizona Phoenix 10 2.1 Moist Texas Houston 90 18.4 3 Dry Texas El Paso 30 7.9 Marine California San Francisco 5 1.3 Moist Tennessee Memphis 65 16.9 4 Dry New Mexico Albuquerque 2 0.6 Marine Oregon Salem 15 3.4 Moist Maryland Baltimore 83 19.2 5 Dry Idaho Boise 23 4.9 Moist Illinois Chicago 77 16.0 6 Dry Montana Helena 18 1.2 Moist Vermont Burlington 82 5.6 7 Minnesota Duluth 100 1.3 8 Alaska Fairbanks 100 0.0
    B. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of Code Changes

    DOE noticed typographical errors in two equations published in the established methodology where a term was not reproduced as intended. The corrected Equations 1 and 2 are included below (missing term is underlined):

    EN14AP15.004

    DOE is not seeking public input on the changes to Equations 1 and 2.

    III. Analysis of Commercial Buildings

    The focus of this section of the RFI is commercial buildings, which DOE defines in a manner consistent with both ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the IECC—buildings except one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses, and low-rise (three stories or less above grade) multifamily residential buildings. DOE has developed a consistent and transparent methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness of commercial code change proposals and for assessing the cost-effectiveness of new code versions.6 This methodology, hereafter referred to as the “established commercial methodology,” was used for assessing cost-effectiveness of ASHRAE Standards 90.1-2010 and 90.1-2013 and in supplementing cost-effectiveness criteria of certain code change proposals developed by DOE for submission to the ICC in the development of the 2015 IECC.7

    6 Hart, R, and B. Liu. 2015. “Methodology for Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Commercial Energy Code Changes.” DOE EERE Building Energy Codes Program. Available at: www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/methodology.

    7 See: www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/2015IECC.

    A. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of Code Changes

    ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 has updated its representative cities based on changes in ASHRAE Standard 169-2013 (Climatic Data for Building Design Standards), and has adopted the revised climate zones into ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE has noted this change in the code, itself, as affecting DOE analysis. However, DOE is not seeking public comment on the use of the new representative cities for its analysis.

    B. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of Code Changes 1. Property Tax Impact

    The proposed commercial methodology includes an adjustment to the life-cycle cost for the impact of property taxes. This is a change from the established commercial method that was used for the state cost-effectiveness analyses of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 analysis.8 Under the revised commercial methodology, the property tax impact is proposed to be included in Scenario 2 life-cycle cost as follows:

    8 See: http://www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/cost_effectiveness.

    EN14AP15.005 Where: PV(P) = present value of property tax net of federal income tax benefit C = incremental first costs R P = property tax rate D r = real discount rate L = period of analysis R TF = income tax rate, federal

    This proposed change from prior commercial cost-effectiveness practice to include property tax impacts makes the commercial method more robust and further consistent with the residential method. DOE is seeking public input on the appropriateness of the addition of property tax impact analysis to Scenario 2 of the cost-effectiveness methodology. (Topic C01).

    IV. Common Issues for Both Residential and Commercial Buildings

    There are common issues for both residential and commercial buildings related to cost estimate development when there are multiple paths to compliance and regarding the preferred sources of economic and other parameters.

    A. Addressing Code Changes With Multiple Approaches to Compliance

    As discussed in both methodologies, DOE anticipates that some new code provisions may have significantly different first costs depending on unrelated aesthetic choices or exceptions and flexibility options in the code. For example, a requirement for window shading could be met with interior blinds, electro-chromatic windows, static exterior shades, or an active tracking exterior shading system. Or, a reasonable window-to-wall ratio may be set as a baseline for standard efficiency heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) equipment, and exceeding that ratio may require more expensive higher efficiency HVAC equipment. It has been suggested, for example, that a future code may replace or supplement independent prescriptive requirements with options expected to provide similar energy cost and performance.

    For any of these situations with multiple compliance paths, DOE intends to focus on the least-cost approach deemed to be effective and meet the code requirement rather than include the cost of niche or optional technology. For example, if there are multiple options available to comply with the code, and if one widely applicable and accepted option is found to be cost-effective, then the approach would be deemed cost-effective. This is because there is one cost-effective path through the code, and if a higher cost option is chosen, that is the developer or designer's choice.

    Furthermore, some new code provisions may come with no specific construction changes at all, but rather be expressed purely as a performance requirement. DOE intends to evaluate any such code changes case-by-case and will search the research literature or conduct new analyses to determine the reasonable set of construction changes that could be expected to emerge in response to such new requirements.

    DOE is seeking public input on the appropriateness of assessing the first cost where a new or changed requirement can be met by multiple construction approaches with varying cost implications (Topic G01).

    B. Economic Parameters and Inputs

    The data sources and procedures for establishing economic parameters required for calculating the metrics described above are described in detail in the established residential methodology and established commercial methodology (see Analysis for Residential Buildings and Analysis for Commercial Buildings sections of this notice). DOE will use the most recent values of these parameters available at the time an analysis is begun. DOE is seeking public input on whether this approach can be improved through use of data sources not included in the established commercial and residential methodologies (Topic G02).

    V. Public Participation A. Submission of Information

    DOE will accept information in response to this notice under the timeline provided in the DATES section of this notice. Comments should be submitted by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments should include the topic identifier (e.g., G01, R01, R02, C01, C02, etc.) in the subject line and throughout the submission, as applicable, to aid in associating comments with the requested topics. In summary, DOE is particularly interested in receiving information on the following issues/topics:

    B. General Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information G01. The appropriateness of assessing the first cost where a new or changed requirement can be met by multiple construction approaches with varying cost implications G02. Suggestions for preferred cost and economic parameter data sources C. Residential Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information R01. The appropriateness of revisions to the prototypes used for residential analysis R02. The appropriateness of using fewer weather stations for national and preliminary analysis R03. Other comments on DOE's residential cost-effectiveness methodology for code change analysis D. Commercial Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information C01. The appropriateness of the addition of property tax impact analysis to the Scenario 2 cost-effectiveness methodology C02. Other comments on DOE's commercial cost-effectiveness methodology for code change analysis Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2015. David Cohan, Manager, Building Energy Codes Program, Building Technologies Office, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08601 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-82-000.

    Applicants: Spokane Energy, LLC, Avista Corporation.

    Description: Supplement to March 2, 2015 Joint Application of Spokane Energy, LLC and Avista Corporation for Approval of Assignment of Capacity Sales Agreement.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-115-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.

    Description: Application for Authority to Acquire Transmission Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA of American Transmission Company LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5253.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-697-001.

    Applicants: Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC.

    Description: Third supplement to December 22, 2014 Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5257.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1019-000.

    Applicants: Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Supplement to February 10, 2015 Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5256.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1332-001.

    Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Supplement to MBR Application to be effective 5/18/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1333-001.

    Applicants: Waverly Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Supplement to MBR Application to be effective 5/18/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1470-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Request for Expedited Grant of Waiver to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1471-000.

    Applicants: Blue Sky West, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1472-000.

    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Borderline Sales Agreement with Pennsylvania Electric Co., Rate Schedule No. 185 of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1473-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-08_SA 2771 ATC-Cloverland Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 6/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1474-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA and Distrib Serv Agmt Boomer Solar 12 LLC 810 Wanamaker Ave. Ontario Project to be effective 4/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    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 8, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08515 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:

    AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

    DATE AND TIME:

    April 16, 2015, 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    STATUS:

    OPEN.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Agenda.

    * NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.

    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.

    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    1016th—Meeting, Regular Meeting [April 16, 2015, 10:00 a.m.] Item No. Docket No. Company ADMINISTRATIVE A-1 AD02-1-000 Agency Business Matters. A-2 AD02-7-000 Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A-3 AD15-12-000 Transmission Investment Metrics. ELECTRIC E-1 RM14-13-000 Communications Reliability Standards. E-2 AD15-11-000 Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms. E-3 RM14-10-000 Real Power Balancing Control Performance Reliability Standard. E-4 RM05-5-024 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities. E-5 RM15-9-000 Protection System, Automatic Reclosing, and Sudden Pressure Relaying Maintenance Reliability Standard. E-6 RM15-4-000 Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Reliability Standard. E-7 AD15-6-000 Grand River Dam Authority. E-8 ER15-418-001 New England Power Company. E-9 OMITTED. E-10 OMITTED E-11 QM15-1-000 Virginia Electric and Power Company. E-12 ER15-910-000 Consumers Energy Company. E-13 ER15-976-000 Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.. E-14 OMITTED. E-15 ER12-91-008
  • ER12-92-008
  • PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
    E-16 EL15-30-000 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District v.
  • Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
  • E-17 ER13-102-005
  • ER13-102-006
  • New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    E-18 EC12-15-001 Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC. E-19 EL11-42-001 Astoria Generating Company L.P.
  • NRG Power Marketing LLC.
  • Arthur Kill Power, LLC.
  • Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC.
  • Dunkirk Power LLC.
  • Huntley Power LLC.
  • Oswego Harbor Power LLC and
  • TC Ravenswood, LLC v.
  • New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
  • ER12-2414-000
  • ER12-2414-001
  • ER12-2414-002
  • New York Independent System Operator, Inc
    E-20 EL11-50-001 Astoria Generating Company L.P. and TC Ravenswood, LLC v.
  • New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
  • E-21 ER13-366-004
  • ER13-366-005
  • ER13-367-002
  • Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    MISCELLANEOUS M-1 RM14-2-000 Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines and Public Utilities GAS G-1 PL15-1-000 Cost Recovery Mechanisms for Modernization of Natural Gas Facilities HYDRO H-1 P-2305-044 Sabine River Authority of Texas.
  • Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana.
  • CERTIFICATES C-1 CP14-503-000 Enable Gas Transmission, LLC. C-2 CP14-87-001 Southeast Supply Header, LLC. C-3 RP14-638-000 Atmos Energy Corporation v. American Midstream (Midla), LLC. CP14-125-000
  • CP14-126-000
  • RP14-689-000
  • RP14-689-001
  • RP14-1049-000
  • RP14-1049-001
  • RP14-1049-002
  • (not consolidated)
  • American Midstream (Midla), LLC.
    Issued: April 9, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 703-993-3100.

    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08647 Filed 4-10-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6717-01P-
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1946-010; ER10-3310-008; ER10-3286-008; ER10-3299-007; ER13-1485-004; ER10-3253-004; ER14-1777-003; ER10-3237-004; ER10-3240-004; ER10-3230-004; ER10-3231-003; ER10-3232-002; ER10-3233-003; ER10-3239-004.

    Applicants: Broad River Energy LLC, New Harquahala Generating Company, LLC, Millennium Power Partners, L.P., New Athens Generating Company, LLC, Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P., Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P., Wheelabrator Falls Inc., Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Company Inc., Wheelabrator North Andover Inc., Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc., Wheelabrator Ridge Energy Inc., Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc., Wheelabrator South Broward Inc., Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the ECP-Affiliated MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1475-000.

    Applicants: North Star Solar, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application for Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff and Granting Certain Waivers to be effective 4/9/201.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    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 8, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08516 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9925-21] Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant to a test rule issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which test data have been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the test data received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Kathy Calvo, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8089; email address: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures is provided in Unit IV.:

    A. Methanone, diphenyl- (CAS No. 119-61-9).

    B. Ethane, 1,1′-oxybis[2-chloro- (CAS No. 111-44-4).

    II. Federal Register Publication Requirement

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of test data submitted pursuant to test rules promulgated under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).

    III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register document that announces the receipt of data. Upon EPA's completion of its quality assurance review, the test data received will be added to the docket for the TSCA section 4 test rule that required the test data. Use the docket ID number provided in Unit IV. to access the test data in the docket for the related TSCA section 4 test rule.

    The docket for this Federal Register document and the docket for each related TSCA section 4 test rule is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 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 OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    IV. Test Data Received

    This unit contains the information required by TSCA section 4(d) for the test data received by EPA.

    A. Methanone, diphenyl- (CAS No. 119-61-9)

    1. Chemical Use(s): In hair mousse as a fixative for heavy perfumes; in making antihistamines, hypnotics, insecticides, and ultraviolet absorbers; in flavoring; as a polymerization inhibitor for styrene; and in industry product finishes.

    2. Applicable Test Rule: Chemical testing requirements for second group of high production volume chemicals (HPV2), 40 CFR (799.5087).

    3. Test Data Received: The following listing describes the nature of the test data received. The test data will be added to the docket for the applicable TSCA section 4 test rule and can be found by referencing the docket ID number provided. EPA reviews of test data will be added to the same docket upon completion.

    Aquatic Toxicity. The docket ID number assigned to this data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531-0832.

    B. Ethane, 1,1′-oxybis[2-chloro- (CAS No. 111-44-4)

    1. Chemical Use(s): Scavenges lead deposits in gasoline; an anesthetic; an acaricide; in the manufacture of medicines and pharmaceuticals; in an oil solution sprayed on corn silks to control earworms; as a general solvent; a selective solvent for production of high-grade lubricating oils; an intermediate and crosslinking agent in organic synthesis; textile scouring and cleansing in fulling compounds; in wetting and penetrating compounds; in paints, varnishes, lacquers, finish removers, spotting and dry cleaning; in soil fumigants.

    2. Applicable Test Rule: Chemical testing requirements for third group of high production volume chemicals (HIPV3), 40 CFR (799.5089).

    3. Test Data Received: The following listing describes the nature of the test data received. The test data will be added to the docket for the applicable TSCA section 4 test rule and can be found by referencing the docket ID number provided. EPA reviews of test data will be added to the same docket upon completion.

    Aquatic Toxicity (Algae). The docket ID number assigned to this data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0531-0112.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08588 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OARM-2014-0858; 9924-38-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Drug Testing for Contractor Employees (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Drug Testing for Contractor Employees (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2183.06, OMB Control No. 2030-0044) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 6704) on February 6, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2014-0858, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dianne Lyles, Policy Training and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-6111; fax number: 202-565-2553; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The EPA uses contractors to perform services throughout the nation in response to environmental emergencies involving the release, or threatened release, of oil, radioactive materials or hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the surrounding environment. Contractors responding to any of these types of incidents may be responsible for testing their employees for the use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances. The testing for drugs must be completed prior to contract employee performance in accordance with 5 CFR 731.104 (Appointments Subject to Investigation), 732.201 (Sensitivity Level Designations and Investigative Requirements), and 736.102 (Notice to Investigative Sources). The contractor shall maintain records associated with all drug tests.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Private Contractors.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit per 5 CFR 731.104, 732.201, and 736.102.

    Estimated number of respondents: 450.

    Frequency of response: Annual.

    Total estimated burden: 1,013 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $108,783 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08489 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-0725] Information Collection 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 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 14, 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 Nicole Ongele, 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 Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    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: 3060-0725.

    Title: Quarterly Nondiscrimination Recordkeeping (on Quality of Service, Installation and Maintenance) by Bell Operating Companies (BOCs).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents: 3 respondents; 12 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Quarterly recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 226 and 276.

    Total Annual Burden: 120 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that the respondent submit confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection concerns the nondiscrimination records regarding quality of service, installation and maintenance by Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) pursuant to Computer III and Open Network Architecture (ONA) requirements. Formerly, BOCs were required to submit nondiscrimination reports with regard to payphones to prevent BOCs from discriminating in favor of their own payphones. The reports allowed the Commission to determine how the BOCs provided competing payphone providers with equal access to all the basic underlying network services that are provided to its own payphones.

    Since the prior request for authorization, in Report and Order FCC No. 13-69, the Commission eliminated ONA narrowband (i.e., not broadband) quarterly nondiscrimination reporting requirements. However, the underlying recordkeeping obligations remain and the burden hours have decreased.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08443 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-0298] Information Collection 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 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 14, 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 Nicole Ongele, 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 Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    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: 3060-0298.

    Title: Part 61, Tariffs (Other than the Tariff Review Plan).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents: 3,840 respondents; 10,190 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 hours to 50 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, biennial and one time reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151-155, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502 and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 272,400 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,519,700.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe are confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: On November 18, 2011, the Commission adopted the USF/ICC Transformation Order, FCC 11-161, and on April 25, 2012, the Second Order on Reconsideration, FCC 12-47. Pursuant to these orders, incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) and competitive local exchange carriers are required to submit certain information in the tariff filings implementing these orders.

    The information collected through the carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to determine if the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08442 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0186) 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 an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collection described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 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:

    Title: Supervisory Guidance on Stress Testing for Banking Organizations with More than $10 Billion in Total Consolidated Assets.

    OMB Number: 3064-0186.

    Estimated Responses: 75.

    Affected Public: Business or Other Financial Institutions.

    Estimated Annual Burden: 6,500 hours.

    General Description of Collection: Building upon previously issued supervisory guidance that discusses the uses and merits of stress testing in specific areas of risk management, the guidance provides an overview of how a banking organization should structure its stress testing activities and ensure they fit into overall risk management. The purpose of this guidance is to outline broad principles for a satisfactory stress testing framework and describe the manner in which stress testing should be employed as an integral component of risk management that is applicable at various levels of aggregation within a banking organization, as well as for contributing to capital and liquidity planning. While the guidance is not intended to provide detailed instructions for conducting stress testing for any particular risk or business area, the proposed guidance aims to describe several types of stress testing activities and how they may be most appropriately used by banking organizations.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 8th day of April 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08446 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0179, 3064-0185) 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 the above-captioned 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 May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, (202.898.3877), or John Popeo, Counsel, (202.898.6923), MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429. Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary A. Kuiper or John Popeo, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:

    1. Title: Assessment Rate Adjustment Guidelines for Large and Highly Complex Institutions.

    OMB Number: 3064-0179.

    Affected Public: Large and highly complex depository institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 11.

    Estimated Time per Response: 80 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 880 hours.

    General Description of Collection: These guidelines established a process through which large and highly complex depository institutions could request a deposit insurance assessment rate adjustment from the FDIC.

    2. Title: Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions With $50 Billion or More in Total Assets.

    OMB Number: 3064-0185.

    Affected Public: Large and highly complex depository institutions.

    A. Estimated Number of Respondents for Contingent Resolution Plan: 37.

    Frequency of Response: Once.

    Estimated Time per Response: 7,200 hours per respondent.

    Estimated Total Burden: 266,400 hours.

    B. Estimated Number of Respondents for Annual Update of Resolution Plan: 37.

    Frequency of Response: Annual.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 452 hours per respondent.

    Estimated Total Burden: 16,724 hours.

    C. Estimated Number of Respondents for Notice of Material Change Affecting Resolution Plan: 37.

    Frequency of Response: Zero-to-two times annually.

    Estimated Time per Response: 226 hours per respondent.

    Estimated Total Burden: 16,724 hours.

    General Description of Collection: This Rule requires an insured depository institution with $50 billion or more in total assets to submit periodically to the FDIC a contingent plan for the resolution of such institution in the event of its failure (“Resolution Plan”). The Rule requires a covered insured depository institution to submit a Resolution Plan that enables the FDIC, as receiver, to resolve the institution under sections 11 and 13 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821 and 1823, in a manner that ensures that depositors receive access to their insured deposits within one business day of the institution's failure (two business days if the failure occurs on a day other than Friday), maximizes the net present value return from the sale or disposition of its assets and minimizes the amount of any loss to be realized by the institution's creditors. The Rule seeks to address the continuing exposure of the banking industry to the risks of insolvency of large and complex insured depository institutions, an exposure that can be mitigated with proper resolution planning.

    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 8th day of April 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08445 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 15, 1984, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR 2064, FR 3051, or FR 4202, by any of the following methods:

    • Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

    • Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    • FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    • Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer—Mark Tokarski—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposals

    The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, Without Revision, of the Following Reports

    1. Report title: Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Changes in Foreign Investments (Made Pursuant to Regulation K).

    Agency form number: FR 2064.

    OMB control number: 7100-0109.

    Frequency: On-occasion.

    Reporters: State member banks, Edge Act and agreement corporations, and bank holding companies.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 160 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 2 hours.

    Number of respondents: 20.

    General description of report: The recordkeeping requirements of this information collection are mandatory under section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)); sections 7 and 13(a) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3105 and 3108(a)); section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) (12 U.S.C. 601-604a); section 25A of the FRA (12 U.S.C. 611-631); and Regulation K (12 CFR 211.8(c)-211.10(a)). Since the Federal Reserve does not collect any records, no issue of confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) arises. FOIA will only be implicated if the Federal Reserve's examiners retain a copy of the records in their examination or supervision of the institution, and would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: Internationally active U.S banking organizations are required to maintain adequate internal records that demonstrate compliance with the investment provisions contained in Subpart A of International Banking Operations (Regulation K). For each investment made under Subpart A of Regulation K, internal records should be maintained regarding the type of investment, for example, equity (voting shares, nonvoting shares, partnerships, interests conferring ownership rights, participating loans), binding commitments, capital contributions, and subordinated debt; the amount of the investment; the percentage ownership; activities conducted by the company and the legal authority for such activities; and whether the investment was made under general consent, prior notice, or specific consent authority. With respect to investments made under general consent authority, information also must be maintained that demonstrates compliance with the various limits set out in section 211.9 of Regulation K.

    2. Report title: Microeconomic Survey.

    Agency form number: FR 3051.

    OMB control number: 7100-0321.

    Frequency: Annually and monthly, as needed.

    Reporters: Individuals, households, and financial and non-financial businesses.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Annual survey, 6,000 hours; Monthly survey, 18,000 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Annual survey, 60 minutes; Monthly survey, 30 minutes.

    Number of respondents: Annual survey, 6,000; Monthly survey, 3,000.

    General description of report: This information collection is voluntary and is authorized by sections 2A and 12A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 225A and 263). If needed, the Federal Reserve can make this survey mandatory for Federal Reserve regulated institutions under section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 324) for state member banks; section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)) for bank holding companies and their subsidiaries; sections 25 and 25(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 602 and 625) for Edge and agreement corporations; and section 7(c)(2) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3105(c)(2)) for U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks.

    If the FR 3051 survey information is collected with a pledge of confidentiality for exclusively statistical purposes under Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA), the information may not be disclosed by the Federal Reserve (or its contractor) in identifiable form, except with the informed consent of the respondent (CIPSEA 512(b), codified in notes to 44 U.S.C. 3501). Such information is therefore protected from disclosure under exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)). If a CIPSEA pledge is made, either by the Federal Reserve or by its contractor, the Federal Reserve must safeguard the information as required by CIPSEA and OMB guidance.

    If the FR 3051 survey information is not being collected under CIPSEA, the ability of the Federal Reserve to maintain the confidentiality of information provided by respondents will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis and depends on the type of information provided for a particular survey. In circumstances where identifying information is provided to the Federal Reserve, such information could possibly be protected from disclosure by FOIA exemptions 4 and 6.

    Abstract: The Federal Reserve implemented this event-driven survey in 2009 and uses it to obtain information specifically tailored to the Federal Reserve's supervisory, regulatory, operational, and other responsibilities. The Federal Reserve can conduct the FR 3051 up to 13 times per year (annual survey and another survey on a monthly basis). The frequency and content of the questions depend on changing economic, regulatory, or legislative developments.

    3. Report title: Recordkeeping and Disclosure Provisions associated with Stress Testing Guidance.

    Agency form number: FR 4202.

    OMB control number: 7100-0348.

    Frequency: On-occasion.

    Reporters: State member banks, bank holding companies, and all other institutions for which the Federal Reserve is the primary federal supervisor.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Recordkeeping, 18,000 hours; Disclosure, 8,000 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Recordkeeping, 180 hours; Disclosure, 80 hours.

    Number of respondents: Recordkeeping, 100; Disclosure, 100.

    General description of report: This information collection is voluntary and is authorized pursuant to sections 11(a), 11(i), 25, and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(i), 602, and 611), section 5 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1844), and section 7(c) of the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3105(c)). To the extent the Federal Reserve collects information during an examination of a banking organization, confidential treatment may be afforded to the records under exemptions 4 and 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (8)).

    Abstract: The interagency guidance outlines high-level principles for stress testing practices, applicable to all Federal Reserve-supervised, FDIC-supervised, and OCC-supervised banking organizations 1 with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. In developing a stress testing framework and in carrying out stress tests, banking organizations 2 should understand and clearly document all assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations, and provide that information to users of the stress testing results. To ensure proper governance over the stress testing framework, banking organizations should develop and maintain written policies and procedures.

    1 The agencies that were party to the rulemaking were the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    2 For purposes of this guidance, the term “banking organization” means national banks and Federal branches and agencies supervised by the OCC; state member banks, bank holding companies, and all other institutions for which the Federal Reserve is the primary federal supervisor; and state nonmember insured banks and other institutions supervised by the FDIC.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 8, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08406 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    Parts open to the public begin at 8:30 a.m. April 20, 2015.

    PLACE:

    10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    STATUS:

    Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Parts Open to the Public 1. Approval of the Minutes of the March 23, 2015 Board Member Meeting. 2. ED Comments 3. Monthly Reports a. Monthly Participant Activity Report b. Legislative Report 4. Quarterly Metrics Report a. Investment Policy b. Vendor Financials c. Audit Status d. Budget Review e. Project Activity Report 5. Annual Financial Audit—CLA 6. Mainframe Audit 7. DOL Presentation Part Closed to the Public 8. Security CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Megan Grumbine, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08675 Filed 4-10-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) GH15-002, Conducting Public Health Research in Georgia; FOA GH15-003, Conducting Public Health Research Activities in Uzbekistan; FOA GH15-006, Institutional Research Collaboration between the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; FOA GH15-007, Emerging Infectious Disease Detection in the Veterinary Public Health Sector in India; and FOA GH15-008, Conducting Operational Research to Identify Numbers and Rates, Determine Needs, and Integrate Services to Mitigate Morbidity and Mortality Among Internally Displaced Persons Affected by Emergencies.

    Time and Date:

    8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m., EDT, May 6, 2015 (Closed) Place:

    Teleconference

    Status:

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters For Discussion:

    The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Conducting Public Health Research in Georgia, FOA GH15-002; Conducting Public Health Research Activities in Uzbekistan, FOA GH15-003; Institutional Research Collaboration between the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FOA GH15-006; Emerging Infectious Disease Detection in the Veterinary Public Health Sector in India, FOA GH15-007; and Conducting Operational Research to Identify Numbers and Rates, Determine Needs, and Integrate Services to Mitigate Morbidity and Mortality Among Internally Displaced Persons Affected by Emergencies, FOA GH15-008.”

    Contact Person For More Information:

    Hylan Shoob, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Global Health (CGH) Science Office, CGH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-69, Atlanta, Georgia 30033, Telephone: (404) 639-4796.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Claudette Grant, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08521 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, BSC, OID

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, May 6, 2015.

    Place: CDC, Global Communications Center, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Building 19, Auditorium B3, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

    Status: The meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available.

    Purpose: The BSC, OID, provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; the Director, OID; and the Directors of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, and the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC, in the following areas: Strategies, goals, and priorities for programs; research within the national centers; and overall strategic direction and focus of OID and the national centers.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include a report from the Food Safety Modernization Act Surveillance Working Group of the BSC, OID; brief updates on priority issues for CDC's infectious disease programs; and updates and discussions on CDC's Surveillance Strategy and the Global Health Security Agenda.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Robin Moseley, M.A.T., Designated Federal Officer, OID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D10, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-4461.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Claudette Grant, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08518 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP); Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns Comparison and Validation of Screening Tools for Substance Use Among Pregnant Women, DP15-003, initial review.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a notice that was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015 Volume 80, Number 48, page 13011. The times and dates should read as follows:

    Times and Dates: 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., April 7-8, 2015 (Closed).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F46, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770)488-3585, [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Claudette Grant, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08519 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m., EST, May 11, 2015.

    Place: This meeting will be accessible by teleconference. Toll-free +1 (888) 790-1864, Participant Code: 5920580.

    Status: Open to the public limited only by the availability of telephone ports.

    Purpose: The Committee is charged with providing advice and guidance to the Director, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, the Director, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), the Director, CDC, the Secretary, Health and Human Services regarding (1) the practice of healthcare infection prevention and control; (2) strategies for surveillance, prevention, and control of infections, antimicrobial resistance, and related events in settings where healthcare is provided; and (3) periodic updating of CDC guidelines and other policy statements regarding prevention of healthcare-associated infections and healthcare-related conditions.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda will include a follow up discussion on the Draft Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections. Call materials will be made available to the public no later than 2 business days before the call. If CDC is unable to post the background material on the HICPAC site prior to the meeting, the background material will be posted on HICPAC's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Erin Stone, M.S., HICPAC, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, NCEZID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-31, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; Email: [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Claudette Grant, M.P.H., Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08520 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) PS15-001, Positive Health Check Evaluation, and FOA PS15-002, Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for MSM.

    Time and Date:

    10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., May 7, 2015 (Closed). Place:

    Teleconference.

    Status:

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion:

    The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Positive Health Check Evaluation”, FOA PS15-001, and “Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for MSM”, FOA PS15-002.

    Contact Person for More Information:

    Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Claudette Grant, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08522 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, SEP; Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Special Interest Projects (SIP) 15-001, Integrating Self-Management Education with Cancer Survivorship Care Planning, and SIP 15-003, Using Cancer Registry Data to Promote Proactive Tobacco Cessation among Adult Cancer Survivors.

    Times and Dates:

    10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., May 12, 2015 (Closed). 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., May 13, 2015 (Closed). Place:

    Teleconference.

    Status:

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion:

    The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Integrating Self-Management Education with Cancer Survivorship Care Planning, SIP 15-001, and Using Cancer Registry Data to Promote Proactive Tobacco Cessation among Adult Cancer Survivors, SIP 15-003.”

    Contact Person for More Information:

    Brenda Colley Gilbert, Ph.D., M.S.P.H., Director, Extramural Research Program Operations and Services, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6295, [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Claudette Grant, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08523 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BSC, NIOSH

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date:

    8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m., EDT, May 12, 2015. Place:

    Patriots Plaza I, 395 E Street SW., Room 9000, Washington, DC 20201.

    Status:

    Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 33 people. If you wish to attend in person or by webcast, please see the NIOSH Web site to register (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/) or call (404) 498-2539 at least five business days in advance of the meeting.

    Teleconference is available toll-free; please dial (888) 397-9578, Participant Pass Code 63257516.

    Purpose:

    The Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and by delegation the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are authorized under Sections 301 and 308 of the Public Health Service Act to conduct directly or by grants or contracts, research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health and to mine health. The Board of Scientific Counselors provides guidance to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on research and prevention programs. Specifically, the Board provides guidance on the Institute's research activities related to developing and evaluating hypotheses, systematically documenting findings and disseminating results. The Board evaluates the degree to which the activities of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: (1) Conform to appropriate scientific standards, (2) address current, relevant needs, and (3) produce intended results.

    Matters to be Discussed:

    NIOSH Director's update, intramural and extramural research integration at NIOSH, metrics to assess NIOSH research programs, NIOSH Center for Direct Reading and Sensor Technologies, occupational exposure limit issues, and cumulative risk assessment.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. An agenda is also posted on the NIOSH Web site (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/).

    Contact Person for More Information:

    John Decker, Executive Secretary, BSC, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-E20, Atlanta, GA 30329-4018, telephone (404) 498-2500, fax (404) 498-2526.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Claudette Grant, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08517 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Child Care Quarterly Case Record Report—ACF-801.

    OMB No.: 0970-0167.

    Description: Section 658K of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858) requires that States and Territories submit monthly case-level data on the children and families receiving direct services under the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). The implementing regulations for the statutorily required reporting are at 45 CFR 98.70. Case-level reports, submitted quarterly or monthly (at grantee option), include monthly sample or full population case-level data. The data elements to be included in these reports are represented in the ACF-801. ACF uses disaggregate data to determine program and participant characteristics as well as costs and levels of child care services provided. This provides ACF with the information necessary to make reports to Congress, address national child care needs, offer technical assistance to grantees, meet performance measures, and conduct research. On November 19, 2014, the President signed the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-86) which reauthorized the CCDF program and made some changes to ACF-801 reporting requirements. Owing to the need to consult with CCDF administrators and other interested parties on these changes, and a limited amount of time before the current ACF-801 form expires, ACF is not proposing changes to the ACF-801 at this time. We request to extend the ACF-801 without changes in order to ensure the form does not expire. In the near future, ACF plans to initiate a new clearance process under the Paperwork Reduction Act to implement the data reporting changes in the newly-reauthorized law.

    Respondents: States, the District of Columbia, and Territories including Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianna Islands.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours ACF-801 56 4 25 5,600 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,600

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08492 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Administration for Native Americans; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Tribal Consultation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will host a Tribal Consultation to consult on ACF programs and tribal priorities.

    DATES:

    May 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    901 D Street SW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lillian A. Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans at 202-401-5590, by email at [email protected], or by mail at 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 2 West, Washington, DC 20447.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 5, 2009, President Obama signed the “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Tribal Consultation.” The President stated that his Administration is committed to regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications, including, as an initial step, through complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order 13175.

    The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribal governments, established through and confirmed by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. In recognition of that special relationship, pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, executive departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes.

    HHS has taken its responsibility to comply with Executive Order 13175 very seriously over the past decade, including the initial implementation of a Department-wide policy on tribal consultation and coordination in 1997, and through multiple evaluations and revisions of that policy, most recently in 2010. ACF has developed its own agency-specific consultation policy that complements the Department-wide efforts.

    The ACF Tribal Consultation Session will begin the morning of May 21, 2015, and continue throughout the day until all discussions have been completed. To help all participants to prepare for this consultation, planning teleconference calls will be held on:

    Wednesday, April 29, 2015, 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday, May 6, 2015, 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday, May 13, 2015, 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time

    The call-in number is: 866-769-9393. The passcode is: 4449449#.

    The purpose of the planning calls will be to identify individuals who will provide testimony to ACF, solicit for tribal moderators, and identify specific topics of interest so we can ensure that all appropriate individuals are present.

    Testimonies are to be submitted no later than May 15, 2015, to: Lillian Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, [email protected].

    To register for the Consultation, please visit: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2015ACFTribalConsultation.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08598 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: National Advisory Council on Migrant Health

    Dates and Times: May 4, 2015, 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; May 5, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Place: Riverwalk Plaza Hotel and Suites, 100 Villita Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205, Telephone: 210-225-1234

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to discuss services and issues related to the health of migratory and seasonal agricultural workers and their families and to formulate recommendations for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

    Agenda: The agenda includes an overview of the Council's general business activities. The Council will also hear presentations from experts on agricultural worker issues, including the status of agricultural worker health at the local and national levels.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CDR Jacqueline Rodrigue, M.S.W., Office of Quality Improvement, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15-74, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 443-2339.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08486 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, codified at 5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children.

    Dates and Times: May 11, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., May 12, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    Place: Webinar.

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public. For more information on registration and webinar details, please visit the Advisory Committee's Web site: http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders. The registration deadline is Monday, April 27, 2015, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.

    Purpose: The Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (Committee), as authorized by the Public Health Service Act (PHS), Title XI, § 1111 (42 U.S.C. 300b-10), was established to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services about the development of newborn screening activities, technologies, policies, guidelines, and programs for effectively reducing morbidity and mortality in newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders. In addition, the Committee's recommendations regarding additional conditions/inherited disorders for screening that have been adopted by the Secretary are included in the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) and constitute part of the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Pursuant to section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13, non-grandfathered health plans are required to cover screenings included in the HRSA-supported comprehensive guidelines without charging a co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible for plan years (i.e., policy years) beginning on or after the date that is 1 year from the Secretary's adoption of the condition for screening.

    Agenda: The meeting will include: (1) Overview of the Committee's authorizing legislation, (2) nomination process for prospective new committee members, (3) discussion of the newborn screening informed consent amendment in the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014, (4) update from the Pilot Study Workgroup, (5) presentation on the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation funded project on the Affordable Care Act's coverage mandate for conditions on the RUSP and the overall costs of screening for state newborn screening programs, (6) presentation by the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network Long-term Follow-up Project, (7) update on the condition review of Adrenoleukodystrophy, and (8) discussion of projects for the Committee's workgroups and subcommittees on Laboratory Standards and Procedures, Follow-up and Treatment, and Education and Training. Tentatively, the Committee is expected to receive comments from states and discuss potential implications of the new legislation, and perhaps to vote on providing such information and/or associated recommendations to the Secretary for consideration regarding the newborn screening informed consent amendment in the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014. This tentative vote does not involve any proposed addition of a condition to the RUSP.

    Agenda items are subject to change as necessary or appropriate. The agenda, webinar information, Committee Roster, Charter, presentations, and other meeting materials will be located on the Advisory Committee's Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders.

    Public Comments: Members of the public may present oral comments and/or submit written comments. Comments are part of the official Committee record. The public comment period is tentatively scheduled for May 11, 2015. Advance registration is required to present oral comments and/or submit written comments. Registration information will be on the Committee Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders. The registration deadline is Monday, April 27, 2015, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Written comments must be received by the deadline in order to be included in the May meeting briefing book. Written comments should identify the individual's name, address, email, telephone number, professional or business affiliation, type of expertise (i.e., parent, researcher, clinician, public health, etc.), and the topic/subject matter of comments. To ensure that all individuals who have registered to make oral comments can be accommodated, the allocated time may be limited. Individuals who are associated with groups or have similar interests may be requested to combine their comments and present them through a single representative. No audiovisual presentations are permitted. For additional information or questions on public comments, please contact Lisa Vasquez, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA; email: [email protected]

    Contact Person: Anyone interested in obtaining other relevant information should contact Debi Sarkar, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, Room 18W68, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; email: [email protected]

    More information on the Advisory Committee is available at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08484 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or mail the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Room 10C-03, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email [email protected] or call the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (Home Visiting) Program, Competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement OMB No. 0915-0351—Extension

    Abstract: The Home Visiting Program, administered by HRSA in close partnership with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), supports voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services during pregnancy and to parents with young children up to kindergarten entry. All fifty (50) states, the District of Columbia, five U.S. territories, and eligible nonprofit organizations are eligible for Home Visiting Competitive Funding.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The purpose of this announcement is to solicit applications for the fiscal year 2016 (FY16) Home Visiting Competitive Grant program. The Competitive Grants provide funds to eligible entities that are states and certain territories that continue to make significant progress toward implementing a high-quality home visiting program as part of a comprehensive, high-quality early childhood system and are ready and able to take effective programs to scale to address unmet need. Grantees will use the funds to provide ongoing support to high-quality evidence-based home visiting programs and for the incremental expansion of evidence-based home visiting programs funded to achieve greater enrollment and retention of families eligible for home visiting. Additionally, this funding opportunity will continue the program's emphasis on rigorous research by grounding the proposed work in relevant empirical literature and by including requirements to evaluate work proposed under this grant.

    Likely Respondents: Applicants to the FY16 Home Visiting Competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Summary progress on the following activities Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden hours
  • Introduction 47 1 47 10 470 Needs Assessment 47 1 47 14 658 Methodology 47 1 47 15 705 Work plan 47 1 47 15 705 Resolution of Challenges 47 1 47 14 658 Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity 47 1 47 48 2256 Organizational Information 47 1 47 10 470 Additional Attachments 47 1 47 13 611 Total 376 8 376 139 6533
    HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden. Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08485 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Injury Prevention Program; Announcement; New and Competing Continuation Cooperative Agreement Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2015-IHS-IPP-0001 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.284 Key Dates Application Deadline Date: June 15, 2015 Review Date: July 6-10, 2015 Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 1, 2015 Signed Tribal Resolutions Due Date: July 6, 2015 Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: June 15, 2015 I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive cooperative agreement (CA) applications for the Injury Prevention Program (IPP) for American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). The program is authorized under 25 U.S.C. 13, Snyder Act, and 42 U.S.C., Section 301(a), Public Health Service Act, as amended. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 93.284.

    Background

    Injuries are the single leading cause of death for AI/AN between the ages of 1 and 44 years. (Trends in Indian Health 2002-2003 Edition, IHS, Division of Program Statistics). Depending on the type of injury, AI/AN experience injury mortality rates that are 2.5 to 8.7 times higher than the U.S. all races rates. This funding opportunity was developed by the IHS Injury Prevention Program to address the disparity in injury rates by encouraging tribes to implement injury prevention programs and projects based on evidence-based, effective strategies.

    Injury prevention evidence-based, effective strategies are prevention methods that have been scientifically proven to prevent injuries. Injury prevention programs and projects are most effective when based on these model practices. Though not repeatedly scientifically proven to be effective, the use of promising and innovative injury prevention strategies is also recommended. For more information on evidence-based injury prevention resources see: http://www.healthy.ohio.gov/vipp/evidence/ebresource.aspx.

    Comprehensive injury prevention programs use a public health approach to employ strategies that address education, policy development with enforcement, and environmental modifications. Programs use various combinations of effective strategies to ensure they are effective and sustainable. A single focus with only education is not an effective strategy.

    The IHS IPP priorities are prevention of (1) motor vehicle crash related injuries; and (2) unintentional fall injuries. For AI/AN, motor vehicle-related injuries and deaths are the leading cause of disability, years of potential life lost, and medical and societal costs. Unintentional elder fall-related injuries are a leading cause of hospitalizations in AI/AN communities. Among older adults, falls are the leading cause of both fatal and nonfatal injuries (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/adultfalls.html).

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS funding opportunity is to promote the capability of Tribes, Indian organizations and urban Indian organizations to build and maintain sustainable, effective injury prevention programs. Tribal ownership and management of injury prevention programs and projects:

    (a) increase the understanding of the injury problem by Tribes/Indian organizations/urban Indian organizations;

    (b) promote the implementation of effective strategies to prevent injuries in Tribal communities; and

    (c) improve injury prevention partnerships.

    The IHS will accept IPP applications in either of the two categories:

    (A) Part I—Injury Prevention Programs applicants: These are new applicants who have not previously received IHS Tribal Injury Prevention CA Part I funding. Applicants must meet the IHS minimum user population of 2,500. The population limit is set by the IHS IPP. IHS user population is defined as AI/AN people who have utilized services funded by the IHS at least once during the last three-year period.

    (B) Part II—IPP Effective Strategy Projects applicants. This grant opportunity is available to any applicant regardless of whether or not they have previously received IHS Injury Prevention CA Part I or II funding. There is no IHS user population requirement.

    Applicants will only be issued one award: Either for Part 1—Injury Prevention Programs or Part II—IPP Effective Strategy Projects. Applications should be sure to respond to the appropriate “Criteria” under Section V—Application Review Information.

    II. Award Information Type of Award Cooperative Agreement Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2015 is approximately $1,800,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $20,000 and $100,000. The amount of funding available for awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately thirty awards will be issued under this program announcement. Injury Prevention applicants may apply for more than one of the areas of funding but only one will be awarded. Part I—Five-Year Injury Prevention Programs: up to $100,000 will be awarded to each successful applicant the first year and up to $80,000 will be awarded each of the remaining four years (up to 15 awards). Part II—Five Effective Strategy Projects: up to $20,000, for each of the five years, will be awarded to successful applicants (up to 15 awards).

    Project Period

    The project period will be for five years and will run consecutively from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2020 for both the Part I and Part II.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under Section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under Section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. IHS Programmatic Involvement

    The IHS IPP substantial involvement includes providing technical assistance to the Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinators in program planning, implementation, and evaluation. Technical assistance includes the following which will be supported by an outside contractor:

    1. Schedule bi-annual conference calls for technical assistance 2. Assist grantee in writing progress reports 3. Produce the quarterly Tribal Injury Prevention Cooperative Agreement (TIPCAP) newsletter for information sharing and collaboration 4. Conduct annual site visits for technical assistance 5. Disseminate injury prevention best practices guidance 6. Provide training to grantees 7. Coordinate an annual grantee workshop to build skills, share new information and innovative strategies, and to assist grantees in program implementation specific to AI/AN communities Part I—Injury Prevention Program Involvement

    IHS will assign an IHS Injury Prevention Specialist (Area, District) or designee to serve as the Project Officer (technical advisor/monitor) for the Tribal Injury Prevention Program. Responsibilities of the IHS Project Officers are described below:

    (1) Assist the grantee in determining the Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinator position qualifications and job descriptions and assist in the selection of the Coordinator.

    (2) Assist the Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinator with decisions regarding implementation of program activities, including creation of injury data systems (collection, quality, analysis, and reporting), use of public information materials, and quality assurance (adherence to evidence-based practice methods).

    (3) Monitor the overall progress of the grantees' program sites and their adherence to the terms and conditions of the CA.

    (4) Review continuation applications and recommend approval or disapproval.

    (5) Provide guidance for meeting deadlines of required progress and financial reports.

    (6) Support contractor oversight by participating in site visits and conference calls when possible.

    (7) Provide guidance in preparing articles for publication and/or presentations of program successes, lessons learned, and new findings.

    (8) Recommend training and continuing education courses to develop the Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinator's competencies.

    Part II—Effective Strategy Projects

    IHS will assign an IHS IPP Specialist or designee to serve as the local Project Officer. Responsibilities of the IHS local Project Officers are described below:

    (1) Provide guidance to the grantee involving strategy, injury data (collection, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of findings), use of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, training, reports, budget and evaluation.

    (2) Review continuation applications and recommend approval or disapproval.

    Technical assistance will also include the following which will be supported by an outside contractor:

    (1) Schedule bi-annual conference calls for technical assistance.

    (2) Assist grantee in writing progress reports.

    (3) Disseminate injury prevention best practices guidance.

    (4) Provide training to grantees.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    Responsibilities of the grantee are described below:

    Part I—Injury Prevention Program

    The grantee will:

    (1) Hire a full time Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinator.

    a. Must be full-time (40 hours/week) and solely dedicated to the management, control or performance of the IPP.

    b. Cannot be part-time or split duties or other duties as assigned.

    c. May be located within an urban Indian health organization, Tribal health program (or Tribal Highway Safety) or community-based Tribal program.

    (2) Develop and maintain an ongoing injury data system. Data will be used for priority setting, program planning and evaluation of interventions.

    (3) Develop a five-year plan based on sound morbidity/mortality injury data and implement effective strategies. The five-year plan will:

    a. Contain a logic model approach to address the formative, process, impact and outcome evaluation with timeline; action steps and benchmarks.

    b. Describe how the tribe will maintain the IPP after the five-year funding cycle.

    (4) Incorporate injury prevention evidence-based effective strategies that align with the IHS Injury Prevention priorities (motor vehicle and unintentional fall injury prevention) and/or local Tribal injury priorities based on sound injury mortality and morbidity data.

    (5) Tailor the IPP program and other organizations' educational materials with culturally relevant information to promote and empower communities to take action in injury prevention.

    (6) Lead, develop, or participate in a multidisciplinary injury prevention coalition to share resources and expertise in injury prevention, and provide oversight in the planning, implementation and evaluation of projects.

    (7) Attend the mandatory annual grantee workshop.

    (8) Participate in IHS/contractor site visits, conference calls and webinars.

    (9) Successfully complete the IHS Injury Prevention core training courses—IP Introduction, Intermediate, and IP Fellowship.

    (10) Successfully complete certification trainings necessary for the IP positions such as Child Passenger Safety Technician, Tai Chi Instructor, etc.

    Part II—Effective Strategy Projects

    The grantee will:

    (1) Work in partnership with the IHS in decisions involving strategy, injury data (collection, analysis, reporting), use of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, training, reports, budget and evaluation.

    (2) Provide a logic model plan for the Part II effective strategies project. The logic model will address the stages of the project development implementation and evaluation with proposed timeline.

    (3) Develop culturally-competent, project-related information to educate and empower communities to take action in injury prevention.

    (4) Develop a project evaluation plan with baseline data, timeline and outcome measures.

    (5) Participate in IHS/contractor conference calls and webinars.

    III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligibility

    To be eligible for this “New and Competing Continuation Announcement,” an applicant must:

    Be one of the following as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603:

    i. An Indian Tribe as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(14);

    ii. A Tribal organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(26);

    iii. An Urban Indian organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(29).

    Applicants must provide proof of non-profit status with the application, e.g. 501(c)(3).

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    Tribal Resolution

    Signed Tribal Resolution—A signed Tribal resolution from each of the Indian Tribes served by the project must accompany the electronic application submission. An Indian Tribe that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include resolutions from all affected Tribes to be served. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require a specific Tribal resolution if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities.

    Draft Tribal resolutions are acceptable in lieu of an official signed resolution and must be submitted along with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date or prior to the start of the Objective Review Committee (ORC) date. However, an official signed Tribal resolution must be received by the DGM prior to the beginning of the Objective Review. If an official signed resolution is not received by the Review Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement, the application will be considered incomplete and ineligible.

    Your official signed resolution can be mailed to the DGM, Attn: Pallop Chareonvootitam, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852. Applicants submitting Tribal resolutions after or aside from the required online electronic application submission must ensure that the information is received by the IHS/DGM. It is highly recommended that the documentation be sent by a delivery method that includes delivery confirmation and tracking. Please contact Pallop Chareonvootitam by telephone at 301-443-2195 prior to the review date regarding submission questions.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e. FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_funding.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 15 pages).

    ○ Background information on the Tribe or organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Tribal Resolution or Tribal Letter of Support (Tribe, Indian organization or urban Indian organization).

    • Letter of Support from Organization's Board of Directors.

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel.

    • Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-133 required Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: http://harvester.census.gov/sac/dissem/accessoptions.html?submit=Go+To+Database.

    Public Policy Requirements:

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than fifteen pages and must: be single-spaced, be type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch, and be printed on one side only of standard size 8-1/2” x 11” paper.

    Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under the narrative and place them under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the ORC in becoming more familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first fifteen pages will be reviewed. The ten page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative:

    Part A: Program Information (Page Limitation—2) Section 1: Needs User population for Part I applicants only No population requirements for Part II applicants

    Describe nature and extent of the injury problem of the Tribe, Indian organization or urban Indian organization. Describe the public health approach to address the injury problem.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (Page Limitation—8) Section 1: Program Plans

    Succinctly describe how the Tribe, Indian organization or urban Indian organization plans to address the injury problems utilizing effective strategies, best, or promising practices.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Describe fully and clearly how the proposed interventions will impact in minimizing or reducing severe injuries in Tribal communities. Identify anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribal constituency.

    Part C: Program Report (Page Limitation—5)

    Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last 24 months.

    Identify and describe significant program achievements associated with injury prevention initiatives. Provide the accomplishments of the goals established for the time frame, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.

    Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months.

    Provide an overview of significant injury prevention program activities associated with in reduction of severe injuries over the past 24 months. This section should address significant program activities including those related to the accomplishments listed in the previous section.

    B. Budget Narrative: This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The budget narrative should not exceed five pages.

    3.

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Paul Gettys ([email protected]), DGM Grants Systems Coordinator, by telephone at (301) 443-2114. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Ms. Tammy Bagley, Acting Director of DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process. A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Acting Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EST, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit the completed application via the http://www.Grants.gov Web site. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, they must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Please include a clear justification for the need to deviate from the standard electronic submission process.

    • If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this Funding Announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the IHS Injury Prevention Program will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, please access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on subawards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier subrecipients that no entity may receive a first-tier subaward unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_policy_topics.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The fifteen page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 60 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria Part I Injury Prevention Programs A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (30 Points)

    Describe the need for funding and the injury problem using local IHS, state or national injury data in the community or target area. Describe the population to be served by the proposed program. Provide documentation that the target population is at least 2,500 people. (IHS User population is the ONLY acceptable source).

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (30 Points)

    Goals and objectives must be clear and concise. Each program objective must be measurable, feasible and attainable to accomplish during the 5 year project period (SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time specific). EXAMPLE: The Injury Prevention Tribal Team will increase adult safety belt use at Bob Cat Canyon community to 80% by April 2020.

    The methods and staffing will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant provides: A description of proposed year one work plan that describes how the injury prevention effective strategy will be implemented using the public health approach (multi-year work plan should be included in appendix with actions steps, timeline, responsible person, etc.).

    C. Program Evaluation (20 Points)

    Describe how and when the program will be evaluated to show process, effectiveness, and impact. This includes, but is not limited to, what data will be collected to evaluate the success of the proposed program objectives.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (10 Points)

    A description of the roles of the Tribal involvement, organization, or agency and evidence of coordination, supervision, and degree of commitment (e.g., time in-kind, financial) of staff, organizations, and agencies involved in activities. Provide biographical sketches (resumes) for all key personnel. Include information for consultants or contractors to be hired during the proposed project and include information in their scope of work. Provide organizational structure (chart). Describe coalition or collaboration activities of the Tribe or urban Tribal program.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (10 Points)

    Provide a detailed and justification of budget for the first 12-month budget periods. A budget summary should be included for each subsequent year (Year 2-Year 5).

    If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget.

    Include travel expenses for annual grantee workshop (mandatory participation) at a city location to be determined by IHS. Include airfare, per diem, mileage, etc. Note: The first and last annual grantee workshops are held in the Washington, DC area.

    Part II—Effective Strategy Projects A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (30 Points)

    Describe the need for funding and the injury problem using local IHS, state, or national injury data in the community or target area.

    Describe the Tribe's/Tribal organization's support for the proposed IP project.

    Describe the population to be served by the proposed project (no minimum population requirement).

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (30 Points)

    Goals and objectives must be clear and concise. Each objective must be measurable, feasible and attainable to accomplish during the 5 year project period (SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time specific). EXAMPLE: Child car seat use will be increased to 75% at Bobcat community by August 2020.

    Effective strategies must be incorporated in each project and should be based on effectiveness, economic efficiency and feasibility of the project. Provide a description of the extent to which proposed projects are an effective strategy based on a documented need in the target communities.

    Coalition/Collaboration: Describe how the Tribe or urban community, the IHS and other organizations will collaborate on the project or conduct related activities. Provide a description of the roles of Tribal involvement, organization, or agency and evidence of coordination, supervision, and degree of commitment (e.g., time, in-kind, financial) of staff, organizations, and agencies involved in activities.

    C. Program Evaluation (20 Points)

    Describe how and when the project will be evaluated for program process, effectiveness, and impact. This includes, but is not limited to, what data will be collected to evaluate the success of the proposed program objectives.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (10 Points)

    A description of the roles of the key personnel in activities during the 5 year project(s) (e.g., time in-kind, financial). Provide the organizational structure (chart). Describe coalition or collaboration activities of the Tribe or urban Tribal program.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (10 Points)

    Projects must include a project narrative, 5 year categorical budget, and budget justification for each year of funding requested. If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget.

    Multi-Year Project Requirements (If Applicable)

    Projects requiring a second, third, fourth, and/or fifth year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.

    Additional Documents Can Be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e. data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 60, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their submitted application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved But Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved”, but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2015, the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS Grants Management Official announcing to the Project Director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Cooperative Agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this Program Announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) http://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/Indirect_Cost_Services/index.cfm. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Reports must be submitted electronically via GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required semi-annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at: http://www.dpm.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: the Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act subaward and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_policy_topics.

    Telecommunication for the hearing impaired is available at: TTY (301) 443-6394.

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to:

    Ms. Nancy Bill, Program Manager, Injury Prevention Program, IHS, 801 Thompson Ave, TMP Suite 610, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: (301) 443-0105, Fax: (301) 443-7538, E-Mail: [email protected]

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to:

    Pallop Chareonvootitam, Senior Grant Management Specialist, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360-78, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: (301) 443-2195; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 443-9602, E-Mail: [email protected]

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to:

    Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 443-9602, E-Mail: [email protected] VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: April 3, 2015, Robert G. McSwain, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08605 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council.

    Date: May 18, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Provide advice to the Director, Center for Scientific Review (CSR), on matters related to planning, execution, conduct, support, review, evaluation, and receipt and referral of grant applications at CSR.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3091, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Rene Etcheberrigaray, MD. Deputy Director, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3030, MSC 7776, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1111, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into NIH buildings. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://public.csr.nih.gov/aboutcsr/CSROrganization/Pages/CSRAC.aspx, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 8, 2015. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08459 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Public Input SUMMARY:

    The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) will hold a public forum to share information and facilitate direct communication of ideas and suggestions from stakeholders. Interested persons may attend in person or remotely. Time will be set aside for public statements and questions on the topics discussed. Registration is requested for both public attendance and oral statements, and required for remote access. Information about the meeting and registration is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2015.

    DATES:

    Meeting: May 27, 2015, 9:00 a.m. to approximately 12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    Registration for Onsite Meeting: Deadline is May 15, 2015.

    Registration for Webcast: Deadline is May 27, 2015

    Submission of Oral Public Statements: Deadline is May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: William H. Natcher Conference Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Meeting Web page: The preliminary agenda, registration, and other meeting materials are at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Warren S. Casey, Director, National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM); email: [email protected]; telephone: (919) 316-4729.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: ICCVAM promotes the development and validation of chemical safety testing methods that protect human health and the environment while replacing, reducing, or refining animal use.

    ICCVAM's goals include promotion of national and international partnerships between governmental and nongovernmental groups, including academia, industry, advocacy groups, and other key stakeholders. To foster these partnerships ICCVAM initiated annual public forums in 2014 to share information and facilitate direct communication of ideas and suggestions from stakeholders (79 FR 25136).

    The second of these forums will be held on May 27, 2015, at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD. The meeting will begin with presentations by NICEATM and ICCVAM members on current activities related to the development and validation of alternative test methods and approaches for assessing acute systemic toxicity, endocrine activity, vaccine safety, and skin sensitization potential, as well as updates on ICCVAM processes. Following each presentation, there will be an opportunity for participants to ask questions of the ICCVAM members. Instructions for submitting questions will be provided to remote participants prior to the webcast. The agenda also includes time for participants to make public oral statements to inform ICCVAM on topics relevant to its mission and current activities.

    Preliminary Agenda and Other Meeting Information: The preliminary agenda, ICCVAM roster and other background materials, and public statements submitted prior to the meeting will be posted at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2015 to allow remote participation. Public statements will be distributed to NICEATM and ICCVAM members. Interested individuals are encouraged to visit this Web page to stay abreast of the most current meeting information.

    Meeting and Registration: This meeting is open to the public with time scheduled for oral public statements and for questions following ICCVAM's and NICEATM's presentations. The public may attend the meeting at NIH, where attendance is limited only by the space available, or view remotely by webcast. Those planning to attend the meeting in person are encouraged to register at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2015 by May 15, 2015, to facilitate planning for appropriate meeting space. Those planning to view the webcast must register at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2015 by May 27, 2015. The URL for the webcast will be provided in the email confirming registration.

    Visitor and security information for visitors to NIH is available at http://www.nih.gov/about/visitor/index.htm. Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation to participate in this event should contact Dr. Elizabeth Maull at phone: (919) 316-4668 or email: [email protected] TTY users should contact the Federal TTY Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Requests should be made at least five business days in advance of the event.

    Request for Oral Public Statements: Time will be allotted during the meeting for oral public statements with associated slides relevant to ICCVAM's mission and current activities. The number and length of presentations may be limited based on available time. Submitters will be identified by their name and affiliation and/or sponsoring organization, if applicable. Persons submitting public statements and/or associated slides should include their name, affiliation (if any), mailing address, telephone, email, and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document.

    Persons wishing to present oral statements are encouraged to indicate the topic(s) on which they plan to speak on the registration form. They should also provide a copy of their statement to Dr. Elizabeth Maull at email: [email protected] by May 15, 2015, to allow time for review by NICEATM and ICCVAM and posting to the meeting page prior to the forum. Written statements may supplement and expand the oral presentation.

    Registration for oral public statements will be available onsite, although onsite registration and time allotted for these statements may be limited based on the number of individuals who register to make statements and available time. If registering onsite and reading from written text, please bring 20 copies of the statement for distribution and to supplement the record.

    In addition to in-person oral statements at the meeting, public statements may be presented by teleconference line. Directions for accessing the meeting by teleconference line will be provided to registered participants prior to the meeting date.

    Responses to this notice are voluntary. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in statements submitted in response to this notice or presented during the meeting. This request for input is for planning purposes only and is not a solicitation for applications or an obligation on the part of the U.S. Government to provide support for any ideas identified in response to the request. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for its use of that information.

    Background Information on ICCVAM and NICEATM: ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicological and safety testing information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative safety testing methods and integrated testing strategies with regulatory applicability and promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of testing methods that both more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and replace, reduce, or refine (enhance animal well-being and minimize or prevent pain and distress) animal use. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3) establishes ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the NIEHS and provides the authority for ICCVAM involvement in activities relevant to the development of alternative test methods. ICCVAM acts to ensure that new and revised test methods are validated to meet the needs of Federal agencies, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of federal agency test method review, and optimize utilization of scientific expertise outside the federal Government. Additional information about ICCVAM can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvam.

    NICEATM administers ICCVAM, provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities, and conducts and publishes analyses and evaluations of data from new, revised, and alternative testing approaches. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved testing approaches applicable to the needs of U.S. federal agencies. NICEATM and ICCVAM welcome the public nomination of new, revised, and alternative testing approaches for validation studies and technical evaluations. Additional information about NICEATM can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/niceatm.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. John R. Bucher, Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08528 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration [Docket No. TSA-2002-11602] Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Security Programs for Foreign Air Carriers AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0005, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This information collection is mandatory for foreign air carriers and must be submitted prior to entry into the United States.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be emailed to [email protected] or delivered to the TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

    (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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Information Collection Requirement

    OMB Control Number 1652-0005; Security Programs for Foreign Air Carriers, 49 CFR part 1546. TSA uses the information collected to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 1546 and to ensure passenger safety by monitoring foreign air carrier security procedures. Foreign air carriers must carry out security measures to provide for the safety of persons and property traveling on flights provided by the foreign air carrier against acts of criminal violence and air piracy, and the introduction of explosives, incendiaries, or weapons aboard an aircraft. This information collection is mandatory for foreign air carriers and must be submitted prior to entry into the United States. The information TSA collects includes identifying information on foreign air carriers' flight crews and passengers. Specifically, TSA requires foreign air carriers to submit the following information: (1) A master crew list of all flight and cabin crew members flying to and from the United States; (2) the flight crew list on a flight-by-flight basis; and (3) passenger information on a flight-by-flight basis. Foreign air carriers are required to provide this information via electronic means. On June 19, 2014, TSA removed the previous security program requirement that foreign air carriers submit information regarding the amount of cargo screened because all foreign air carriers are required to screen 100% of cargo.

    Additionally, foreign air carriers must maintain these records, as well as training records for crew members and individuals performing security-related functions, and make them available to TSA for inspection upon request. TSA will continue to collect information to determine foreign air carrier compliance with other requirements of 49 CFR part 1546. TSA estimates that there will be approximately 170 respondents to the information collection, with an annual burden estimate of 1,029,010 hours.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08562 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Office of Training and Workforce Engagement Canine Training and Evaluation Branch End of Course Level 1 Evaluation (Formerly Named: National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program Handler Training Assessment Survey) AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0041 abstracted below, to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently-approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period, describing the collection of information on December 29, 2014, 79 FR 78099. The collection involves the submission of numerical ratings and written comments about the quality of training instruction from students who successfully complete the Office of Training and Workforce Engagement (OTWE) Canine Training and Evaluation Branch (CTEB) Explosives Detection Canine Handlers Course, Passenger Screening Canine Handler Course, and the Supervisor/Trainer Seminars.

    DATES:

    Send comments by May 14, 2015. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

    (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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Background

    On September 27, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the Information Collection Request (ICR), OMB Control Number 1652-0041—National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP) Handler Training Assessment Survey. The collection approval period expires on September 30, 2015.

    TSA is requesting an extension of the collection due to the upcoming expiration date. However, since its approval, the collection's name has undergone multiple name changes. As noted in the previously filed 60-day Notice, the name of the collection was initially changed from National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP) Handler Training Assessment Survey to TSA OLE/FAMS Canine Training and Evaluation Section (CTES) End of Course Level 1 Critique. See 79 FR 78099 (December 29, 2014). Subsequently, on January 15, 2015, the OLE/FAMS CTES was consolidated into Office of Training and Workforce Engagement (OTWE), Law Enforcement and Industry Training Division, becoming the Canine Training and Evaluation Branch (CTEB). As a result, the new name of the collection is now TSA Office of Training and Workforce Engagement (OTWE) Canine Training and Evaluation Branch (CTEB) End of Course Level 1 Evaluation.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: End of Course Level 1 Evaluation.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0041.

    Forms(s): TSA Form 1904A.

    Affected Public: State and local law enforcement officers as well as TSA personnel who successfully complete the TSA OTWE CTEB Explosives Detection Canine Handlers Course, Passenger Screening Canine Handler Course, and the Supervisor/Trainer Seminars.

    Abstract: The OTWE CTEB Explosives Detection Canine Handlers Course, Passenger Screening Canine Handler Course, and the Supervisor/Trainer Seminars are given to state and local law enforcement officers as well as TSA personnel who are trained to be canine handlers. The state and local personnel participate under agency specific cooperative agreements in that portion of the TSA Grant program administered by the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP). The “End of Course Level 1 Evaluation” captures numerical ratings and written comments about the quality of training instruction provided from students who successfully complete the OTWE CTEB Explosives Detection Canine Handlers Course, Passenger Screening Canine Handler Course, and the Supervisor/Trainer Seminars. The data are collected in hardcopy form and are tabulated by Training Support Unit staff in OTWE. The surveys provide valuable feedback to the Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge (SAC) and CTEB instructional staff and supervisors on how the training material was presented and received. The Level 1 Evaluations are voluntary 1 for students who successfully complete training, and the students may remain anonymous when completing the survey, i.e., they have the voluntary option to put their names on the survey. The feedback is used to improve the course curriculum.

    1 This is a change from the 60-day Notice, which indicated it was mandatory for students to complete the survey.

    Number of Respondents: Average 180 students per calendar year.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: Approximately one hour per participant, 180 hours per calendar year.

    Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on April 6, 2015. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08577 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5859-N-02] Advance Notice of Digital Opportunity Demonstration; Additional Contact Information AGENCY:

    Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 3, 2015, HUD published a Federal Register notice, at 80 FR 18248, soliciting advance comment on a demonstration designed to test the effectiveness of collaborative efforts by government, industry, and nonprofit organizations to accelerate broadband adoption and use in HUD-assisted homes. The April 3, 2015, notice describes the criteria HUD will use to assess communities that have expressed an interest in participating in the demonstration. To determine interest, HUD seeks a formal commitment by the mayor or equivalent executive elected official of the community, and the PHA executive leader, to narrow the broadband digital divide. Communities interested in participating in this demonstration may use [email protected] to notify HUD of their commitment to narrow the broadband digital divide. Communities and other interested members of the public wishing to comment on the April 3, 2015, notice must follow the instructions for submission of public comments as provided in the April 3, 2015, notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone number 202-402-5132 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08540 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5835-N-05] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For copies of the proposed forms and other available information contact Carissa Janis, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 by email [email protected] telephone at 202-402-2487. (This is not a toll-free number.); Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0447.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Form Numbers: HUD-2530, HUD-92456, HUD-92456-G, HUD-50080-SCMF, HUD-91186, HUD-91186-A, SF-424, SF-424-Supp, HUD-2880, SF-LLL, HUD-96010, 91178-A, HUD-91180-A, SF-269.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Completion of the Annual Report by grantees provides HUD with essential information about whom the grant is serving and what sort of services the beneficiaries receive using grant funds.

    The Summary Budget and the Annual Program Budget make up the budget of the grantee's annual extension request. Together the forms provide itemized expenses for anticipated program costs and a matrix of budgeted yearly costs. The budget forms show the services funded through the grant and demonstrate how matching funds, participant fees, and grant funds will be used in tandem to operate the grant program. Field staff will approve the annual budget and request annual extension funds according to the budget. Field staff can also determine if grantees are meeting statutory and regulatory requirements through the evaluation of this budget.

    HUD will use the Payment Voucher to monitor use of grant funds for eligible activities over the term of the grant. The Grantee may similarly use the Payment Voucher to track and record their requests for payment reimbursement for grant-funded activities.

    Respondents: Multifamily Housing assisted housing owners.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9770.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 15,790.

    Frequency of Response: Semi-annually to annually.

    Average Hours per Response: 142.6.

    Total Estimated Burden hours: 46,594.18.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Laura M. Marin, Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Associate Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08539 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5858-N-01] Establishment of the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee: Solicitation of Appointment Nominations AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development announces the establishment of the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee established pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and invites the public to nominate individuals for one-year, two-year and three-year term appointments.

    DATES:

    Please submit applications as soon as possible, but no later than May 14, 2015.

    Submission Address: Nominations must be in writing and be submitted to: Marjorie George, Senior Housing Program Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Housing Counseling, Office of Outreach and Capacity Building, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38103; or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marjorie George, Senior Housing Program Officer, Office of Housing Counseling, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38103; telephone number 901-544-4228 (this is not a toll-free number); email [email protected] For hearing and speech-impaired persons, this number may be accessed via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Authority

    Subtitle D of title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010)) (Dodd-Frank Act) mandates that the Secretary shall appoint an advisory committee to provide advice to the Office of Housing Counseling (OHC). The value of the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) will be to advise the OHC to meet its mission to provide individuals and families with the knowledge they need to obtain, sustain, and improve their housing through a strong national network of HUD-approved housing counseling agencies and HUD-certified counselors. The HCFAC, however, shall have no role in reviewing or awarding of OHC housing counseling grants and procurement contracts.

    The HCFAC shall consist of not more than 12 individuals. The membership will equally represent the mortgage and real estate industry, consumers and HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. Each member shall be appointed in his or her individual capacity for a term of 3 years and may be reappointed at the discretion of the Secretary. Except that of the 12 members first appointed to the HCFAC, 4 shall be appointed for an initial term of 1 year and 4 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.

    The HCFAC is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), and Presidential Memorandum “Final Guidance on Appointments of Lobbyists to Federal Boards and Commissions,” dated June 18, 2010, along with any relevant guidance published in the Federal Register or otherwise issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).1

    1See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-lobbyists-agency-boards-and-commissions (“Lobbyist on Agency Boards and Commissions”); see also 76 FR 61756 (“Final Guidance on Appointments of Lobbyists to Federal Boards and Commissions”); and 79 FR 47482 (“Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions”).

    .

    II. Selection and Meetings

    After all applications have been reviewed, HUD will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the appointment of HCFAC members and the first meeting of the HCFAC. Selection of members will be made by the Secretary and will be based on the candidate's qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of the HCFAC's objectives. HCFAC selection will be made on the basis of factors such as expertise and diversity of viewpoints that are necessary to effectively address the matters before the HCFAC. Membership on the Committee is personal to the appointee and committee members serve at the discretion of the Secretary for a 3-year term, except the first appointed members will consist of at a minimum 4 appointees that serve for a 2-year term and 4 appointees that serve for a 1-year term.

    The estimated number of meetings anticipated within a fiscal year is 2. Additional meetings may be held as needed to render advice to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Housing Counseling. All meetings will be announced by notice in the Federal Register. The meetings may use electronic communication technologies for attendance. Members of the HCFAC shall serve without pay but shall receive travel expenses including per diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703. Regular attendance is essential to the effective operation of the HCFAC.

    III. Application for the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee

    HUD is seeking applications for representatives from the mortgage and real estate industry, including consumers and HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. Applicants must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be employees of the U.S. Government. All applicants will be serving in their “individual capacity” and not in a “representative capacity,” therefore, no Federally-registered lobbyists may serve on the HCFAC.2 Individual capacity, as clarified by OMB, refers to individuals who are appointed to committees to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated as Special Government Employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202.3

    2See 79 FR 47482 (“Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions”) (clarifying that federally registered lobbyists may not serve on an advisory committee, board, or Commission in an “individual capacity.”).

    3See 79 FR 47482.

    Nominations to the HCFAC must be submitted on the application available on the Office of Housing Counseling's Web site at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/sfh/hcc. Individuals may nominate themselves. Each nominee will be required to include the following information:

    • Name, title, and organization of the nominee and a description of the organization, sector or other interest of the nominee;

    • Nominee's mailing address, email address, and telephone number;

    • A statement summarizing the nominee's qualifications (including unique experiences, skills and knowledge you will bring to the HCFAC) and reasons why the nominee should be appointed to the HCFAC;

    • A statement confirming that the nominee is not a registered federal lobbyist; and

    • A statement agreeing to submit to any pre-appointment screenings HUD might require of Special Government Employees, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202.

    Applications should be submitted to Marjorie George, Senior Housing Program Officer, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Housing Counseling, Office of Outreach and Capacity Building, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38103. All deliveries should be addressed to Marjorie George at the above address. Applications submitted via email should be addressed to: [email protected] All applications must be received no later than May 14, 2015.

    HCFAC members will be required to adhere to the conflict of interest rules applicable to Special Government Employees as such employees are defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 202(a). The rules include relevant provisions in 18 U.S.C. related to criminal activity, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635), and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731). Therefore, applicants will be required to submit to pre-appointment screenings relating to identity of interest and financial interests that HUD might require as shown above. If selected, HCFAC members will also be asked to complete form OGE Form 450 (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report).

    Please note this Notice is not intended to be the exclusive method by which HUD will solicit nominations and expressions of interest to identify qualified candidates; however, all candidates for membership on the HCFAC will be subject to the same evaluation criteria.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Genger Charles, General Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08550 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5837-N-01] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Rent Reform Demonstration (Task Order 2) AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Rent Reform Demonstration.

    Type of Request: Revision of existing collection (OMB#2528-0306).

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Department is conducting this study under contract with MDRC and its subcontractors (Branch Associates, The Bronner Group, Quadel Consulting Corporation, and the Urban Institute). The project is a random assignment trial of an alternative rent system. Families will be randomly assigned to participate either in the new/alternative rent system or to continue in the current system. For voucher holders, outcomes of the alternative system are hypothesized to be increases in earnings, employment and job retention, among others. Random assignment will limit the extent to which selection bias drives observed results. The demonstration will document the progress of a group of housing voucher holders, who will be drawn from current residents. The intent is to gain an understanding of the impact of the alternative rent system on the families as well as the administrative burden on Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). Four PHAs currently participating in the Moving to Work (MtW) Demonstration are participating in the demonstration:

    (1) Lexington Housing Authority (LHA), Lexington, Kentucky;

    (2) Louisville Metro Housing Authority (LMHA), Louisville, Kentucky;

    (3) San Antonio Housing Authority (SAHA), San Antonio, Texas; and

    (4) District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), Washington, DC

    Data collection will include the families that are part of the treatment and control groups, as well as PHA staff. Data for this evaluation will be gathered through a variety of methods including informational interviews and discussions, direct observation, and analysis of administrative records. The work covered under this information request is for data collection proposed under the first of two required OMB submissions of the Task Order 2 of the Rent Reform Demonstration.

    Respondents: 156.

    This includes:

    • Public Housing Authority Staff: Up to 44 (i.e., assuming up to 11 staff at up to 4 PHAs).

    • Families with housing vouchers participating in the Rent Reform Demonstration, up to 80.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden
  • hour
  • per response
  • Annual
  • burden hours
  • Hourly cost
  • per
  • response
  • Annual cost
    Study Participant Interviews and/or Focus Groups 80 participants (20 participants * 4 sites) Once One 90 minutes, on average (1.5 hours) 120 (80 * 1.5) 1$8.13  $487.80 (40 employed sample members * $8.13 * 1.5 hours). PHA Staff Interviews 32 staff (8 staff 2 * 4 sites) Once One 90 minutes, on average (or 1.5 hours) 48 hours (32 * 1.50) 324.33  1,167.84 (32 staff * $24.33 * 1.5 hours). Housing Authority Database Extraction Activities by PHA staff 4 staff (1 staff * 4 sites) 8 responses in the covered period (monthly through January 2015, then annually through 2018) Four in 2015, two in 2016, one in 2017, one in 2018 60 minutes, on average (or 1 hour) 16 hours (4 staff * 1 hour * 4 responses in 2015) 433.58  537.28 (4 staff * $33.58 * 1 hour * 4 responses in 2015). Cost Study Data Collection Activities with PHA staff 8 staff (2 staff * 4 sites) Three times over the covered period One 120 minutes, on average (or 2 hours) 16 hours (8 staff * 2 hours) 33.58 537.28 (8 staff * $33.58 * 2 hours). Interviews to understand implementation of new rent model. Includes meetings with PHA staff for technical assistance purposes 32 staff (8 staff * 4 sites) Four times Up to four times 30-60 minutes (or .5 to 1 hours) Incorporated into technical assistance, monitoring visits and follow-up 128 hours (4 one-hour meetings * 32 staff) 24.33 2,983 (32 staff * $24.33 * 1 hour * 4 meetings). TOTAL 156 328 $5,844.44 1 Households participating in the Rent Reform Demonstration will range widely in employment position and earnings. We have estimated the hourly wage at the expected prevailing minimum wage, which is $7.25 per hour in Kentucky and Texas. The hourly minimum wage in the District of Columbia is expected to be $10.50 by Q3 of 2015. (Source: District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/DC%20Minimum%20Wage%20Increase%20-%20DC%/20Register%20Public%20Notice.pdf.) Accordingly, we assume an hourly rate across all sites of $8.13 that represents an average of these two rates, weighted by the pledged sample at each site. (2,000 pledged participants in Washington, DC and 5,400 pledged in the remaining sites.) Moreover, we expect about 50 percent of the participants to be employed at the time of study entry. A recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, some 55 percent of non-elderly, non-disabled households receiving voucher assistance reported earned income in 2010. The typical (median) annual earnings for these families were $15,600, only slightly more than the pay from full-time, year-round minimum-wage work. (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3634). Based on this, we assumed 50% of tenants would be working at the federal minimum wage. 2 Number of PHA staff interviews could increase if the housing agency deploys more staff to work on activities related to Rent Reform implementation. 3 For program staff participating in interviews, the estimate uses the median hourly wages of selected occupations (classified by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes) was sourced from the Occupational Employment Statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Potentially relevant occupations and their median hourly wages are:
    Occupation SOC Code Median
  • hourly
  • wage rate
  • Community and Social Service Specialist 21-1099 $19.26 Social/community Service Manager 11-9151 29.40 Source: Occupational Employment Statistics, accessed online March 20, 2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm. To estimate cost burden to program staff respondents, we use an average of the occupations listed, or $24.33/hr. 4 For program staff supporting data extraction activities, the estimate uses the median hourly wages of selected relevant occupations in a manner similar to the above. A standard wage assumption of $33.58 was created by averaging median hourly wage rates for these occupations:
    Occupation SOC Code Median
  • hourly
  • wage rate
  • Database Administrator 15-1141 $37.75 Social/community Service Manager 11-9151 29.40 Source: Occupational Employment Statistics, accessed online March 22, 2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm.
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    C. Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Katherine O'Regan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08538 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5838-N-03] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Voucher Management System (VMS) AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Voucher Management System (VMS).

    OMB Approval Number: Pending OMB Approval.

    Type of Request: New.

    Form Number: Financial Forms: HUD- 52672, 52681, 52681-B, 52663 and 52673. Originally, the HCV Financials were included in OMB Collection 2577-0169. Regulatory References 982.157 and 982.158. PHAs that administer the HCV program are required to maintain financial reports in accordance with accepted accounting standards in order to permit timely and effective audits. The HUD-52672 (Supporting Data for Annual Contributions Estimates Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program) and 52681 (Voucher for Payment of Annual Contributions and Operating Statement Housing Assistance Payments Program) financial records identify the amount of annual contributions that are received and disbursed by the PHA and are used by PHAs that administer the five-year Mainstream Program, MOD Rehab, and Single Room Occupancy. Form HUD-52663 (Suggested Format for Requisition for Partial Payment of Annual Contributions Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program) provides for PHAs to indicate requested funds and monthly amounts. Form HUD-52673 (Estimate of Total Required Annual Contributions Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program) allows PHAs to estimate their total required annual contributions. The required financial statements are similar to those prepared by any responsible business or organization.

    The automated form HUD-52681-B (Voucher for Payment of Annual Contributions and Operating Statement Housing Assistance Payments Program Supplemental Reporting Form) is entered by the PHA into the Voucher Management System (VMS) on a monthly basis during each calendar year to track leasing and HAP expenses by voucher category, as well as data concerning fraud recovery, Family Self-Sufficiency escrow accounts, PHA-held equity, etc. The inclusion, change, and deletion of the fields mentioned below will improve the allocation of funds and allow the PHAs and the Department to realize a more complete picture of the PHAs' resources and program activities, promote financial accountability, and improve the PHAs' ability to provide assistance to as many households as possible while maximizing budgets. In addition, the fields will be crucial to the identification of actual or incipient financial problems that will ultimately affect funding for program participants. The automated form HUD-52681-B is also utilized by the same programs as the manual forms.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Voucher Management System (VMS) supports the information management needs of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program and management functions performed by the Financial Management Center (FMC) and the Financial Management Division (FMD) of the Office of Public and Indian Housing and the Real Estate Assessment Center (PIH-REAC). This system's primary purpose is to provide a central system to monitor and manage the Public Housing Agency (PHAs) use of vouchers and expenditure of program funds, and is the base for budget formulation and budget implementation. The VMS collects PHAs' actual cost data that enables HUD to perform and control cash management activities; the costs reported are the base for quarterly HAP and Fee obligations and advance disbursements in a timely manner, and reconciliations for overages and shortages on a quarterly basis.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Public Housing Authorities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,110.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 28,960.

    Frequency of Response: monthly.

    Average Hours per Response: 1.5.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 57,540.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Responses per annum Burden hour per response Annual burden hours Hourly cost per response Annual cost
    Total 3,110 12 28,960 1.5 57,540 $30 $1,726,200
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Deputy Director, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08537 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLORB00000.L17110000.PH0000.LXSS020H0000.15XL1109AF; HAG15-0106] Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) will meet as indicated below:

    DATES:

    April 30, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and May 1, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 300 NW Franklin Avenue, Bend, Oregon. Daily sessions may end early if all business items are accomplished ahead of schedule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Martinak, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738, (541) 573-4519, or email [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1(800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The SMAC was initiated August 14, 2001, pursuant to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-399). The SMAC provides representative counsel and advice to the BLM regarding new and unique approaches to management of the land within the bounds of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area; recommends cooperative programs and incentives for landscape management that meet human needs; and advises the BLM on maintenance and improvement of the ecological and economic integrity of the area. Agenda items for the April 30-May 1 session may include an update on the Steens Mountain Comprehensive Recreation Plan decision; welcome and orientation for new members; change of Designated Federal Official discussion and update; collaborative processes conversation; and update on the National Landscape Conservation System sign plan and strategy; and, regular business items such as approving the previous meeting's minutes, member round-table, and planning the next meeting's agenda. A public comment period will be available each day of each meeting. The public is welcome to attend all sessions. Unless otherwise approved by the SMAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the SMAC for a maximum of five minutes.

    Brendan Cain, Burns District Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08583 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLOR957000-L63100000-HD0000-15XL1116AF: HAG 15-0107] Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.

    Willamette Meridian Oregon T. 40 S., R. 4 E., approved March 27, 2015.
    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Timothy J. Moore, Acting, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Oregon/Washington.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08594 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-17934; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before March 21, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by April 29, 2015. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. IOWA Fayette County West Union Commercial Historic District, (Iowa's Main Street Commercial Architecture MPS), Roughly bounded by N. & S. Vine, Main, Walnut & Plum Sts., West Union, 15000191 Polk County Allerman, Richard L. and Verda M., Farm Historic District, 2701 NW. 158th Ave., Slater, 15000192 Sac County Sac City Monument Square Historic District, 400 W. Main St., Sac City, 15000193 Scott County Oakdale Cemetery Historic District, 2501 Eastern Ave., Davenport, 15000194 MASSACHUSETTS Suffolk County Boston National Historical Park, Charlestown Navy Yard, Boston, 15000195 MISSOURI Caldwell County Moore's Mill Battlefield, Address Restricted, Calwood, 15000196 St. Louis Independent City Beckley—Ralston Company, (Auto-Related Resources of St. Louis, Missouri MPS), 3306-3314 Washington Blvd., St. Louis (Independent City), 15000197 Kellerman Motor Car Company, (Auto-Related Resources of St. Louis, Missouri MPS), 3318-3322 Washington Blvd., St. Louis (Independent City), 15000198 Remington Rand Building, 4100 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis (Independent City), 15000199 NEW MEXICO Lincoln County Mesa Ranger Station, NF Rd. 131, Nogal, 15000200 NORTH CAROLINA Anson County Westview Cemetery, W. of Madison Ave., S. of Henry St., Wadesboro, 15000201 Cleveland County United States Post Office, 100 E. Mountain St., Kings Mountain, 15000202 SOUTH DAKOTA Hughes County South Dakota State Capitol Complex (Boundary Decrease), 500 E. Capitol Ave., Pierre, 15000203.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08500 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation [RR83550000, 156R5065C6, RX.59389832.1009676] Addition to the Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions AGENCY:

    Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of an additional proposed contract action pending through December 2015. This notice is in addition to the Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions which was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2727).

    ADDRESSES:

    Information pertaining to the additional contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the Pacific Northwest Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Ephrata Field Office, P.O. Box 815, Ephrata, Washington 98823; telephone (509) 754-0227.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007; telephone 303-445-2888.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following information is added to the list of proposed or amendatory contract actions in the Pacific Northwest Region:

    10. East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (District), Columbia Basin Project, Washington: Long-term contract to renew master water service contract No. 14-06-100-9165, as supplemented, to authorize the District to deliver a base quantity of up to 90,000 acre-feet of Columbia Basin Project water annually to up to 30,000 First Phase Continuation Acres located within the District, and continue delivery of additional water to land irrigated under the District's repayment contract during the peak period of irrigation water use annually.

    Except for the above addition, the January 20, 2015, Federal Register notice remains the same.

    Dated: March 3, 2015. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Policy and Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08596 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-954] Certain Variable Valve Actuation Devices and Automobiles Containing the Same Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on March 10, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc. of Bloomfield, Connecticut. An amended complaint was filed on March 24, 2015. A supplement to the amended complaint was filed on April 3, 2013. The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain variable valve actuation devices and automobiles containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,829,397 (“the '397 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,474,277 (“the '277 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,883,492 (“the '492 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,059,282 (“the '282 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,776,738 (“the '738 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,820,276 (“the '276 patent”). The complaint, as amended, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, as amended, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).

    Scope Of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, as amended, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on April 8, 2015, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain variable valve actuation devices and automobiles containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 32 and 33 of the '397 patent; claim 36 of the '277 patent; claims 38-42, 44, and 45 of the '492 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 15-18, 25, and 27-30 of the '282 patent; claims 1, 3, 5-7, 13-22, 31, 35-50, and 53-56 of the '738 patent; and claims 1-10, 17, 19-23, and 26-28 of the '276 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc., 22 East Dudley Town Road, Bloomfield, CT 06002.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: FCA US LLC, 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, MI 48326.

    FCA México, S.A. de C.V., Prol. Paseo de la Reforma 1240, Desarrollo Santa Fe, México D.F.

    FCA Melfi S.p.A., Localitá San Nicola-Zona Industriale Snc, 85025 Melfi Potenza, Italy.

    FCA Serbia d.o.o. Kragujevac, 4, Kosovska Str., Kragujevac 34000, Serbia.

    Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Fiat House, 240 Bath Road, Slough SL1 4DX, United Kingdom.

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint, as amended, and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint, as amended, and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint, as amended, and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint, as amended, and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint, as amended, and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint, as amended, and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 9, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08511 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0111] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Comments Requested: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 15, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lynn Langton, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email: [email protected]; telephone: 202-353-3328).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether