Federal Register Vol. 80, No.73,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 73 (April 16, 2015)

Page Range20407-21150
FR Document

80_FR_73
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF

Issue

80 73 Thursday, April 16, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

See

Forest Service

See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Guidance: NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin 67 -- Promoting Health and Preventing Disease and Injury through Workplace Tobacco Policies, 20497 2015-08737 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicaid Program: Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems, 20455-20464 2015-08754 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20497-20498 2015-08684 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Nebraska Advisory Committee, 20468 2015-08730 Oklahoma Advisory Committee, 20467 2015-08731 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Coquille River, Bandon, OR, 20437-20439 2015-08757 Safety Zones: Sabine River, Orange, TX, 20439-20441 2015-08759 Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones: Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, 20418-20437 2015-08756 Special Local Regulations: Glass City Scrimmage; Maumee River, Toledo, OH, 20414-20416 2015-08758 Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta; Detroit River, Wyandotte, MI, 20416-20418 2015-08761 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Exemptions from Speculative Limits, 20474-20475 2015-08706 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Programs and Activities Authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act), 20968-20987 2015-05540 State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program: State Supported Employment Services Program; Limitations on Use of Subminimum Wage, 21059-21146 2015-05538 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: Miscellaneous Program Changes, 20988-21058 2015-05535 Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop System Joint Provisions, 20574-20687 2015-05528 NOTICES Applications for New Awards: State Tribal Education Partnership Program, 20475-20482 2015-08681 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration PROPOSED RULES Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 20690-20966 2015-05530 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees Handbook No. 391, 20508-20509 2015-08725 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Applications; Authority to Import and Export Natural Gas: LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, 20482-20484 2015-08760 Applications; Authority to Import and Export Natural Gas: Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, 20484-20486 2015-08752 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico, 20486 2015-08811 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation, 20484 2015-08805 Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee, 20482 2015-08798
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Florida; Attainment Plan for the Hillsborough Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 20441-20444 2015-08666 Lead-based Paint Programs; Extension of Renovator Certifications, 20444-20446 2015-08789 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 20492-20494 2015-08804 Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations, 20494-20495 2015-08787 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20554 2015-08738 Consensus Standards; Light-Sport Aircraft, 20554-20556 2015-08589 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20496 2015-08674 Federal Crop Federal Crop Insurance Corporation RULES Common Crop Insurance Regulations: Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions and Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions, 20407-20413 2015-08690 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Ameribank, Inc., Northfork, WV, 20496 2015-08742 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20496-20497 2015-08906 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 20487-20489, 20491-20492 2015-08709 2015-08747 2015-08748 Complaints: Burbank and Glendale, CA v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 20487 2015-08689 Declaratory Order Petitions: Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc., 20490-20491 2015-08741 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Lake Charles Liquefaction Project Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, et al., 20489-20490 2015-08740 Filings: Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC, 20488 2015-08710 Transfers of Exemption: Charles L. Woodman to Kinky Creek Operating Company, 20486 2015-08688 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Commercial Drivers Licenses: Daimler Trucks North America, 20561-20562 2015-08726 Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: U.S. Department of Defense, 20556-20558 2015-08724 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 20558-20564 2015-08727 2015-08728 2015-08729 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Regulation D; Reserve Requirements for Depository Institutions, 20448-20454 2015-08743 NOTICES Proposals to Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities; Correction, 20497 2015-08713 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Guidance for Industry and Staff: Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program--Guidance and Application Instructions, 20564-20570 2015-08773 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use Devices, 20498-20499 2015-08749 Sun Protection Factor Labeling and Testing Requirements and Drug Facts Labeling for Over-the-Counter Sunscreen Drug Products, 20499-20501 2015-08750 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Applications for Reorganization under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 263, Lewiston-Auburn, ME, 20469 2015-08764 Foreign-Trade Zone 71, Windsor Locks, CT, 20468-20469 2015-08763 Western Kentucky, 20469 2015-08762 Foreign-Trade Zone 80, San Antonio, TX, 20468 2015-08782 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Forest Resource Coordinating Committee, 20465-20466 2015-08683 Tongass Advisory Committee, 20465 2015-08776 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20501-20503 2015-08707 2015-08708 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Reporting for Premiums; Basis Reporting by Securities Brokers and Basis Determination for Debt Instruments and Options; Correction, 20413-20414 2015-08746 PROPOSED RULES Reporting for Premiums; Basis Reporting by Securities Brokers and Basis Determination for Debt Instruments and Options; Correction, 20454-20455 2015-08745 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 20470 2015-08766 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20508 2015-08870 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20505-20506 2015-08686 Meetings: California Desert District Advisory Council, 20507-20508 2015-08778 Plats of Survey: New Mexico, 20507 2015-08736 Public Land Orders: Withdrawal of Public Lands, North and Middle Fork of the American River, California, 20506-20507 2015-08687 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20466-20467 2015-08788 Prices Paid Data Annual Publication; Discontinuance, 20466 2015-08785 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance: Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, 20570-20571 2015-08692 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 20571-20572 2015-08691 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern U.S.: Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer, 20446-20447 2015-08735 NOTICES Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 20474 2015-08715 General Advisory Committee and Scientific Advisory Subcommittee to the U.S. Section to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, 20472-20473 2015-08734 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 20473-20474 2015-08716 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 20473 2015-08717 National Estuarine Research Reserve; Evaluations, 20472 2015-08722 State Coastal Management Programs; Evaluations, 20470-20472 2015-08719 2015-08721 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Scientific and Technical Federal Advisory Committees, 20509-20510 2015-08714 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions; Issuance: ZionSolutions, LLC, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 20512-20515 2015-08676 Guidance: Quality Group Classifications and Standards for Water-, Steam-, and Radioactive-Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants, 20511-20512 2015-08739 Standard Review Plans: Conventional Uranium Mills and Heap Leach Facilities, 20510-20511 2015-08797 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20515 2015-08834 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Equal Pay Day (Proc. 9255), 21147-21150 2015-08956 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20515-20516, 20544 2015-08693 2015-08694 Applications: Dreyfus TMT Opportunities Fund, Inc., et al., 20539-20543 2015-08819 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 20544-20548 2015-08696 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 20520-20522 2015-08697 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 20526-20529 2015-08703 Depository Trust Co., 20525-20526 2015-08704 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 20516-20520 2015-08701 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 20548-20552 2015-08702 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 20522-20525 2015-08700 NYSE Arca, Inc., 20520, 20529-20534 2015-08695 2015-08699 NYSE MKT, LLC, 20515 2015-08698 The Options Clearing Corp., 20534-20539 2015-08712 State Department State Department NOTICES In the Matter of the Designation of Ali Ouni Harzi also known as Ali Harzi also known as Ali Bin Al-tahar Bin Al-falah Al-ouni Al-Harzi as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended, 20552 2015-08772 Meetings: Foreign Affairs Policy Board, 20552 2015-08864 Industry Advisory Group, 20553-20554 2015-08765 Provision of Certain Temporary Sanctions Relief, 20552-20553 2015-08774 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Arrival and Departure Record and Electronic System for Travel Authorization, 20503-20505 2015-08768 U.S. Institute United States Institute of Peace NOTICES Meetings, 20572 2015-08608 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Education Department, 20574-20687 2015-05528 Part III Labor Department, Employment and Training Administration, 20690-20966 2015-05530 Part IV Education Department, 20968-21146 2015-05540 2015-05538 2015-05535 Part V Presidential Documents, 21147-21150 2015-08956 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 73 Thursday, April 16, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 [Docket No. FCIC-14-0004] RIN 0563-AC44 Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions and Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions AGENCY:

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions and the Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy changes and to better meet the needs of the producers. The proposed changes will be effective for the 2016 and succeeding crop years for macadamia trees and for the 2017 and succeeding crop years for macadamia nuts.

DATES:

This rule is effective May 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not-significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.

E-Government Act Compliance

FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

Executive Order 13132

It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1,000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).

Federal Assistance Program

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

Executive Order 12372

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

Environmental Evaluation

This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

Background

This rule finalizes changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457), Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions and Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions that were published by FCIC on August 1, 2014, as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register at 79 FR 44719-44722. The public was afforded 60 days to submit comments after the regulation was published in the Federal Register.

A total of 23 comments were received from two commenters. The commenters were an insurance service organization and a producer association.

The public comments received regarding the proposed rule and FCIC's responses to the comments are as follows:

Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions Section 1

Comment: One commenter agrees with the proposal to add definitions for “damaged” and “scaffold limb.”

Response: FCIC thanks the commenter for its review and its support of the addition of these two definitions.

Section 2

Comment: One commenter states the first sentence in redesignated paragraph (a) states that optional units by legal description or by irrigated/non-irrigated practices are not applicable; and the second sentence states that “. . . Optional units may be established ONLY if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land, unless otherwise allowed by written agreement” [emphasis added]. The commenter states that neither sentence addresses the possibility of optional units for organic and conventional practices, which is allowed according to section 34(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions. As written, this provision appears to mean that separate optional units for organic and conventional acreage would be possible only if they happen to be on non-contiguous land or unless allowed by written agreement. If that is the intention, it would be clearer to include “organic practices” in the first sentence as not applicable. If it is not intended to exclude optional units by organic/conventional practices, the second sentence should be revised to clarify that optional units by non-contiguous land may be “in addition to” the optional units by organic/conventional allowed in section 34(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions.

Response: FCIC intends for optional units to be allowed on acreage located on non-contiguous land or on acreage grown and insured under an organic farming practice. FCIC does not intend to require that optional units distinguished by organic and conventional practices must also be located on non-contiguous land. FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter states the “Background” explains that the proposal to remove the 80-acre minimum requirement for optional units is because most macadamia tree orchards are smaller than that, and the other proposed changes (requiring a clear and discernible break, and records) “. . . will mitigate any potential abuse from this change.” The commenter has no objection to this change.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and thanks it for its support. FCIC also notes that the planned removal of this 80-acre optional unit minimum requirement was inadvertently described in the proposed rule summary. The discussion of this requirement removal was also described in specific detail under the description of changes for this rule at Section 2. Therefore, FCIC removed this inadvertent reference from the final rule summary because specific mention of this proposal in the proposed rule summary was inadvertent and duplicative. This removal of the duplicative language from the proposed rule summary does not affect the commenter's agreement with the proposal: FCIC continues to agree with the commenter, and the proposal as originally proposed has been adopted.

Comment: One commenter states if the current section 2(a) is deleted as proposed, then Basic Provisions sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) will apply, meaning optional units will require a clear and discernible break, and acceptable and verifiable records. The commenter has no objection to this change.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that by deleting section 2(a) of the Macadamia Tree Crop Provisions, sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) of the Basic Provisions will apply. FCIC thanks the commenter for its support.

Comment: One commenter states the proposed change would require that optional units must have a “clear and discernable break between optional units.” This is clarified further by stating “optional units may be established only if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land.” There is no clear definition of what constitutes a “clear and discernable break.” It does disqualify optional units determined by “section, section equivalent, or FSA farm serial number and by irrigated and non-irrigated practices.”

Without a clear specification for what actually fits their definition for the “clear and discernable break,” there is great potential for a broad interpretation from the Risk Management Agency that would ultimately prohibit larger operations from using optional units at all. Since large operations have significantly varied conditions over the span of their operations that can cause production loss over only certain sections (such as differences in rainfall, elevation, soil-type, disease and pest-incidence, etc.), optional units are important and necessary to provide operations with some security to protect from losses. Without the optional units, an operation becomes far more vulnerable, since only significant orchard-wide production losses would ever qualify for a claim. It becomes financially infeasible to even have insurance for many producers with such limitations. This rule change should not pass without explicit definitions of what would qualify as a “clear and discernible break.”

Based on how the insurance companies had treated boundaries in the past with regards to the formation of optional units, a clear and discernible break should be defined by a designated production area (for instance, a block or field) with a set acreage that has enough production statistics for the APH to qualify for insurance. For instance, in our operation, we have had the same fields that have remained consistent since planting. Each field should be able to qualify as a block, as production statistics are kept for each field separately.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the proposed change to remove paragraph (a) requires optional units to have a clear and discernible break. Paragraph (a) states sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) of the Basic Provisions are not applicable. These sections of the Basic Provisions state, among other things, that the crop must be planted in a manner such that there is a clear and discernible break between optional units. By removing paragraph (a), sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) of the Basic Provisions now become applicable. Under the current policy, insureds who utilize optional units can manipulate their unit boundaries to maximize indemnities because there is no current requirement for discernible breaks between units. FCIC believes this requirement will minimize program abuse as it relates to unit division. Based on a previous comment, FCIC has revised Section 2 to clarify that optional units are allowed by non-contiguous land or by organic and conventional acreage, thereby giving producers multiple options to insure their acreage under optional units. FCIC does not define “clear and discernible break” in its policy; however, in general, when a term is not specifically defined in the policy, its common or ordinary meaning may be applicable as found in a standard dictionary. Examples of a clear and discernible break are highways, railroads and rivers. No change has been made.

Section 7

Comment: One commenter recommends deleting the first comma in the following sentence: “In lieu of the provisions in section 9 of the Basic Provisions, that prohibit insurance attaching to a crop planted with another crop . . .” The commenter says this change will be consistent with a similar change proposed in section 8 of the Macadamia Nut Crop Provisions.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter. The comma is not necessary and its removal does not change the meaning of the provision. FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.

Section 10

Comment: One commenter states the proposed rule adds a phrase about destroyed trees in the following phrase so it would read: “. . . allow us to inspect all insured acreage before pruning any damaged trees, removing any damaged trees, or removing any destroyed trees.” This can be left as written, but consider if either of these alternatives might be preferable:

• “. . . before pruning or removing any damaged trees, or removing any destroyed trees.” This keeps the current wording about the two possible actions for damaged trees, and adds the new phrase about removing destroyed trees.

• “. . . before pruning any damaged trees, or removing any damaged or destroyed trees.” This would put “pruning” in one phrase (applying only to damaged trees) and “removing” in another (whether the trees are damaged or destroyed).

Response: FCIC appreciates the recommendations. However, FCIC believes its proposed language offers the option of the possibilities least likely to create misunderstanding because each action word is individually paired with the tree type (damaged vs. destroyed) for which the action is prohibited.

Comment: One commenter states that, concerning halting of cleanup following tree damage, during the most recent experience with Hurricane Iselle, it took the insurance companies around two weeks, and in some cases longer, to fly appraisers to Hawaii to assess storm damage. For any agricultural operation, especially during harvest season, waiting that long to remove damaged trees, branches, and other debris can pose not only safety hazards, but can also limit movement throughout orchards and can lead to crop loss due to the inability of harvest equipment and crews to safely traverse through the areas of damage.

The majority of the insurance companies are located on the continental United States, so they typically wait to hear from all of the insured operations in Hawaii before deploying loss adjusters. This is due to the distance and the large expense of sending people back and forth. In light of these limitations, it is not practical or fair to make farms wait so long before cleaning up. The alternatives to these rule changes would be either to not change this rule or to add to the change a requirement for tree loss appraisers to be on-site no later than three days after notice of a major crop or tree loss.

Response: FCIC understands that it may take insurance companies additional time to travel to Hawaii than to travel within the continental United States. This inspection requirement is consistent with the provisions in other Crop Provisions, such as the Hawaii Tropical Tree Crop Provisions, which also provide coverage for crops in Hawaii. Travel could be difficult after a catastrophic event, such as a named storm. Therefore, a regulatory provision always requiring insurance company presence on-site within three days after notice of a loss is inappropriate in part because not all circumstances will always allow such Loss Adjuster to arrive within that timeframe. A three-day arrival expectation may be appropriate in some, though not necessarily all, instances of loss. Insurance companies are required to arrive onsite after receiving a notice of loss within appropriate time frames. For example, the current Loss Adjustment Manual (LAM), in paragraph 41(A)(3), provides guidance that insurance companies must assign notice of damage to adjusters as quickly as possible to assure timely service to the insured. FCIC will, as it generally does in widespread loss situations, monitor the performance of and loss adjustment service provided by insurance companies in responding to a loss event.

Section 11

Comment: One commenter states with the example added in section 11(b)(4), consider if the parenthetical example in section 11(b)(3)(iii) is still useful or if it could be deleted. If it is kept, consider deleting the phrase “. . . specified in section 11(b)(3) . . .” since it is part of 11(b)(3).

Response: Given that no change to this provision was proposed, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment, FCIC declines to adopt the recommendation in the final rule. No change has been made.

Comment: One commenter states the calculations in paragraph (b)(4) at step (3)(ii) and (iii) do not appear to correspond to the description of those steps in paragraph (b)(3) because the example includes additional calculations as well. The example appears to work out correctly, but it might be worth considering the following:

• In paragraph (b)(4) at step (3)(ii), if the calculation of the “actual percent of loss” should be identified as such, or included in the introductory paragraph instead; and/or

• In paragraph (b)(4) at step (3)(iii), if the calculation of the dollar amount of loss [“. . . and $58,500 total amount of insurance × 6.0 percent loss = $3,510 loss”] should be better identified [since step (3) says only to divide the previous result by the coverage level] or perhaps moved to be part of the final step (4).

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the steps in paragraph (b) do not correspond with the calculations in the settlement of claim example. FCIC agrees with both of the commenters' recommendations to clarify the steps in paragraph (b). FCIC has revised the provisions as recommended, has made additional clarifications in the steps in paragraph (b), and has revised the settlement of claim example at redesignated paragraph (b)(5) to reflect the revisions in paragraph (b).

Comment: One commenter recommends, in the introduction of paragraph (b)(4) of the settlement of claim example, to add a hyphen in “Thirty five trees. . . .” so it reads, “Thirty-five trees . . .”

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and has revised the provisions in redesignated paragraph (b)(5) accordingly.

Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions Section 1

Comment: One commenter recommends correcting the spelling of “floatation” to “flotation” in the definition of “floaters.”

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter, even though “floatation” is an accepted spelling of “flotation,” and has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter states the definition of “wet in-shell” is revised to say that it excludes floaters and peewees, which FCIC claims are terms commonly used in the Macadamia industry. While the terms are sometimes used, there are some issues with the suggested use of these terms and how the FCIC defines them. For starters, there was no consultation with processors or husking operations to ascertain what the industry-accepted definition of “wet in-shell” is. Furthermore, the term “floater” has a different definition to the Macadamia nut industry than is suggested by FCIC and in actuality is seldom used. This is primarily because float grading is not a common practice for Macadamia nut husking or processing and when it is employed, it is typically performed at a different stage in the husking operation than what FCIC has suggested in their interpretation of the rules. It is believed that the reason that the FCIC is recommending this change is in response to a claim dispute, in order to validate FCIC's stance against the industry standards. The commenter states FCIC would essentially create an ultimatum for the industry that producers would either need to request their processors to change their processing methods or face the penalty of not qualifying for crop insurance. The cost of making infrastructural changes in order to comply with these proposed changes would be high, so many processors may be discouraged from making these changes, given that many only purchase nuts from producers and have no stake in the rules governing crop insurance. The rule change would essentially create an impossible standard for producers to ever qualify for crop insurance.

Though it was stated in the past that the industry was consulted in the development of the Macadamia nut policy, the policy as it is currently written does not reflect this. It is recommended that (1) the definition of “wet in-shell” be amended, (2) the industry be given an opportunity to provide input on how things operate in Hawaii, and (3) how the policy could be amended to better represent reality.

The revision to the definition of “wet in-shell” should be according to what is common to the industry. Wet in-shell (WIS) nuts are the result after husking has been implemented; this WIS weight is considered a gross number; the “extraneous materials” percentage is used to calculate the amount to subtract from the WIS number to come up with a net WIS. The “extraneous materials” percentage or trash is calculated in a quality analysis lab using samples obtained from the husking operation. While sample collection may vary from one operation to the next, this method of determining the net WIS is basically the same across the industry.

Response: FCIC disagrees with the commenter's understanding of changes to the “wet in-shell” definition. The language FCIC proposes to incorporate in the Crop Provisions definition is derived from the Special Provisions as well as the Macadamia Nut Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook (LASH). The Special Provisions and LASH are part of the policy or are used to service the policy. FCIC is not changing the definition meaning by incorporating the Special Provisions and LASH statements into the definition. The Special Provisions statement has been in effect since the 2006 crop year and the LASH definition has been in effect since the 2005 crop year.

The commenter says they believe the reason FCIC is recommending the change to the definition of “wet in-shell” is in response to a claim dispute, in order to validate FCIC's stance against the industry standards. The commenter says FCIC would essentially create an ultimatum for the industry that producers would either need to request their processors to change their processing methods or face the penalty of not qualifying for crop insurance. The commenter says the change would essentially create an impossible standard for producers to ever qualify for crop insurance. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, FCIC is not making a substantial change to the definition of “wet in-shell.” The primary change is to incorporate language contained in the Special Provisions and LASH that are currently in effect and have been in effect since the 2006 and 2005 crop years, respectively. Since this change is not substantial, this definition has already existed in large part, and was required for use in policy servicing, FCIC does not agree that such change creates an ultimatum for producers.

Furthermore, FCIC's definition of “wet in-shell,” as now updated, corresponds with the definition the commenter seeks for the industry concerns. The commenter says wet in-shell nuts are the result after husking has been implemented (gross weight) and the “extraneous materials” percentage or trash is used to calculate the amount that is subtracted from the gross weight. The difference between the gross weight and the “extraneous materials” percentage or trash is the wet in-shell net weight. FCIC's definition says the wet in-shell weight is the weight after removal of the husk (gross weight) and excluding floaters and peewees (extraneous material or trash) but prior to being dried. The industry agrees FCIC should not include floaters and peewees in the wet in-shell weight for purposes of production to count, and refers to such floaters and peewees as “trash” or “extraneous materials.” FCIC understands the comment to assume FCIC requires all macadamia nut production to be float graded using water flotation for insurance purposes. However, this assumption is incorrect. Under the policy, float grading using water flotation is only one acceptable method of determining floaters to exclude from production to count. To clarify and specifically address the commenter's concern regarding industry practices, FCIC has specifically added to the definition of wet in-shell, through the component definition of floaters, a reference that laboratory testing for floater determination is also acceptable as an alternative to float grading using water floatation. In sum, FCIC requires that the reported production must not include floaters and peewees, or, in other words, the weight of the trash, which the industry and FCIC now similarly define.

In the proposed rule, FCIC proposed to define the terms “floaters” and “peewees” because those terms are used in the Special Provisions statement and LASH definitions that were proposed for incorporation into the “wet in-shell” definition. Those terms were not previously defined within the Crop Provisions, but they were defined in the Macadamia Nut LASH. The LASH has contained those terms and their definitions since the 2005 crop year.

The proposed rule comment period is an opportunity for the public to provide input on changes FCIC proposes to make to the Crop Provisions. Interested parties are permitted to provide comments during that time. If the commenter had specific suggestions for recommended changes to this portion of the Macadamia Nut Crop Provisions, the commenter had an opportunity to provide specific proposed changes on this issue during the proposed rule comment period. However, FCIC has made an addition to the definition that will address the commenter's industry concern.

Comment: One commenter recommends deleting the comma in the phrase “wet, in-shell pounds” in the definition of “production guarantee (per acre)” to match the defined term of “wet in-shell,” as was done in sections 6(d) and 11(c).

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the comma should be removed from the sentence. The comma is not necessary and its removal does not change the meaning of the provision. FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter recommends adding a comma before the added phrase “. . . excluding floaters and peewees . . .” in the definition of “wet in-shell.”

Response: FCIC disagrees with the commenter. A comma would not add clarity.

Section 2

Comment: One commenter states if the current paragraph (a) is deleted as proposed, then Basic Provisions section 34(b)(1) will apply, meaning optional units will require a clear and discernible break, and acceptable and verifiable records. The commenter has no objection to this change.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that by deleting paragraph (a) of the Macadamia Tree Crop Provisions, section 34(b)(1) of the Basic Provisions will apply. FCIC thanks the commenter for its support.

Comment: One commenter states that the first sentence in section 2 states that optional units by legal description or by irrigated/non-irrigated practices are not applicable; and the second sentence states that “. . . Optional units may be established ONLY if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land, unless otherwise allowed by written agreement” [emphasis added]. The commenter states that neither sentence addresses the possibility of optional units for organic and conventional practices, which is allowed according to section 34(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions. As written, this provision appears to mean that separate optional units for organic and conventional acreage would be possible only if they happen to be on non-contiguous land or unless allowed by written agreement. If that is the intention, it would be clearer to include “organic practices” in the first sentence as not applicable. If it is not intended to exclude optional units by organic/conventional practices, the second sentence should be revised to clarify that optional units by non-contiguous land may be “in addition to” the optional units by organic/conventional allowed in section 34(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions.

Response: FCIC intends for optional units to be allowed on acreage located on non-contiguous land or grown and insured under an organic farming practice. FCIC does not intend to require that optional units distinguished by organic and conventional practices must also be located on non-contiguous land. FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter states the “Background” explains that the proposal to remove the 80-acre minimum requirement for optional units is because most macadamia tree orchards are smaller than that, and the other proposed changes (requiring a clear and discernible break, and records) “. . . will mitigate any potential abuse from this change.” The commenter has no objection to this change.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and thanks it for its support.

Section 3

Comment: One commenter recommends shifting the following phrase in paragraph (b): “. . . on the yield potential of the insured crop” from the end of the first sentence to be ahead of the list, so it would read: “. . . based on our estimate of the effect on the yield potential of the insured crop of the following: Interplanted perennial crop; removal of trees; damage; change in practices and any other circumstance. If you fail . . .”

Response: Given that no change to this provision was proposed, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment, FCIC declines to adopt the recommendation in the final rule. In addition, this language is consistent with other Crop Provisions, such as Texas Citrus Fruit and Arizona-California Citrus. No change has been made.

Comment: One commenter recommends revising the following sentence in paragraph (d), “Each crop year you must report your production from two crop years ago . . .” to “. . . from two crop years before . . .”

Response: Given that no change to this provision was proposed, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment, FCIC declines to adopt the recommendation in the final rule. In addition, this language is consistent with other Crop Provisions, such as Texas Citrus Fruit and Arizona-California Citrus. No change has been made.

Section 6

Comment: One commenter agrees the wording change from “. . . we may agree in writing . . .” to “. . . we may give our approval in writing . . .” in paragraph (d) makes it less likely for this to be taken as a reference to a written agreement.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and thanks it for its support.

Comment: One commenter states the second sentence in paragraph (d) sounds a bit odd when it refers to “. . . approval in writing to insure ACREAGE that has not yet reached this age . . .”, referring to the requirement in the first sentence that the insured crop be “. . . grown on TREES that have reached at least the fifth growing season . . .” Since the second sentence goes on to say coverage on this under-age acreage can be approved “. . . if IT has produced at least 200 pounds of (wet in-shell) macadamia nuts per ACRE in a previous crop year”, maybe the word “acreage” is correct and no change is needed. But one possible alternative to consider might be: “. . . to insure acreage of trees that have not reached this age . . .”

Response: Given that no change to this provision was proposed, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment, FCIC declines to adopt the recommendation in the final rule. In addition, the original Macadamia Nut Crop Provisions are written with this language because nut production, not nut trees, is insured under these particular Crop Provisions. No change has been made.

Section 8

Comment: One commenter states the proposal is to add the phrase “or as specified in the Special Provisions” to paragraph (a)(2), so paragraph (a)(2) would read as follows: “The calendar date for the end of the insurance period for each crop year is the second June 30th after insurance attaches, or as specified in the Special Provisions.” According to the “Background”, this “. . . will provide flexibility to update this date if the need arises.” The commenter does not object to providing flexibility to make the program work better, though it can also add some complexity by making the calendar date subject to change, meaning it must be looked up in the Special Provisions for the applicable county to be certain the date is unchanged.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the added phrase provides flexibility to make the program work better. This flexibility eliminates the administrative burden of revising the regulation if FCIC determines the calendar date for the end of insurance period should be different than what is stated in the Crop Provisions. In addition, the change does not add the complexity issue raised by the commenter because a policyholder must always read the Special Provisions to ensure it is aware of any changes to any issue covered by the Special Provisions, which may extend beyond changes to the end of the insurance period. No change has been made.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

Crop insurance, Macadamia tree and macadamia nut, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Final Rule

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2016 and succeeding crop years for macadamia trees and for the 2017 and succeeding crop years for macadamia nuts as follows:

PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1506(1) and 1506(o).

2. Amend § 457.130 as follows: a. In the introductory text by removing “2011” and adding “2016” in its place; b. In section 1 by adding in alphabetical order definitions of “Damaged” and “Scaffold limb”; c. By revising section 2; d. In section 3 by removing the phrase “(Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities)” in paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b); e. In section 4 by removing the phrase “(Contract Changes)”; f. In section 5 by removing the phrase “(Life of Policy, Cancellation, and Termination)”; g. In section 6 introductory text by removing the phrase “(Insured Crop)”; h. In section 7 by removing the phrase “(Insurable Acreage) of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), that prohibit” and adding in its place the phrase “of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8) that prohibit”; i. In section 8 by removing the phrase “(Insurance Period)” in paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text; j. In section 9 by removing the phrase “(Causes of Loss)” in paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text; k. By revising section 10; and l. In section 11: i. By revising paragraph (b)(3); ii. By redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5); iii. By adding paragraph (b)(4); and iv. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(5) and paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(1).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 457.130 Macadamia tree crop insurance provisions. 1. Definitions

Damaged. Injury to the main trunk, scaffold limb(s), and any other subordinate limbs that reduces the productivity of the macadamia tree due to an insured cause of loss that occurs during the insurance period.

Scaffold limb. A major limb attached directly to the trunk.

2. Unit Division

(a) Provisions in the Basic Provisions that allow optional units by section, section equivalent, or FSA farm serial number and by irrigated and non-irrigated practices are not applicable. Optional units may be established only if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land or grown and insured under an organic farming practice, unless otherwise allowed by written agreement.

(b) You must have provided records, which can be independently verified, of acreage and age of trees for each unit for at least the last crop year.

10. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss

In addition to the requirements of section 14 of the Basic Provisions, in case of damage or probable loss, if you intend to claim an indemnity on any unit, you must allow us to inspect all insured acreage before pruning any damaged trees, removing any damaged trees, or removing any destroyed trees.

11. Settlement of Claim

(b) * * *

(3) Determine the applicable percent of loss, which is calculated as follows:

(i) Subtract the coverage level percent you elected from 100 percent;

(ii) Determine the actual percent of loss, which is determined as follows:

(A) Divide the number of trees destroyed by the total number of trees to calculate the percent loss;

(B) Divide the number of trees damaged by the total number of trees to calculate the percent of damage;

(C) Add the results of sections 11(b)(3)(ii)(A) and (B).

(iii) Subtract the result obtained in section 11(b)(3)(i) from section 11(b)(3)(ii);

(iv) Divide the result in section 11(b)(3)(iii) by the coverage level you elected (For example, if you elected the 75 percent coverage level and your actual percent of loss was 70 percent, the percent of loss specified in section 11(b)(3) would be calculated as follows: 100%−75% = 25%; 70%−25% = 45%; 45% ÷ 75% = 60%.);

(4) Multiply the result of section 11(b)(3) by the total dollar amount of insurance obtained in section 11(b)(2); and

(5) Multiply the result in section 11(b)(4) by your share.

For example:

You select 65 percent coverage level and 100 percent of the price election on 10 acres of 9-year-old macadamia trees in the unit. Your share is 100 percent. The amount of insurance per acre is $5,850. There are 90 trees per unit. Thirty-five trees are destroyed. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:

(1) 10 acres × $5,850 = $58,500;

(3)(i) 100 percent − 65 percent = 35 percent deductible;

(ii) 35 destroyed trees ÷ 90 total unit trees = 38.9 percent loss;

(iii) 38.9 percent loss − 35 percent deductible = 3.9 percent;

(iv) 3.9 percent ÷ 65 percent coverage level = 6.0 percent loss;

(4) $58,500 total amount of insurance × 6.0 percent loss = $3,510 loss; and

(5) $3,510 loss × 100 percent share = $3,510 indemnity payment.

(c) The total amount of loss will include both damaged trees and destroyed trees as follows:

(1) Any orchard with over 80 percent of the actual trees damaged or destroyed due to an insured cause of loss will be considered to be 100 percent damaged; and

3. Amend § 457.131 as follows: a. In the introductory text by removing “2012” and adding “2017” in its place; b. In section 1: i. By adding definitions in alphabetical order of “Floaters” and “Peewees”; and ii. By revising the definition of “Wet in-shell”; c. By revising section 2; d. In section 3: i. In the introductory text and paragraph (b) introductory text by removing the phrase “(Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities)”; ii. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory text by removing the word “anytime” and adding in its place the phrase “any time”; and iii. By revising paragraph (d); e. In section 4 by removing the phrase “(Contract Changes)”; f. In section 5 by removing the phrase “(Life of Policy, Cancellation, and Termination)”; g. In section 6: i. By removing the phrase “(Insured Crop)” in the introductory text; and ii. By revising paragraph (d); h. In section 7: i. By removing the phrase “(Insurable Acreage)”; and ii. By removing the comma after the phrase “Basic Provisions (§ 457.8)”; i. In section 8: i. By removing the phrase “(Insurance Period)” in paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text; and ii. By revising paragraph (a)(2); j. In section 9 by removing the phrase “(Causes of Loss)” in paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text; k. In section 10 introductory text by removing the phrase “(Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss)”; l. In section 11: i. In paragraph (b)(4) by removing the phrase “if applicable, (see section 11(c))” and adding in its place the phrase “if applicable (see section 11(c)),”; ii. By adding a settlement of claim example after paragraph (b)(7); and iii. In paragraph (c) by removing the phrase “(wet, in-shell pounds)” and adding in its place the phrase “(wet in-shell pounds)”.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 457.131 Macadamia nut crop insurance provisions. 1. Definitions

Floaters. Inedible, husked “field run” nuts identified by water flotation or laboratory testing.

Peewees. Mature and immature wet in-shell nuts that are smaller than 16 mm (5/8 inch) in diameter.

Wet in-shell. The weight of the macadamia nuts as they are removed from the orchard with the nut meats in the shells after removal of the husk and excluding floaters and peewees but prior to being dried.

2. Unit Division

Provisions in the Basic Provisions that allow optional units by section, section equivalent, or FSA farm serial number and by irrigated and non-irrigated practices are not applicable. Optional units may be established only if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land or grown and insured under an organic farming practice, unless otherwise allowed by written agreement.

3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities

(d) Instead of reporting your macadamia nut production for the previous crop year, as required by section 3 of the Basic Provisions, there is a one-year lag period. Each crop year you must report your production from two crop years ago, e.g., on the 2016 crop year production report, you will provide your 2014 crop year production.

6. Insured Crop

(d) That are grown on trees that have reached at least the fifth growing season after being set out or grafted. However, we may give our approval in writing to insure acreage of trees that has not reached this age if it has produced at least 200 pounds of (wet in-shell) macadamia nuts per acre in a previous crop year; and

8. Insurance Period

(a) * * *

(2) The calendar date for the end of the insurance period for each crop year is the second June 30th after insurance attaches, or as specified in the Special Provisions.

11. Settlement of Claim

(b) * * *

(7) * * *

For example:

You select the 65 percent coverage level and 100 percent of the price election on 10 acres of macadamia nuts in the unit. Your share is 100 percent. Your production guarantee (per acre) is 4,000 pounds. The price election is $0.78. You are able to harvest 25,000 pounds. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:

(1) 10 acres × 4,000 pounds = 40,000 pounds guarantee;

(2) 40,000 pounds × $0.78 price election = $31,200 total value of guarantee;

(4) 25,000 pounds production to count × $0.78 price election = $19,500 value of production to count;

(6) $31,200 total value of guarantee − $19,500 value of production to count = $11,700 loss; and

(7) $11,700 loss × 100 percent share = $11,700 indemnity payment.

Signed in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2015. Brandon Willis, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2015-08690 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9713] RIN 1545-BL46; 1545-BM60 Reporting for Premium; Basis Reporting by Securities Brokers and Basis Determination for Debt Instruments and Options; Correction AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final and temporary regulations; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9713) that were published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13233). The final regulations are relating to information reporting by brokers for bond premium and acquisition premium.

DATES:

This correction is effective on April 16, 2015 and applicable beginning March 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela Lew at (202) 317-7053 (not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The final and temporary regulations (TD 9713) that are the subject of this correction is under section 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9713) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9713), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2015-05648, are corrected as follows:

1. On page 13234, in the preamble, the first column, the twenty-sixth line from the top of the column, the language “customer has not make the election. The” is corrected to read “customer has not made the election. The”. 2. On page 13235, in the preamble, the first column, the fifth line from the bottom of the column, the language “for income and basis. Under section” is corrected to read “for income and basis. Under § ”. Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2015-08746 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0185] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Glass City Scrimmage; Maumee River, Toledo, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary Special Local Regulation on the Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio. This Special Local Regulation is necessary to protect race participants from other vessel traffic. This temporary Special Local Regulation is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Maumee River during the Glass City Scrimmage.

DATES:

This rule will be effective from 6 a.m. until 1 p.m. on April 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2015-0185. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2015-0185 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “search.” They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary final rule, contact or email MST1 Brett A. Kreigh, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Toledo, at (419) 418-6046 or [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. Additional details regarding this emergent event were received from the event sponsor after the annual permitting process but not received in sufficient time for the Coast Guard to publish an NPRM and solicit public comments before the occurrence of the event. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels from hazards associated with the event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

On Saturday, April 18, 2015, from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. an organized racing event will take place on the Maumee River where participants will row shell boats from the Craig Memorial Bridge at River Mile 3.30 to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at River Mile 4.30 on the Maumee River in Toledo, OH. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that this boat race, due to its close proximity to watercraft and being in the shipping channel, poses extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property, including potential collisions, allisions, and individuals falling into the water. Establishing a special local regulated area is necessary to protect persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

C. Discussion of Rule

This rule will be enforced 6 a.m. until 1 p.m. on April 18, 2015. The Coast Guard requires that all vessels transiting the area proceed at a no-wake speed and maintain extra vigilance at all times.

Vessel traffic may proceed down the West side of the river at a no wake speed during racing. The races will stop for oncoming freighter or commercial traffic. The on-scene representative or event sponsor representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event.

This temporary Special Local Regulation will encompass all U.S. waters on the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Craig Memorial Bridge at River Mile 3.30 to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at River Mile 4.30.

The Captain of the Port will notify the affected segments of the public of the enforcement of this Special Local Regulation by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We conclude that this temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The temporary Special Local Regulation will be relatively small and be enforced for a relatively short time. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal.

2. Impact on Small Entities

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

This temporary final rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the portion of the Maumee River discussed above from 6 a.m. until 1 p.m. on April 18, 2015.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

This temporary final rule will call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade and therefore is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction. During the annual permitting process for this boat racing event an environmental analysis was conducted to include the effects of this special local regulation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1233.

2. Add temporary § 100.35T-0185 to read as follows:
§ 100.35T-0185 Special Local Regulation, Glass City Scrimmage, Toledo, OH.

(a) Location. The regulated area includes all U.S. navigable waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH, from the Craig Memorial Bridge at River Mile 3.30 to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at River Mile 4.30.

(b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6 a.m. until 1 p.m. on April 18, 2015.

(c) Regulations. (1) Consistent with § 100.901 of this part, vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake speed and remain vigilant at all times. Additionally, vessels within the regulated area must yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft. Commercial vessels will have right-of-way over event participants, and event safety craft.

(2) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

(3) Vessel operators entering or operating in the special local regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative.

Dated: March 31, 2015. Scott B. Lemasters, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2015-08758 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0190] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta; Detroit River, Wyandotte, MI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation on the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River, Wyandotte, Michigan. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta. This special local regulation will establish restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a portion of the Trenton Channel. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the regulated area without permission of the Captain of the Port.

DATES:

This rule will be effective from 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on April 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0190. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box, and click “Search.” You may visit the Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email MST1 Todd Manow, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone (313) 568-9580, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 § Section A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because waiting for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable. The final details of this boat race were not provided from the event sponsor to the Coast Guard with sufficient time for the Coast Guard to publish an NPRM and solicit public comments before the occurrence of the event. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the hazards associated with this boat race.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

On April 25, 2015, the Wyandotte Boat Club is holding a rowing race that will require the immediate area to be clear of all vessel traffic. The rowing race will occur from 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and large numbers of spectators in close proximity to the boat race along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Thus, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that establishing a Special Local Regulation around the location of the race's course will help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

C. Discussion of Rule

This rule will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on April 25, 2015. It will encompass all waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°10′58″ N., 083°9′23″ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11′44″ N., 083°8′56″ W. (NAD 83). This regulation will be enforced on April 25, 2015, from 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

Two thirds of the Trenton Channel on the western portion of the regulated area, from the Wyandotte shoreline to a point approximately 670 feet east into the channel, will be designated as the race zone, while the remaining third portion on the eastern side of the regulated area, approximately 330 feet in width, will be designated as a spectator zone for pleasure crafts.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative. Entry into and transiting within the spectator zone of the regulated area is only authorized at no-wake speed and requires the authorization of the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative. The races will stop for oncoming freighter or commercial traffic. The on-scene representative or event sponsor representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event.

The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative will notify the affected segments of the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.

The Coast Guard's use of this special local regulation will be of relatively small size and short duration, and it is designed to minimize the impact on navigation. Moreover, vessels may, when circumstances allow, obtain permission from the Captain of the Port to transit through the area affected by this special local regulations. Overall, the Coast Guard expects minimal impact to vessel movement from the enforcement of this special local regulation.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in this portion of the Trenton Channel near Wyandotte, MI between 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on April 25, 2015.

This special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will only be in effect and enforced for less than 10 hours on one day. The race event will be temporarily stopped for any deep draft vessels transiting through the shipping lanes. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect, allowing vessel owners and operators to plan accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade, and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. During the annual permitting process for this event an environmental analysis was conducted, and thus, no preliminary environmental analysis checklist or Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED) are required for this rulemaking action. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1233.

2. Add § 100.35T09-0190 to read as follows:
§ 100.35T09-0190 Special Local Regulation; Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta, Trenton Channel; Wyandotte, MI.

(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°10′58″ N., 083°9′23″ W.; the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11′44″ N., 083°8′56″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Two thirds of the Trenton Channel on the western portion of the regulated area, from the Wyandotte shoreline to a point approximately 670 feet east into the channel, will be designated as the race zone, while the remaining third portion on the eastern side of the of the regulated area, approximately 330 feet in width, will be designated as a spectator zone for pleasure crafts.

(b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on April 25, 2015.

(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the race zone of the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated on-scene representative.

(2) No vessels may enter and transit through the spectator zone on the eastern side of regulated area without authorization of the Captain of the Port or his designated on scene representative. Any vessel granted permission to enter the spectator zone must not exceed a no-wake speed.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area shall contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9464.

(5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit, or his on-scene representative.

(6) If the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit grants permission for a deep draft vessel to transit through the regulated area in the shipping lanes, the race event will be temporarily stopped during deep draft vessel's transit.

Dated: March 27, 2015. Scott B. Lemasters, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2015-08761 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100 and 165 [Docket Number USCG-2014-1011] RIN 1625-AA00, AA08 Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is issuing a final rule that revises the list of special local regulations and safety zones established for recurring marine events and fireworks displays that take place within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility. Under this rule, the list of recurring marine events requiring special local regulations or safety zones is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in the Fifth Coast Guard District. When these regulations are enforced, certain restrictions are placed on marine traffic in specified areas. This rulemaking project promotes efficiency by eliminating the need to produce a separate rule for each individual recurring event, and serves to provide notice of the known recurring events requiring a special local regulation or safety zone throughout the year.

DATES:

This rule is effective May 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2014-1011]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Dennis Sens, Fifth Coast Guard District, Prevention Division, (757) 398-6204, [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or obtaining documents from the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The special local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.501 and safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.506 were last amended on July 21, 2014 (79 FR 42197).

On February 13, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District” in the Federal Register (80 FR 7994). We received one favorable comment on the proposed rule.

No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

This rulemaking is authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1. It updates the list of permanent special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 and safety zones at 33 CFR 165.506, established for recurring marine events and fireworks displays at various locations within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility (AOR). The Fifth Coast Guard District AOR is defined in 33 CFR 3.25.

Publishing these regulatory updates in a single rulemaking promotes efficiency and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring marine events and fireworks displays and their accompanying regulations, special local regulations, and safety zones.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD submitted changes for a special local regulation for marine event and a safety zone for fireworks display that were published on February 13, 2015 in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The changes are included in the Table to § 100.501, (b.) line 23, Date. The date for this marine event was expanded to include the 3rd Sunday. Change was made to the Table to § 165.506, (b.) line 1, Regulated Area. The regulated area for this fireworks display was changed to 500 yard radius. This change was made to provide a larger safety buffer within Washington Channel due to the anticipated high density of spectator vessels that typically congregate for this event. These changes do not affect the location or total number of regulated areas previously listed in the NPRM.

One commenter generally supported the proposed listing of all marine events in the Fifth District area of responsibility. No changes were made to the proposed rule based upon this comment.

Special Local Regulations

This rule adds 2 new special local regulations for marine events, removes 1 regulation and revises 10 previously established regulations for marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain events, the other provisions in 33 CFR 100.501 remain unchanged.

The Coast Guard has revised regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by adding 2 new special local regulations. The special local regulations are listed in Table 1, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.

Table 1 [Special local regulated areas added to 33 CFR 100.501] Table to § 100.501
  • section
  • Location
    1. (b.) 12 Rock Hall Harbor, Rock Hall, MD. 2. (b.) 23 Nanticoke River, Bivalve channel and harbor, Bivalve, MD.

    One previously published special local regulation for marine event was removed from 33 CFR 100.501, i.e. “Ragin on the River” power boat race that took place on the Susquehanna River, near Port Deposit, MD.

    This rule revises 10 preexisting special local regulations that involve change to marine event date(s) and/or coordinates. These events are listed in Table 2, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.

    Table 2 [Changes to special local regulation date(s) and coordinates] Table to § 100.501 Section Location Revision
  • (date/coordinates)
  • 1. (a.) 9 Sunset Lake, NJ dates. 2. (a.) 13 New Jersey Intra Coastal Waterway, Ocean City, NJ dates. 3. (a.) 14 New Jersey Intra Coastal Waterway, Atlantic City, NJ dates. 4. (b.) 3 Middle River, Essex, MD coordinates. 5. (b.) 6 Upper Potomac River, Washington, DC dates. 6. (b.) 7 Severn River, Annapolis, MD coordinates. 7. (b.) 15 Tred Avon River, Oxford, MD dates, coordinates. 8. (b.) 17 Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD dates. 9. (b.) 20 Patuxent River, Solomons, MD dates. 10. (b.) 21 North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD dates.

    Based on the nature of marine events, large number of participants and spectators, and event locations, the Coast Guard has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of participant injury or death resulting from near or actual contact with non-participant vessels traversing through the regulated areas. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this rule establishes special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event.

    This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), or designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The designated “Patrol Commander” includes Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on their behalf. On-scene patrol commander may be augmented by local, State or Federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.

    Safety Zones

    This rule adds 6 new safety zones, removes 1 safety zone and revises 12 previously established safety zones listed in the Table to § 165.506. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain safety zones, the other provisions in 33 CFR 165.506 remain unchanged.

    The Coast Guard has revised the regulations at 33 CFR 165.506 by adding 6 new safety zone locations to the permanent regulations listed in this section. The new safety zones are listed in Table 3, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.

    Table 3 [Safety zones added to 33 CFR 165.506] Table to § 165.506
  • section
  • Location
    1. (b.) 4 Upper Potomac River, Washington, DC 2. (c.) 22 Urbanna Creek, Urbanna, VA. 3. (c.) 23 Elizabeth River—Eastern Branch, Norfolk, VA. 4. (d.) 16 Shallowbag Bay, Manteo, NC. 5. (d.) 17 Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, NC. 6. (d.) 18 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bogue Inlet, Swansboro, NC.

    One safety zone was removed from 33 CFR 165.506, specifically, the fireworks display that took place over the Potomac River, near Newburg, MD.

    The rule revises 12 preexisting safety zones that involve change to event date(s) and coordinates. These revised safety zones are shown in Table 4, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.

    Table 4 [Changes to safety zone date(s) and coordinates] Table to § 165.506 Section Location Revision
  • (date/coordinates)
  • 1. (a.) 1 North Atlantic Ocean, Bethany Beach, DE dates. 2. (a.) 3 North Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth Beach, DE dates. 3. (a.) 4 North Atlantic Ocean, Avalon, NJ dates. 4. (a.) 6 North Atlantic Ocean, Cape May, NJ dates. 5. (a.) 7 Delaware Bay, North Cape May, NJ dates. 6. (a.) 9 Metedeconk River, Brick Township, NJ dates. 7. (a.) 10 North Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ dates, coordinates. 8. (a.) 11 North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ dates. 9. (a.) 13 Little Egg Harbor, Parker Island, NJ dates. 10. (b.) 1 Upper Potomac River, Washington Channel, Washington, DC coordinates. 11. (b.) 20 Upper Potomac River, Washington, DC dates, coordinates. 12. (c.) 9 North Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, VA dates.

    Each year, organizations in the Fifth Coast Guard District sponsor fireworks displays in the same general location and time period. Each event uses a barge or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the safety of persons and property. Coast Guard personnel on scene may allow boaters within the safety zone if conditions permit.

    The enforcement period for these safety zones is from 5:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. local time. However, vessels may enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones during this time frame if authorized by the COTP or designated Coast Guard patrol commander on scene, as provided for in 33 CFR 165.23. This rule provides for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This finding is based on the short amount of time that vessels will be restricted from regulated areas, and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Generally vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the regulated areas. Advance notifications would also be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine information and facsimile broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications to the public for most events will typically be made by local newspapers, radio and TV stations. The Coast Guard anticipates that these special local regulated areas and safety zones will only be enforced one to three times per year.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    (1) This rule will affect the following entities some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in these regulated areas during the times the zones are enforced.

    (2) These special local regulated areas and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Coast Guard will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring to the extent possible while ensuring the safety of event participants and spectators. The enforcement period will be short in duration and, in many of the areas, vessels can transit safely around the regulated area. Generally, blanket permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these regulated areas will be given, except during the period that the Coast Guard patrol vessel is present. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories widely.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States. Some marine events by their nature may introduce potential for adverse impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users or waterfront infrastructure within or close proximity to the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail board racing. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required for this section of the rule.

    This rule involves implementation of regulations at 33 CFR part 165 that establish safety zones on navigable waters of the United States for fireworks events. These safety zones are enforced for the duration of fireworks display events. The fireworks are generally launched from or immediately adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. The category of activities includes fireworks launched from barges or at the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer. Fireworks displays may introduce potential hazards such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 100

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

    33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. In § 100.501, revise Table to § 100.501 to read as follows:
    § 100.501 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District. Table to § 100.501 [All coordinates listed in the Table to § 100.501 reference Datum NAD 1983] No. Date Event Sponsor Location (a.) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—COTP Zone 1. June—1st Sunday. Atlantic County Day at the Bay Atlantic County, New Jersey The waters of Great Egg Harbor Bay, adjacent to Somers Point, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn along the following boundaries: the area is bounded to the north by the shoreline along John F. Kennedy Park and Somers Point, New Jersey; bounded to the east by the State Route 52 bridge; bounded to the south by a line that runs along latitude 39°18′00″ N.; and bounded to the west by a line that runs along longitude 074°37′00″ W. 2. May—3rd Sunday; September—3rd Saturday. Annual Escape from Fort Delaware Triathlon Escape from Fort Delaware Triathlon, Inc All waters of the Delaware River between Pea Patch Island and Delaware City, Delaware, bounded by a line connecting the following points: latitude 39°36′35.7″ N., longitude 075°35′25.6″ W, thence southeast to latitude 39°34′57.3″ N., longitude 075°33′23.1″ W, thence southwest to latitude 39°34′11.9″ N., longitude 075°34′28.6″ W, thence northwest to latitude 39°35′52.4″ N., longitude 075°36′33.9″ W, thence to point of origin. 3. June—last Saturday. Westville Parade of Lights Borough of Westville and Westville Power Boat All waters of Big Timber Creek in Westville, New Jersey from shoreline to shoreline bounded on the south from the Route 130 Bridge and to the north by the entrance of the Delaware River. 4. June—4th Sunday. OPA Atlantic City Grand Prix Offshore Performance Assn. (OPA) The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: from a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′50″ N., longitude 074°24′37″ W, thence southeasterly to latitude 39°20′40″ N., longitude 074°23′50″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°19′33″ N., longitude 074°26′52″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′43″ N., longitude 074°27′40″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to point of origin at latitude 39°21′50″ N., longitude 074°24′37″ W. 5. July—on or about July 4th. U.S. holiday celebrations City of Philadelphia The waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. 6. August—2nd Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Point Pleasant OPA/NJ Offshore Grand Prix Offshore Performance Association (OPA) and New Jersey Offshore Racing Assn The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line drawn from a position along the shoreline near Normandy Beach, NJ at latitude 40°00′00″ N., longitude 074°03′30″ W, thence easterly to latitude 39°59′40″ N., longitude 074°02′00″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°56′35″ N., longitude 074°03′00″ W, thence westerly to a position near the Seaside Heights Pier at latitude 39°56′35″ N., longitude 074°04′15″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of origin. 7. July—3rd Wednesday and Thursday. New Jersey Offshore Grand Prix Offshore Performance Assn. & New Jersey Offshore Racing Assn The waters of the Manasquan River from the New York and Long Branch Railroad Bridge to Manasquan Inlet, together with all of the navigable waters of the United States from Asbury Park, New Jersey, latitude 40°14′00″ N.; southward to Seaside Park, New Jersey latitude 39°55′00″ N., from the New Jersey shoreline seaward to the limits of the Territorial Sea. The race course area extends from Asbury Park to Seaside Park from the shoreline, seaward to a distance of 8.4 nautical miles. 8. August—3rd Friday. Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air show Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: from a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′31″ N., longitude 074°25′04″ W, thence southeasterly to latitude 39°21′08″ N., longitude 074°24′48″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°20′16″ N., longitude 074°27′17″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′44″ N., longitude 074°27′31″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′31″ N., longitude 074°25′04″ W. 9. September—2nd, 3rd or 4th Friday, Saturday and Sunday; October—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Sunset Lake Hydrofest Sunset Lake Hydrofest Assn All waters of Sunset Lake, New Jersey, from shoreline to shoreline, south of latitude 38°58′32″ N. 10. October—2nd Saturday and Sunday. The Liberty Grand Prix Offshore Performance Assn. (OPA) The waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. 11. October—1st Monday (Columbus Day). U.S. holiday celebrations City of Philadelphia The waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. 12. December 31st (New Year's Eve). U.S. holiday celebrations City of Philadelphia The waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. 13. September—2nd or 3rd Sunday. Ocean City Air Show Ocean City, NJ All waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) bounded by a line connecting the following points; latitude 39°15′57″ N., longitude 074°35′09″ W. thence northeast to latitude 39°16′34″ N., longitude 074°33′54″ W. thence southeast to latitude 39°16′17″ N., longitude 074°33′29″ W. thence southwest to latitude 39°15′40″ N., longitude 074°34′46″ W. thence northwest to point of origin, near Ocean City, NJ. 14. June—4th Sunday and August 2nd or 3rd Sunday. Atlantic City International Triathlon Atlantic City, NJ All waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) bounded by a line connecting the following points; latitude 39°21′20″ N., longitude 074°27′18″ W. thence northeast to latitude 39°21′27.47″ N., longitude 074°27′10.31″ W. thence northeast to latitude 39°21′33″ N., longitude 074°26′57″ W. thence northwest to latitude 39°21′37″ N., longitude 074°27′03″ W. thence southwest to latitude 39°21′29.88″ N., longitude 074°27′14.31″ W. thence south to latitude 39°21′19″ N., longitude 074°27′22″ W. thence east to latitude 39°21′18.14″ N., longitude 074°27′19.25″ W. thence north to point of origin, near Atlantic City, NJ. (b.) Coast Guard Sector Baltimore—COTP Zone 1. March—4th or last Saturday; or April—1st Saturday. Safety at Sea Seminar. U.S. Naval Academy All waters of the Severn River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by the Naval Academy (SR-450) Bridge and bounded to the southeast by a line drawn from U.S. Naval Academy Light at latitude 38°58′39.5″ N., longitude 076°28′49″ W. thence easterly to Carr Point, MD at latitude 38°58′58″ N., longitude 076°27′41″ W. 2. March—3rd, 4th or last Friday, Saturday and Sunday; April and May—every Friday, Saturday and Sunday. USNA Crew Races. U.S. Naval Academy All waters of the Severn River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn from the south shoreline at latitude 39°00′58″ N., longitude 076°31′32″ W. thence to the north shoreline at latitude 39°01′11″ N., longitude 076°31′10″ W. The regulated area is bounded to the southeast by a line drawn from U.S. Naval Academy Light at latitude 38°58′39.5″ N., longitude 076°28′49″ W. thence easterly to Carr Point, MD at latitude 38°58′58″ N., longitude 076°27′41″ W. 3. July—3rd, 4th or last Saturday, or Sunday. Dinghy Poker Run Norris Trust Foundation The waters of Middle River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded to the north by a line drawn along latitude 39°19′33″ N., and bounded to the south by a line drawn from latitude 39°17′24.4″ N., longitude 076°23′53.3″ W. to latitude 39°18′06.4″ N., longitude 076°23′10.9″ W., located in Baltimore County, at Essex, MD. 4. May—1st Sunday. Nanticoke River Swim and Triathlon Nanticoke River Swim and Triathlon, Inc All waters of the Nanticoke River, including Bivalve Channel and Bivalve Harbor, bounded by a line drawn from a point on the shoreline at latitude 38°18′00″ N., longitude 075°54′00″ W., thence westerly to latitude 38°18′00″ N., longitude 075°55′00″ W., thence northerly to latitude 38°20′00″ N., longitude 075°53′48″ W., thence easterly to latitude 38°19′42″ N., longitude 075°52′54″ W. 5. May—Saturday before Memorial Day. Chestertown Tea Party Re-enactment Festival Chestertown Tea Party Festival All waters of the Chester River, within a line connecting the following positions: latitude 39°12′27″ N., longitude 076°03′46″ W.; thence to latitude 39°12′19″ N., longitude 076°03′53″ W.; thence to latitude 39°12′15″ N., longitude 076°03′41″ W.; thence to latitude 39°12′26″ N., longitude 076°03′38″ W.; thence to the point of origin at latitude 39°12′27″ N., longitude 076°03′46″ W. 6. May—3rd Friday, Saturday and Sunday. June 2nd or 3rd Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Dragon Boat Races at Georgetown, Washington, DC Washington, D.C. Dragon Boat Festival, Inc The waters of the Upper Potomac River, Washington, DC, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded upstream by the Francis Scott Key Bridge and downstream by the Roosevelt Memorial Bridge. 7. May—Tuesday and Wednesday before Memorial Day (observed). USNA Blue Angels Air Show U.S. Naval Academy All waters of the Severn River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn from the south shoreline at latitude 39°00′38.02″ N., longitude 076°31′01.49″ W. thence to the north shoreline at latitude 39°00′52.7″ N., longitude 076°30′46.01″ W., this line is approximately 1300 yards northwest of the U.S. 50 fixed highway bridge. The regulated area is bounded to the southeast by a line drawn from U.S. Naval Academy Light at latitude 38°58′39.5″ N., longitude 076°28′49″ W. thence southeast to a point 1500 yards ESE of Chinks Point, MD at latitude 38°57′41″ N., longitude 076°27′36″ W. thence northeast to Greenbury Point at latitude 38°58′27.66″ N., longitude 076°27′16.38″ W. 8. June—2nd Sunday. The Great Chesapeake Bay Bridges Swim Races Great Chesapeake Bay Swim, Inc The waters of the Chesapeake Bay between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards north of the north bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′36″ N., longitude 076°23′05″ W. and thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′14″ N., longitude 076°20′00″ W., and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′16″ N., longitude 076°24′30″ W. and thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′38.5″ N., longitude 076°20′06″ W. 9. June—3rd, 4th or last Saturday or July—2nd or 3rd Saturday. Maryland Swim for Life District of Columbia Aquatics Club The waters of the Chester River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line drawn at latitude 39°10′16″ N., near the Chester River Channel Buoy 35 (LLN-26795) and bounded on the north at latitude 39°12′30″ N. by the Maryland S.R. 213 Highway Bridge. 10. June—last Saturday and Sunday or July—2nd Saturday and Sunday. Bo Bowman Memorial—Sharptown Regatta Virginia/Carolina Racing Assn All waters of the Nanticoke River near Sharptown, MD, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the south by Maryland S.R. 313 Highway Bridge and bounded to the north by a line drawn from latitude 38°33′09″ N., longitude 075°42′45″ W., thence southeasterly to latitude 38°33′04″ N., longitude 075°42′37″ W. 11. June—2nd, 3rd, 4th or last Saturday and Sunday or August—1st Saturday and Sunday. Thunder on the Narrows Kent Narrows Racing Assn All waters of Prospect Bay enclosed by the following points: latitude 38°57′52″ N., longitude 076°14′48″ W., thence to latitude 38°58′02″ N., longitude 076°15′05″ W., thence to latitude 38°57′38″ N., longitude 076°15′29″ W., thence to latitude 38°57′28″ N., longitude 076°15′23″ W., thence to point of origin at latitude 38°57′52″ N., longitude 076°14′48″ W. 12. May/June—Saturday and Sunday after Memorial Day (observed); and October—1st Saturday and Sunday. Rock Hall and Waterman's Triathlon Swims Kinetic Endeavors, LLC The waters of Rock Hall Harbor from shoreline to shoreline, bounded by a line drawn from latitude 39°07′59″ N., longitude 076°15′03″ W. to latitude 39°07′50″ N., longitude 076°14′41″ W., located at the entrance to Rock Hall, MD. 13. September—2nd Saturday or the Saturday after Labor Day. Dragon Boat Races in the Inner Harbor Associated Catholic Charities, Inc The waters of the Patapsco River, Baltimore, MD, Inner Harbor from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the east by a line drawn along longitude 076°36′30″ W. 14. June—3rd, 4th or last Saturday or Sunday. Baltimore Dragon Boat Challenge Baltimore Dragon Boat Club The waters of Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor, in Baltimore, MD, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn along longitude 076°35′ W. and bounded on the west by a line drawn along longitude 076°36′ W. 15. May—2nd, 3rd 4th or last Saturday. June—1st, 2nd or 3rd Saturday. Oxford-Bellevue Sharkfest Swim Enviro-Sports Productions Inc The waters of the Tred Avon River from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°42′25″ N., longitude 076°10 ′45″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′37″ N., longitude 076°10′26″ W., and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°41′58″ N., longitude 076°11′04″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′49″ W., thence east to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′30″ W., located at Oxford, MD. 16. June—1st Sunday. Swim Across the Potomac U.S. Open Water Swimming Assn.—Wave One Swimming The waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn that originates at Jones Point Park, VA at the west shoreline latitude 38°47′35″ N., longitude 077°02′22″ W., thence east to latitude 38°47′2″ N., longitude 077°00′58″ W., at east shoreline near National Harbor, MD. The regulated area is bounded to the south by a line drawn originating at George Washington Memorial Parkway highway overpass and Cameron Run, west shoreline latitude 38°47′23″ N., longitude 077°03′03″ W. thence east to latitude 38°46′52″ N., longitude 077°01′13″ W., at east shoreline near National Harbor, MD. 17. October—last Saturday; or November—1st or 2nd Saturday. The MRE Tug of War Maritime Republic of Eastport The waters of Spa Creek from shoreline to shoreline, extending 400 feet from either side of a rope spanning Spa Creek from a position at latitude 38°58′36.9″ N., longitude 076°29′03.8″ W. on the Annapolis shoreline to a position at latitude 38°58′26.4″ N., longitude 076°28′53.7″ W. on the Eastport shoreline. 18. December—2nd Saturday. Eastport Yacht Club Lighted Boat Parade Eastport Yacht Club The waters of Spa Creek, and the Severn River, shore to shore, bounded on the south by a line drawn from Carr Point, at latitude 38°58′58″ N., longitude 076°27′40″ W., thence to Horn Point Warning Light (LLNR 17935), at 38°58′24″ N., longitude 076°28′10 W., thence to Horn Point, at 38°58′20″ N., longitude 076°28′27″ W., and bounded on the north by Naval Academy SR 450 Bridge. 19. Memorial Day weekend—Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday; or Labor Day weekend—Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. NAS Patuxent River Air Expo U.S. Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD All waters of the lower Patuxent River, near Solomons, Maryland, located between Fishing Point and the base of the break wall marking the entrance to the East Seaplane Basin at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, within an area bounded by a line connecting position latitude 38°17′39″ N., longitude 076°25′47″ W.; thence to latitude 38°17′47″ N., longitude 076°26′00″ W.; thence to latitude 38°18′09″ N., longitude 076°25′40″ W.; thence to latitude 38°18′00″ N., longitude 076°25′25″ W., located along the shoreline at U.S. Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. All waters of the lower Patuxent River, near Solomons, Maryland, located between Hog Point and Cedar Point, within an area bounded by a line drawn from a position at latitude 38°18′41″ N., longitude 076°23′43″ W.; to latitude 38°18′16″ N., longitude 076°22′35″ W.; thence to latitude 38°18′12″ N., longitude 076°22′37″ W.; thence to latitude 38°18′36″ N., longitude 076°23′46″ W., located adjacent to the shoreline at U.S. Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. 20. September—2nd, 3rd or 4th Friday, Saturday and Sunday. October—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Chesapeake Challenge/Solomons Offshore Grand Prix Chesapeake Bay Powerboat Association All waters of the Patuxent River, within boundary lines connecting the following positions; originating near north entrance of MD Route 4 bridge, latitude 38°19′45″ N., longitude 076°28′06″ W., thence southwest to south entrance of MD Route 4 bridge, latitude 38°19′24″ N., longitude 076°28′30″ W., thence south to a point near the shoreline, latitude 38°18′32″ N., longitude 076°28′14″ W., thence southeast to a point near the shoreline, latitude 38°17′38″ N., longitude 076°27′26″ W., thence northeast to latitude 38°18′00″ N., longitude 076°26′41″ W., thence northwest to latitude 38°18′59″ N., longitude 076°27′20″ W., located at Solomons, MD, thence continuing northwest and parallel to shoreline to point of origin. 21. May—1st or 2nd Saturday and Sunday; Ocean City Maryland Offshore Grand Prix Offshore Performance Assn. Racing, LLC The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean commencing at a point on the shoreline at latitude 38°25′42″ N., longitude 075°03′06″ W.; thence east southeast to latitude 38°25′30″ N., longitude 075°02′12″ W., thence south southwest parallel to the Ocean City shoreline to latitude 38°19′12″ N., longitude 075°03′48″ W.; thence west northwest to the shoreline at latitude 38°19′30″ N., longitude 075°05′00″ W. 22. June—1st or 2nd Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Ocean City Air Show Town of Ocean City, Maryland All waters of the North Atlanta Ocean within an area bounded by the following coordinates: latitude 38°21′38″ N., longitude 075°04′04″ W.; latitude 38°21′27″ N., longitude 075°03′29″ W.; latitude 38°19′35″ N., longitude 075°04′19″ W.; and latitude 38°19′45″ N., longitude 075°04′54″ W., located at Ocean City, MD. 23. June—3rd, 4th or last Sunday. Coastal Aquatics Swim Team Open Water Summer Shore Swim Coastal Aquatics Swim Club All waters of the Nanticoke River, including Bivalve Channel and Bivalve Harbor, bounded by a line drawn from a point on the shoreline at latitude 38°18′00″ N., longitude 075°54′00″ W., thence westerly to latitude 38°18′00″ N., longitude 075°55′00″ W., thence northerly to latitude 38°20′00″ N., longitude 075°53′48″ W., thence easterly to latitude 38°19′42″ N., longitude 075°52′54″ W. (c.) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—COTP Zone 1. May—last Friday, Saturday and Sunday and/or June—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Blackbeard Festival City of Hampton The waters of Sunset Creek and Hampton River shore to shore bounded to the north by the I-64 Bridge over the Hampton River and to the south by a line drawn from Hampton River Channel Light 16 (LL 5715), located at latitude 37°01′03″ N., longitude 76°20′26″ W., to the finger pier across the river at Fisherman's Wharf, located at latitude 37°01′01.5″ N., longitude 76°20′32″ W.
  • Spectator Vessel Anchorage Areas—Area A: Located in the upper reaches of the Hampton River, bounded to the south by a line drawn from the western shore at latitude 37°01′48″ N., longitude 76°20′22″ W., across the river to the eastern shore at latitude 37°01′44″ N., longitude 76°20′13″ W., and to the north by the I-64 Bridge over the Hampton River. The anchorage area will be marked by orange buoys.
  • Area B: Located on the eastern side of the channel, in the Hampton River, south of the Queen Street Bridge, near the Riverside Health Center. Bounded by the shoreline and a line drawn between the following points: Latitude 37°01′26″ N., longitude 76°20′24″ W., latitude 37°01′22″ N., longitude 76°20′26″ W., and latitude 37°01′22″ N., longitude 76°20′23″ W. The anchorage area will be marked by orange buoys.
  • 2. June—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday or 2nd Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Norfolk Harborfest. Norfolk Festevents, Ltd The waters of the Elizabeth River and its branches from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn across the Port Norfolk Reach section of the Elizabeth River between the northern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, latitude 36°50′51″ N., longitude 076°18′09″ W. and the north corner of the City of Norfolk Mooring Pier at the foot of Brooks Avenue located at latitude 36°51′00″ N., longitude 076°17′52″ W.; bounded on the southwest by a line drawn from the southern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′50″ N., longitude 076°18′10″ W., to the northern end of the eastern most pier at the Tidewater Yacht Agency Marina, located at latitude 36°50′29″ N., longitude 076°17′52″ W.; bounded to the south by a line drawn across the Lower Reach of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, between the Portsmouth Lightship Museum located at the foot of London Boulevard, in Portsmouth, Virginia at latitude 36°50′10″ N., longitude 076°17′47″ W., and the northwest corner of the Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock, Berkley Plant, Pier No. 1, located at latitude 36°50′08″ N., longitude 076°17′39″ W.; and to the southeast by the Berkley Bridge which crosses the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River between Berkley at latitude 36°50′21.5″ N., longitude 076°17′14.5″ W., and Norfolk at latitude 36°50′35″ N., longitude 076°17′10″ W. 3. June—2nd or 3rd Saturday. Cock Island Race. Portsmouth Boat Club & City of Portsmouth, VA The waters of the Elizabeth River and its branches from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn across the Port Norfolk Reach section of the Elizabeth River between the northern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, latitude 36°50′51″ N., longitude 076°18′09″ W. and the north corner of the City of Norfolk Mooring Pier at the foot of Brooks Avenue located at latitude 36°51′0″ N., longitude 076°17′52″ W.; bounded on the southwest by a line drawn from the southern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′50″ N., longitude 076°18′10″ W., to the northern end of the eastern most pier at the Tidewater Yacht Agency Marina, located at latitude 36°50′29″ N., longitude 076°17′52″ W.; bounded to the south by a line drawn across the Lower Reach of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, between the Portsmouth Lightship Museum located at the foot of London Boulevard, in Portsmouth, Virginia at latitude 36°50′10″ N., longitude 076°17′47″ W., and the northwest corner of the Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock, Berkley Plant, Pier No. 1, located at latitude 36°50′08″ N., longitude 076°17′39″ W.; and to the southeast by the Berkley Bridge which crosses the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River between Berkley at latitude 36°50′21.5″ N., longitude 076°17′14.5″ W., and Norfolk at latitude 36°50′35″ N., longitude 076°17′10″ W. 4. June—last Saturday or July—1st Saturday. RRBA Spring Radar Shootout Rappahannock River Boaters Association (RRBA) The waters of the Rappahannock River, adjacent to Layton, VA, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the west by a line running along longitude 076°58′30″ W., and bounded on the east by a line running along longitude 076°56′00″ W. 5. July—last Wednesday and following Friday; or August—1st Wednesday and following Friday. Pony Penning Swim Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department The waters of Assateague Channel from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the east by a line drawn from latitude 37°55′01″ N., longitude 075°22′40″ W., thence south to latitude 37°54′50″ N., longitude 075°22′46″ W.; and to the southwest by a line drawn from latitude 37°54′54″ N., longitude 075°23′00″ W., thence east to latitude 37°54′49″ N., longitude 075°22′49″ W. 6. August 1st or 2nd Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Hampton Cup Regatta Hampton Cup Regatta Boat Club The waters of Mill Creek, adjacent to Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia, enclosed by the following boundaries: to the north, a line drawn along latitude 37°01′00″ N., to the east a line drawn along longitude 076°18′30″ W., to the south a line parallel with the shoreline adjacent to Fort Monroe, and the west boundary is parallel with the Route 258—Mercury Boulevard Bridge. 7. September 1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday or 2nd Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Hampton Virginia Bay Days Festival Hampton Bay Days Inc The waters of Sunset Creek and Hampton River shore to shore bounded to the north by the I-64 Bridge over the Hampton River and to the south by a line drawn from Hampton River Channel Light 16 (LL 5715), located at latitude 37°01′03″ N., longitude 076°20′26″ W., to the finger pier across the river at Fisherman's Wharf, located at latitude 37°01′01.5″ N., longitude 076°20′32″ W. 8. September—last Sunday or October—1st Sunday. Poquoson Seafood Festival Workboat Races City of Poquoson The waters of the Back River, Poquoson, Virginia, bounded on the north by a line drawn along latitude 37°06′30″ N., bounded on the south by a line drawn along latitude 37°06′15″ N., bounded on the east by a line drawn along longitude 076°18′52″ W. and bounded on the west by a line drawn along longitude 076°19′30″ W. 9. June—3rd Saturday and Sunday or 4th Saturday and Sunday. Mattaponi Drag Boat Race Mattaponi Volunteer Rescue Squad and Dive Team All waters of Mattaponi River immediately adjacent to Rainbow Acres Campground, King and Queen County, Virginia. The regulated area includes a section of the Mattaponi River approximately three-quarter mile long and bounded in width by each shoreline, bounded to the east by a line that runs parallel along longitude 076°52′43″ W., near the mouth of Mitchell Hill Creek, and bounded to the west by a line that runs parallel along longitude 076°53′41″ W. just north of Wakema, Virginia. (d.) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—COTP Zone 1. June—1st Saturday and Sunday. Carolina Cup Regatta Virginia Boat Racing Assn The waters of the Pasquotank River, adjacent to Elizabeth City, NC, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the west by the Elizabeth City Draw Bridge and bounded on the east by a line originating at a point along the shoreline at latitude 36°17′54″ N., longitude 076°12′00″ W., thence southwesterly to latitude 36°17′35″ N., longitude 076°12′18″ W. at Cottage Point. 2. August—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday. SBIP—Fountain Powerboats Kilo Run and Super Boat Grand Prix Super Boat International Productions (SBIP), Inc The waters of the Pamlico River including Chocowinity Bay, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running northeasterly from Camp Hardee (North Carolina) at latitude 35°28′23″ N., longitude 076°59′23″ W., to Broad Creek Point at latitude 35°29′04″ N., longitude 076°58′44″ W., and bounded on the north by the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge. 3. September—3rd and or 4th or last Sunday. Crystal Coast Grand Prix North Carolina East Sports, Inc. N/P The waters of Bogue Sound, adjacent to Morehead City, NC, from the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N., longitude 076°42′48″ W., thence westerly to Morehead City Channel Day beacon 7 (LLNR 38620), thence southwest along the channel line to Bogue Sound Light 4 (LLRN 38770), thence southerly to Causeway Channel Day beacon 2 (LLNR 38720), thence southeasterly to Money Island Day beacon 1 (LLNR 38645), thence easterly to Eight and One Half Marina Day beacon 2 (LLNR 38685), thence easterly to the western most shoreline of Brant Island approximate position latitude 34°42′36″ N., longitude 076°42′11″ W., thence northeasterly along the shoreline to Tombstone Point approximate position latitude 34°42′14″ N., longitude 076°41′20″ W., thence southeasterly to the east end of the pier at Coast Guard Sector North Carolina approximate position latitude 34°42′00″ N., longitude 076°40′52″ W., thence easterly to Morehead City Channel Buoy 20 (LLNR 29427), thence northerly to Beaufort Harbor Channel LT 1BH (LLNR 34810), thence northwesterly to the southern tip of Radio Island approximate position latitude 34°42′22″ N., longitude 076°4052 W., thence northerly along the shoreline to approximate position latitude 34°43′00″ N., longitude 076°41′25″ W., thence westerly to the North Carolina State Port Facility, thence westerly along the State Port to the southwest corner approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N., longitude 076°42′12″ W., thence westerly to the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island the point of origin. 4. September—3rd, 4th or last Saturday; October—last Saturday; November—1st and or 2nd Saturday. Wilmington YMCA Triathlon Wilmington, NC, YMCA The waters of, and adjacent to, Wrightsville Channel, from Wrightsville Channel Day beacon 14 (LLNR 28040), located at 34°12′18″ N., longitude 077°48′10″ W., to Wrightsville Channel Day beacon 25 (LLNR 28080), located at 34°12′51″ N., longitude 77°48′53″ W. 5. August—2nd Saturday. The Crossing Organization to Support the Arts, Infrastructure, and Learning on Lake Gaston, AKA O'SAIL All waters of Lake Gaston, from shoreline to shoreline, directly under the length of Eaton Ferry Bridge (NC State Route 903), latitude 36°31′06″ N., longitude 077°57′37″ W., bounded to the west by a line drawn parallel and 100 yards from the western side of Eaton Ferry Bridge near Littleton, NC.
    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 3. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    4. In § 165.506, revise Table to § 165.506 to read as follows:
    § 165.506 Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast Guard District. Table to § 165.506 [All coordinates listed in the Table to § 165.506 reference Datum NAD 1983] No. Date Location Regulated area (a.) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—COTP Zone 1. July 3rd, 4th or 5th North Atlantic Ocean, Bethany Beach, DE; Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°32′08″ N., longitude 075°03′15″ W., adjacent to shoreline of Bethany Beach, DE. 2. Labor Day Indian River Bay, DE; Safety Zone All waters of the Indian River Bay within a 700 yard radius of the fireworks launch location on the pier in approximate position latitude 38°36′42″ N., longitude 075°08′18″ W. 3. July 3rd or 4th North Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth Beach, DE; Safety Zone All waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 360 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°43′01.2″ N., longitude 075°04′21″ W., approximately 400 yards east of Rehoboth Beach, DE. 4. July 3rd, 4th or 5th North Atlantic Ocean, Avalon, NJ; Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate location latitude 39°06′19.5″ N., longitude 074°42′02.15″ W., in the vicinity of the shoreline at Avalon, NJ. 5. July 4th, or September 1st—2nd Saturday Barnegat Bay, Barnegat Township, NJ; Safety Zone The waters of Barnegat Bay within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°44′50″ N., longitude 074°11′21″ W., approximately 500 yards north of Conklin Island, NJ. 6. July 3rd, 4th or 5th North Atlantic Ocean, Cape May, NJ; Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate location latitude 38°55′36″ N., longitude 074°55′26″ W., immediately adjacent to the shoreline at Cape May, NJ. 7. July 3rd, 4th or 5th Delaware Bay, North Cape May, NJ; Safety Zone All waters of the Delaware Bay within a 360 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°58′00″ N., longitude 074°58′30″ W. 8. August—3rd Sunday Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Margate City, NJ; Safety Zone All waters within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate location latitude 39°19′33″ N., longitude 074°31′28″ W., on the Intracoastal Waterway near Margate City, NJ. 9. July 3rd, 4th or 5th August every Thursday; September 1st Thursday Metedeconk River, Brick Township, NJ; Safety Zone The waters of the Metedeconk River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate position latitude 40°03′24″ N., longitude 074°06′42″ W., near the shoreline at Brick Township, NJ. 10. July—3rd, 4th or 5th North Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ; Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge located at latitude 39°20′58″ N., longitude 074°25′58″ W., and within 500 yard radius of a fireworks barge located at latitude 39°21′12″ N., longitude 074°25′06″ W., near the shoreline at Atlantic City, NJ. 11. July 3rd, 4th or 5th. October—1st or 2nd Saturday North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ; Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate location latitude 39°16′22″ N., longitude 074°33′54″ W., in the vicinity of the shoreline at Ocean City, NJ. 12. May—4th Saturday Barnegat Bay, Ocean Township, NJ; Safety Zone All waters of Barnegat Bay within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°47′33″ N., longitude 074°10′46″ W. 13. July 3rd, 4th or 5th Little Egg Harbor, Parker Island, NJ; Safety Zone All waters of Little Egg Harbor within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°34′18″ N., longitude 074°14′43″ W., approximately 100 yards north of Parkers Island. 14. September—3rd Saturday Delaware River, Chester, PA; Safety Zone All waters of the Delaware River near Chester, PA just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge within a 250 yard radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position latitude 39°49′43.2″ N., longitude 075°22′42″ W. 15. September—3rd Saturday Delaware River, Essington, PA; Safety Zone All waters of the Delaware River near Essington, PA, west of Little Tinicum Island within a 250 yard radius of the fireworks barge located in the approximate position latitude 39°51′18″ N., longitude 075°18′57″ W. 16. July 3rd, 4th or 5th; Columbus Day; December 31st, January 1st Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA; Safety Zone All waters of Delaware River, adjacent to Penns Landing, Philadelphia, PA, bounded from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running east to west from points along the shoreline at latitude 39°56′31.2″ N., longitude 075°08′28.1″ W.; thence to latitude 39°56′29.1″ N., longitude 075°07′56.5″ W., and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. (b.) Coast Guard Sector Baltimore—COTP Zone 1. April—1st or 2nd Saturday Washington Channel, Upper Potomac River, Washington, D.C.; Safety Zone All waters of the Upper Potomac River within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°52′20″ N., longitude 077°01′17″ W., located within the Washington Channel in Washington Harbor, DC. 2. July 4th December—1st and 2nd Saturday; December 31st Severn River and Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Severn River and Spa Creek within an area bounded by a line drawn from latitude 38°58′43.75″ N., longitude 076°28′01.42″ W.; thence to latitude 38°58′21.14″ N., longitude 076°28′22.12″ W.; thence to latitude 38°58′39.47″ N., longitude 076°28′48.72″ W.; thence to latitude 38°58′53″ N., longitude 076°28′33.74″ W., thence to latitude 38°58′57.22″ N., longitude 076°28′39.83″ W., thence to latitude 38°59′02.15″ N., longitude 076°28′34.61″ W., thence to point of origin; located near the entrance to Spa Creek and Severn River, Annapolis, MD. 3. July—4th, or Saturday before or after Independence Day holiday Middle River, Baltimore County, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Middle River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°17′45″ N., longitude 076°23′49″ W., approximately 300 yards east of Rockaway Beach, near Turkey Point. 4. July—1st, 2nd or 3rd Saturday Upper Potomac River, Washington, D.C.; Safety Zone All waters of the Upper Potomac River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 38°48′14″ N., 077°02′00″ W., located near the waterfront (King Street) at Alexandria, Virginia. 5. June 14th; July 4th; September—2nd Saturday; December 31st Northwest Harbor (East Channel), Patapsco River, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Patapsco River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 39°15′55″ N., 076°34′33″ W., located adjacent to the East Channel of Northwest Harbor. 6. May—2nd or 3rd Thursday or Friday; July 4th; December 31st Baltimore Inner Harbor, Patapsco River, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Patapsco River within a 100 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°17′01″ N., longitude 076°36′31″ W., located at the entrance to Baltimore Inner Harbor, approximately 125 yards southwest of pier 3. 7. May—2nd or 3rd Thursday or Friday; July 4th December 31st. Baltimore Inner Harbor, Patapsco River, MD; Safety Zone The waters of the Patapsco River within a 100 yard radius of approximate position latitude 39°17′04″ N., longitude 076°36′36″ W., located in Baltimore Inner Harbor, approximately 125 yards southeast of pier 1. 8. July 4th; December 31st. Northwest Harbor (West Channel) Patapsco River, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Patapsco River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°16′21″ N., longitude 076°34′38″ W., located adjacent to the West Channel of Northwest Harbor. 9. July—4th, or Saturday before or after Independence Day holiday Patuxent River, Calvert County, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Patuxent River within a 200 yard radius of the fireworks barge located at latitude 38°19′17″ N., longitude 076°27′45″ W., approximately 800 feet from shore at Solomons Island, MD. 10. July 3rd Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Beach, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Chesapeake Bay within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°41′36″ N., longitude 076°31′30″ W., and within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°41′28″ N., longitude 076°31′29″ W., located near Chesapeake Beach, Maryland. 11. July 4th Choptank River, Cambridge, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Choptank River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site at Great Marsh Point, located at latitude 38°35′06″ N., longitude 076°04′46″ W. 12. July—2nd or 3rd Saturday and last Saturday Potomac River, Fairview Beach, Charles County, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Potomac River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°19′57″ N., longitude 077°14′40″ W., located north of the shoreline at Fairview Beach, Virginia. 13. May—last Saturday; July 4th Potomac River, Charles County, MD; Mount Vernon, Safety Zone All waters of the Potomac River within an area bound by a line drawn from the following points: latitude 38°42′30″ N., longitude 077°04′47″ W.; thence to latitude 38°42′18″ N., longitude 077°04′42″ W.; thence to latitude 38°42′11″ N., longitude 077°05′10″ W.; thence to latitude 38°42′22″ N., longitude 077°05′12″ W.; thence to point of origin located along the Potomac River shoreline at George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate, Fairfax County, VA. 14. October—1st Saturday Dukeharts Channel, Potomac River, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Potomac River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°13′27″ N., longitude 076°44′48″ W., located adjacent to Dukeharts Channel near Coltons Point, Maryland. 15. July—day before Independence Day holiday and July 4th; November—3rd Thursday, 3rd Saturday and last Friday; December—1st, 2nd and 3rd Friday Potomac River, National Harbor, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Potomac River within an area bound by a line drawn from the following points: latitude 38°47′13″ N., longitude 077°00′58″ W.; thence to latitude 38°46′51″ N., longitude 077°01′15″ W.; thence to latitude 38°47′25″ N., longitude 077°01′33″ W.; thence to latitude 38°47′32″ N., longitude 077°01′08″ W.; thence to the point of origin, located at National Harbor, Maryland. 16. Sunday before July 4th, July 4th. Susquehanna River, Havre de Grace, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Susquehanna River within a 300 yard radius of approximate position latitude 39°32′06″ N., longitude 076°05′22″ W., located on the island at Millard Tydings Memorial Park. 17. June and July—Saturday before Independence Day holiday Miles River, St. Michaels, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Miles River within a 200 yard radius of approximate position latitude 38°47′42″ N., longitude 076°12′51″ W., located at the entrance to Long Haul Creek. 18. July 3rd Tred Avon River, Oxford, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Tred Avon River within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°41′24″ N., longitude 076°10′37″ W., approximately 500 yards northwest of the waterfront at Oxford, MD. 19. July 3rd Northeast River, North East, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the Northeast River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°35′26″ N., longitude 075°57′00″ W., approximately 400 yards south of North East Community Park. 20. December 31st. Upper Potomac River, Washington, D.C.; Safety Zone All waters of the Upper Potomac River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 38°48′38″ N., 077°01′56″ W., located east of Oronoco Bay Park at Alexandria, Virginia. 21. March through October, at the conclusion of evening MLB games at Washington Nationals Ball Park Anacostia River, Washington, D.C.; Safety Zone All waters of the Anacostia River within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°52′13″ N., longitude 077°00′16″ W., located near the Washington Nationals Ball Park. 22. June—last Saturday or July—1st Saturday; July—3rd, 4th or last Saturday or Sunday Potomac River, Prince William County, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Potomac River within a 200 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°34′08″ N., longitude 077°15′38″ W., located near Cherry Hill, Virginia. 23. July 4th North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD; Safety Zone All waters of the North Atlantic Ocean in an area bound by the following points: latitude 38°19′39.9″ N., longitude 075°05′03.2″ W.; thence to latitude 38°19′36.7″ N., longitude 075°04′53.5″ W.; thence to latitude 38°19′45.6″ N., longitude 075°04′49.3″ W.; thence to latitude 38°19′49.1″ N., longitude 075°05′00.5″ W.; thence to point of origin. The size of the safety zone extends approximately 300 yards offshore from the fireworks launch area located at the high water mark on the beach. 24. May—Sunday before Memorial Day (observed). June 29th; July 4th and July every Sunday. August—1st Sunday and Sunday before Labor Day (observed) Isle of Wight Bay, Ocean City, MD; Safety Zone All waters of Isle of Wight Bay within a 200 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°22′31″ N., longitude 075°04′34″ W. 25. July 4th Assawoman Bay, Fenwick Island—Ocean City, MD; Safety Zone All waters of Assawoman Bay within a 360 yard radius of the fireworks launch location on the pier at the West end of Northside Park, in approximate position latitude 38°25′55″ N., longitude 075°03′53″ W. 26. July 4th; December 31st. Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore Inner Harbor, MD; Safety Zone All waters of Baltimore Harbor, Patapsco River, within a 280 yard radius of a fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°16′36.7″ N., longitude 076°35′53.8″ W., located northwest of the Domino Sugar refinery wharf at Baltimore, Maryland. (c.) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—COTP Zone 1. July 4th Linkhorn Bay, Virginia Beach, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Linkhorn Bay within a 400 yard radius of the fireworks display in approximate position latitude 36°52′20″ N., longitude 076°00′38″ W., located near the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club, Virginia Beach, Virginia. 2. September—last Friday or October—1st Friday York River, West Point, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the York River near West Point, VA within a 400 yard radius of the fireworks display located in approximate position latitude 37°31′25″ N., longitude 076°47′19″ W. 3. July 4th York River, Yorktown, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the York River within a 400 yard radius of the fireworks display in approximate position latitude 37°14′14″ N., longitude 076°30′02″ W., located near Yorktown, Virginia. 4. July 4th, July 5th, July 6th, or July 7th James River, Newport News, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the James River within a 325 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 36°58′30″ N., longitude 076°26′19″ W., located in the vicinity of the Newport News Shipyard, Newport News, Virginia. 5. June—4th Friday; July—1st Friday; July 4th Chesapeake Bay, Norfolk, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Chesapeake Bay within a 400 yard radius of the fireworks display located in position latitude 36°57′21″ N., longitude 076°15′00″ W., located near Ocean View Fishing Pier. 6. July 4th or 5th. Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Chesapeake Bay 400 yard radius of the fireworks display in approximate position latitude 36°55′02″ N., longitude 076°03′27″ W., located at the First Landing State Park at Virginia Beach, Virginia. 7. July 4th; December 31st; January—1st Elizabeth River, Southern Branch, Norfolk, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Elizabeth River Southern Branch in an area bound by the following points: latitude 36°50′54.8″ N., longitude 076°18′10.7″ W.; thence to latitude 36°51′7.9″ N., longitude 076°18′01″ W.; thence to latitude 36°50′45.6″ N., longitude 076°17′44.2″ W.; thence to latitude 36°50′29.6″ N., longitude 076°17′23.2″ W.; thence to latitude 36°50′7.7″ N., longitude 076°17′32.3″ W.; thence to latitude 36°49′58″ N., longitude 076°17′28.6″ W.; thence to latitude 36°49′52.6″ N., longitude 076°17′43.8″ W.; thence to latitude 36°50′27.2″ N., longitude 076°17′45.3″ W. thence to the point of origin. 8. July—3rd Saturday John H. Kerr Reservoir, Clarksville, VA; Safety Zone All waters of John H. Kerr Reservoir within a 400 yard radius of approximate position latitude 36°37′51″ N., longitude 078°32′50″ W., located near the center span of the State Route 15 Highway Bridge. 9. June, July, August, September, and October—every Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday July 4th North Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, VA; Safety Zone A All waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 1000 yard radius of the center located near the shoreline at approximate position latitude 36°51′12″ N., longitude 075°58′06″ W., located off the beach between 17th and 31st streets. 10. September—last Saturday or October—1st Saturday North Atlantic Ocean, VA Beach, VA; Safety Zone B All waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 350 yard radius of approximate position latitude 36°50′35″ N., longitude 075°58′09″ W., located on the 14th Street Fishing Pier. 11. Friday, Saturday and Sunday Labor Day Weekend North Atlantic Ocean, VA Beach, VA; Safety Zone C All waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 350 yard radius of approximate position latitude 36°49′55″ N., longitude 075°58′00″ W., located off the beach between 2nd and 6th streets. 12. July 4th Nansemond River, Suffolk, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Nansemond River within a 350 yard radius of approximate position latitude 36°44′27″ N., longitude 076°34′42″ W., located near Constant's Wharf in Suffolk, VA. 13. July 4th Chickahominy River, Williamsburg, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Chickahominy River within a 400 yard radius of the fireworks display in approximate position latitude 37°14′50″ N., longitude 076°52′17″ W., near Barrets Point, Virginia. 14. July—3rd, 4th and 5th Great Wicomico River, Mila, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Great Wicomico River located within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks display at approximate position latitude 37°50′31″ N., longitude 076°19′42″ W. near Mila, Virginia. 15. July—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday Cockrell's Creek, Reedville, VA; Safety Zone All waters of Cockrell's Creek located within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks display at approximate position latitude 37°49′54″ N., longitude 076°16′44″ W. near Reedville, Virginia. 16. May—last Sunday James River, Richmond, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the James River located within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks display at approximate position latitude 37°31′13.1″ N., longitude 077°25′07.84″ W. near Richmond, Virginia. 17. June—last Saturday Rappahannock River, Tappahannock, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Rappahannock River located within a 400 foot radius of the fireworks display at approximate position latitude 37°55′12″ N., longitude 076°49′12″ W. near Tappahannock, Virginia. 18. July 4th Cape Charles Harbor, Cape Charles, VA; Safety Zone All waters of Cape Charles Harbor located within a 375 foot radius of the fireworks display at approximate position latitude 37°15′46.5″ N., longitude 076°01′30.3″ W. near Cape Charles, Virginia. 19. July 3rd or 4th Pagan River, Smithfield, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Pagan River located within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks display at approximate position latitude 36°59′18″ N., longitude 076°37′45″ W. near Smithfield, Virginia. 20. July 4th Sandbridge Shores, Virginia Beach, VA; Safety Zone All waters of Sandbridge Shores located within a 300 foot radius of the fireworks display at approximate position latitude 36°43′24.9″ N., longitude 075°56′24.9″ W. near Virginia Beach, Virginia. 21. July 4th, 5th or 6th Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA; Safety Zone All waters of Chesapeake Bay located within a 600 foot radius of the fireworks display at approximate position latitude 36°54′58.18″ N., longitude 076°06′44.3″ W. near Virginia Beach, Virginia. 22. July 3rd, 4th and 5th Urbanna Creek, Urbanna, VA; Safety Zone All waters of Urbanna Creek within a 350 foot radius of the fireworks launch site at latitude 37°38′09″ N., longitude 076°34′03″ W., located on land near the east shoreline of Urbanna Creek and south of Bailey Point. 23. April-August, every Friday and Saturday; July 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th; and Friday, Saturday and Sunday of Labor day weekend Elizabeth River Eastern Branch, Norfolk, VA; Safety Zone All waters of the Eastern Branch of Elizabeth River within the area along the shoreline immediately adjacent to Harbor Park Stadium ball park and outward into the river bound by a line drawn from latitude 36°50′29.65″ N., longitude 076°16′48.9″ W., thence south to 36°50′28.79″ N., longitude 076°16′49.12″ W., thence east to 36°50′26.74″ N., longitude 076°16′39.54″ W., thence north to 36°50′27.7″ N., longitude 076°16′39.36″ W. terminating at the SW. corner of Harbor Park finger pier. (d.) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—COTP Zone 1. July 4th; October—1st Saturday Morehead City Harbor Channel, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Morehead City Harbor Channel that fall within a 360 yard radius of latitude 34°43′01″ N., longitude 076°42′59.6″ W., a position located at the west end of Sugar Loaf Island, NC. 2. April—2nd Saturday; July 4th; August—3rd Monday; October—1st Saturday Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Cape Fear River within an area bound by a line drawn from the following points: latitude 34°13′54″ N., longitude 077°57′06″ W.; thence northeast to latitude 34°13′57″ N., longitude 077°57′05″ W.; thence north to latitude 34°14′11″ N., longitude 077°57′07″ W.; thence northwest to latitude 34°14′22″ N., longitude 077°57′19″ W.; thence east to latitude 34°14′22″ N., longitude 077°57′06″ W.; thence southeast to latitude 34°14′07″ N., longitude 077°57′00″ W.; thence south to latitude 34°13′54″ N., longitude 077°56′58″ W.; thence to the point of origin, located approximately 500 yards north of Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. 3. July—1st Saturday and July 4th Green Creek and Smith Creek, Oriental, NC; Safety Zone All waters of Green Creek and Smith Creek that fall within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site at latitude 35°01′29.6″ N., longitude 076°42′10.4″ W., located near the entrance to the Neuse River in the vicinity of Oriental, NC. 4. July 4th Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Pasquotank River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch barge in approximate position latitude 36°17′47″ N., longitude 076°12′17″ W., located approximately 400 yards north of Cottage Point, NC. 5. July 4th, or July 5th Currituck Sound, Corolla, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Currituck Sound within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 36°22′23.8″ N., longitude 075°49′56.3″, located near Whale Head Bay. 6. July 4th; November—3rd Saturday Middle Sound, Figure Eight Island, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Figure Eight Island Causeway Channel from latitude 34°16′32″ N., longitude 077°45′32″ W., thence east along the marsh to a position located at latitude 34°16′19″ N., longitude 077°44′55″ W., thence south to the causeway at position latitude 34°16′16″ N., longitude 077°44′58″ W., thence west along the shoreline to position latitude 34°16′29″ N., longitude 077°45′34″ W., thence back to the point of origin. 7. June—2nd Saturday; July 4th Pamlico River, Washington, NC; Safety Zone All waters of Pamlico River and Tar River within a 300 yard radius of latitude 35°32′25″ N., longitude 077°03′42″ W., a position located on the southwest shore of the Pamlico River, Washington, NC. 8. July 4th Neuse River, New Bern, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Neuse River within a 360 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 35°06′07.1″ N., longitude 077°01′35.8″ W.; located 420 yards north of the New Bern, Twin Span, high-rise bridge. 9. July 4th Edenton Bay, Edenton, NC; Safety Zone All waters within a 300 yard radius of position latitude 36°03′04″ N., longitude 076°36′18″ W., approximately 150 yards south of the entrance to Queen Anne Creek, Edenton, NC. 10. July 4th November—Saturday following Thanksgiving Day Motts Channel, Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC; Safety Zone All waters of Motts Channel within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 34°12′29″ N., longitude 077°48′27″ W., approximately 560 yards south of Sea Path Marina, Wrightsville Beach, NC. 11. July 4th Cape Fear River, Southport, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Cape Fear River within a 600 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 33°54′40″ N., longitude 078°01′18″ W., approximately 700 yards south of the waterfront at Southport, NC. 12. July 4th Big Foot Slough, Ocracoke, NC; Safety Zone All waters of Big Foot Slough within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 35°06′54″ N., longitude 075°59′24″ W., approximately 100 yards west of the Silver Lake Entrance Channel at Ocracoke, NC. 13. August—1st Tuesday New River, Jacksonville, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the New River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 34°44′45″ N., longitude 077°26′18″ W., approximately one half mile south of the Hwy 17 Bridge, Jacksonville, North Carolina. 14. July 4th Pantego Creek, Belhaven, NC; Safety Zone All waters on the Pantego Creek within a 600 foot radius of the launch site on land at position 35°32′35″ N., 076°37′46″ W. 15. July 4th Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Swansboro, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a 300 yard radius of approximate position latitude 34°41′02″ N., longitude 077°07′04″ W., located on Pelican Island. 16. September—4th or last Saturday Shallowbag Bay, Manteo, NC; Safety Zone All waters of Shallowbag Bay within a 200 yard radius of a fireworks barge anchored at latitude 35°54′31″ N., longitude 075°39′42″ W. 17. May—3rd Saturday Pasquotank River; Elizabeth City, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Pasquotank River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge at latitude 36°17′47″ N., longitude 076°12′17″ W., located north of Cottage Point at the shoreline of the Pasquotank River. 18. October—2nd Saturday Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bogue Inlet, Swansboro, NC; Safety Zone All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site at latitude 34°41′02″ N., longitude 077°07′04″ W., located at Bogue Inlet, near Swansboro, NC.
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Stephen P. Metruck, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08756 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2014-0213] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Coquille River, Bandon, OR AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that governs the U.S. 101 highway drawbridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge, near Bandon, Oregon. The change will allow the drawbridge to permanently remain in the closed-to-navigation position, no longer opening for vessel traffic. While there is vessel traffic on this waterway, no one has requested a drawbridge opening since 1998. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns the bridge and requested to update the operating schedule accordingly.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2014-0213. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Program Office, telephone 206-220-7282; email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register § Section Symbol U.S.C.  United States Code A. Regulatory History and Information

    On December 22, 2014, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Coquille River, Coos Bay, OR” in the Federal Register (79 FR 76249). We received four comments on the proposed rule but these comments did not address the substance of this rulemaking. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    ODOT owns and operates the US 101 Highway Bridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge on the Coquille River in Bandon, Oregon. ODOT requested that the drawbridge regulation be amended to allow the bridge to remain in the permanently closed-to-navigation position. ODOT provided the Coast Guard with bridge logs which indicated no request for bridge openings have been received since 1998.

    The Coast Guard believes this rule change is reasonable, and will continue to meet the present and future needs of navigation. Based on the records provided by ODOT to the Coast Guard, it is expected that the new rule will have no known impact to navigation or other waterway users.

    US 101 Highway Bridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides 28.1 feet of vertical clearance at mean high water and 35 feet at low water.

    C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The operating regulations at 33 CFR 117.875 will change the operation of the US 101 Highway Bridge, also known as Bullard's Drawbridge, on the Coquille River in Bandon, Oregon such that it will not be required to open for marine traffic at any time. The change was requested by ODOT, the owner of the bridge, because there have not been any request to open for marine traffic since 1998.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard bases this finding on the fact that the bridge has remained in the closed position for the last 16 years without any impacts to waterway users.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard received no comments on the NPRM for this rule and there is no indication that any small entities will be affected by this rule since the bridge has remained in the closed position for the last 16 years without any impacts to waterway users.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise § 117.875 to read as follows:
    § 117.875 Coquille River.

    The draws of the US 101 highway bridge, mile 3.5 at Bandon, Oregon, need not be opened for the passage of vessels; however, the draws shall be restored to operable condition within 6 months after notification by the District Commander to do so.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. R.T. Gromlich, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08757 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0236] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Sabine River in Orange, TX in support of Deep South Racing Association boat races. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with a boat race competition. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on May 30 and 31, 2015. This rule will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on May 30 and May 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0236]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, U.S. Coast Guard MSU Port Arthur, (409) 719-5086 or email, [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms BNM Broadcast Notices to Mariners DSRA Deep South Racing Association DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LNM Local Notice to Mariners NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard received notice on March 16, 2015 that this event is planned to take place May 30 and 31, 2015. Upon full review of the event details, the Coast Guard determined that additional safety measures are necessary. Completing the full NPRM process would be impracticable, delaying the effective date for this safety zone. Immediate action is necessary to protect event participants and members of the public from hazards associated with high speed boat races on the waterway. This event is advertised and the local community has planned for this event. Delaying the safety zone may also unnecessarily interfere with the planned event and possible contractual obligations.

    The Coast Guard will notify the public and maritime community that the safety zone will be in effect and of its enforcement periods via broadcast notices to mariners (BNM) and will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The Deep South Racing Association (DSRA) is holding a two day watercraft race competition on the Sabine River in Orange, TX on May 30 and 31, 2015. This event poses a hazard to life and property as it involves high speed watercraft racing in a narrow waterway used by other commercial and recreational vessel traffic. Additionally, the race event is likely to attract spectator craft to the area. The Coast Guard determined that a temporary safety zone is needed to protect spectators as well as persons participating in the event. The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking establishing a safety zone are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

    C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing all waters of the Sabine River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to the Naval Reserve Unit and the Orange public boat ramps located in Orange, TX. The northern boundary is from the end of Navy Pier One at 30°05′50″ N. 93°43′15″ W. then easterly to the rivers eastern shore. The southern boundary is a line shoreline to shoreline at latitude 30°05′33″ N. (NAD83).

    This safety zone is needed to protect mariners and event participants from hazards associated with high speed boat races. No person or vessel may enter into or remain in the zone without permission of the Captain of the Port.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The Coast Guard has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The rule will be enforced for 9.5 hours each day for two days; (2) scheduled breaks will be provided to allow waiting vessels to transit safely through the affected area; (3) persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if they obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or the designated representative; and (4) advance notification will be made to the maritime community via BNM and LNM. Therefore, the Coast Guard enforcement of this safety zone is not a significant regulatory action.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through or remain in the safety zone area. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (1) This rule will only be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 6 p.m. each day that it is effective; (2) during non-enforcement hours all vessels will be allowed to transit through the safety zone without having to obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated representative; and (3) vessels will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander during scheduled break periods between races and at other times when permitted by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone established for the protection of spectators from the hazards associated with a personal watercraft race competition. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A checklist and categorical exclusion determination will be provided in the docket accessible as indicated under ADDRESSES.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. A new temporary section, § 165.T08-0236, is added to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0236 Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Sabine River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to the Orange public boat ramps located in Orange, TX. The northern boundary is from the end of old Navy Pier One at 30°05′50″ N. 93°43′15″ W. then easterly to the rivers eastern shore. The southern boundary is a line shoreline to shoreline at latitude 30°05′33″ N. (NAD83).

    (b) Effective dates and enforcement times. This rule is effective on May 30 and 31, 2015. This rule will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on May 30 and 31, 2015.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter into or remain in the zone without permission of the Captain of the Port.

    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the zone may contact the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channels 16, or by phone at (409) 719-5070.

    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur and designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    (d) Information Broadcasts. The Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: March 31, 2015. R.S. Ogrydziak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08759 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0220; FRL-9926-34-Region 4] Air Quality Implementation Plan; Florida; Attainment Plan for the Hillsborough Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP), on June 29, 2012, as amended on June 27, 2013, for the purpose of providing for attainment of the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Hillsborough 2008 Lead nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Hillsborough Area” or “Area”). The Hillsborough Area is comprised of a portion of Hillsborough County in Florida surrounding EnviroFocus Technologies, LLC (hereafter referred to as “EnviroFocus”). The attainment plan includes the base year emissions inventory, an analysis of reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, modeling demonstration of lead attainment, and contingency measures for the Hillsborough Area. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0220. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Zuri Farngalo may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9152 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. What is the background for this action?

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the Lead NAAQS, lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 0.15 µg/m3 calculated over a three-month rolling average. EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to lead emissions.

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, which became effective on December 31, 2010, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009, where there was sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation. Designations for all remaining areas were completed on November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), which became effective on December 31, 2011, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2008-2010. Effective December 31, 2010, the Hillsborough Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. This designation triggered a requirement for Florida to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Area would attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2015.

    FL DEP submitted its 2008 Lead NAAQS attainment SIP for the Hillsborough Area on June 29, 2012, as amended on June 27, 2013, which included the base year emissions inventory and the attainment demonstration. EPA proposed to approve the Hillsborough Area attainment SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS on February 5, 2015. EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment demonstration included a review of the pollutant addressed, emissions inventory requirements, modeling, RACT and RACM requirements, RFP plan, and contingency measures for the Hillsborough Area. Refer to EPA's February 5, 2015, proposed rulemaking for a detailed rationale on EPA's analysis of the Hillsborough area attainment demonstration. See 80 FR 6485.

    II. What is the action EPA is taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's SIP submittal for the Hillsborough Area, as submitted through FL DEP to EPA on June 29, 2012, as amended on June 27, 2013, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Florida's lead attainment plan for the Hillsborough Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of lead attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures.

    EPA has determined that Florida's attainment plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS for the Hillsborough Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's attainment plan for the Hillsborough Area. EPA's analysis for this final action is discussed in Section IV of EPA's February 5, 2015, proposed rulemaking. See 80 FR 6485.

    III. Why is EPA taking this action?

    EPA has determined that all the criteria for Florida's lead attainment plan for the Hillsborough Area have been met. EPA has determined that Florida's June 29, 2012, SIP submission, as amended on June 27, 2013, meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's June 29, 2012, SIP submission (as amended on June 27, 2013), which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT analysis, contingency measures and RFP plan.

    IV. EPA's Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment on March 9, 2015, from the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Environmental Health (hereafter referred to as the “Commenter”), in response to EPA's proposed rule to approve the attainment demonstration for the Hillsborough Area for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. A summary of the comment and EPA's response is provided below.

    Comment: The Commenter mentions that FDEP fails to account for the significant lead air pollution being generated by leaded aviation fuel (“avgas”) from regional airports. Specifically, the Commenter states that that the “SIP must address the significant contributions of lead air pollution from Hillsborough County's regional aviation airports and include Reasonably Available Control Technology and Reasonably Available Control Measures (“RACT/RACM”) to reduce those lead air pollution threats.”

    Response: EPA does not believe that it is necessary for the attainment demonstration for the Hillsborough Area for the 2008 lead NAAQS to regulate the lead emissions resulting from avgas emitted by aircrafts using regional airports that are located near to the nonattainment area. First, although this is not determinative, there are no airports within the 2008 Lead nonattainment boundary for the Hillsborough Area to which RACT/RACM could be applied. Second, and more importantly, available information does not indicate that lead emissions from nearby airports or from general aviation aircrafts that use them are impacting receptors in the Hillsborough Area. The nonattainment area is about a 1.14 mile radius circle encompassing the EnviroFocus facility, the source that available information indicates is the sole cause of the lead NAAQS violations in this nonattainment area. Prior to making the determination concerning the appropriate boundary for the nonattainment area, EPA reviewed the technical supporting data 1 and considered all the potential sources of lead in Hillsborough County. EPA determined, based on this information that lead emissions from aircraft combusting avgas and using the regional airports did not cause or contribute to the monitored violations of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Therefore, the designation of the Hillsborough County area excluded those airports. The closest airport where leaded avgas is used, Tampa Executive Airport is located approximately 4 miles outside the designated nonattainment boundary. Monitoring data from other locations confirm that there is a sharp decrease in lead concentrations as the distance from a lead source increases. The available technical data for the Hillsborough Area continues to support the EPA's prior conclusion that the airport sources of lead are located too distant from the area to contribute significantly to receptors in the designated nonattainment area. Consequently, EPA believes that the control measures described in the proposed rule for the EnviroFocus facility should be adequate to bring this area into attainment with the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

    1 The analysis of the technical data supporting the boundary can be found in the 2008 Lead Designation Technical Support Document (TSD) for Florida. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0443-0316. This document can also be found in EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0220.

    V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's lead attainment plan for the Hillsborough Area. EPA has determined that the SIP meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's June 29, 2012, SIP submission (as amended on June 27, 2013), which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT analysis, contingency measures and RFP plan.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 15, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart K—Florida 2. In § 52.520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries for “2008 Lead Attainment Demonstration for the Hillsborough Area” and “2008 Lead Attainment Demonstration for Hillsborough Area Amendment” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.520 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions Provision State effective date EPA approval date Federal Register notice Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2008 Lead Attainment Demonstration for Hillsborough Area 6/29/2012 4/16/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] 2008 Lead Attainment Demonstration for Hillsborough Area Amendment 6/27/2013 4/16/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2015-08666 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 745 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304; FRL-9925-71] RIN 2070-AK04 Lead-Based Paint Programs; Extension of Renovator Certifications AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agency is extending the certifications of certain renovators under the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule. In January 2015, the Agency published a proposed rule that would, among other things, change the requirements for the refresher training course that renovators must take to become recertified. EPA is extending certifications of thousands of renovators that will otherwise expire before that rule can be finalized. EPA is taking this action so that, if and when the changes in the proposed rule are finalized, these renovators can take advantage of the changes.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0758; 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. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, or if you are an individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. This rule applies only in states, territories, and tribal areas that do not have authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the authorization status of States, territories, and Tribes, contact the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).

    The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-family housing construction, multi-family housing construction, residential remodelers.

    • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.

    • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.

    • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).

    • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.

    • Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g., training providers.

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    On January 14, 2015, EPA published a proposed rule (Ref. 1) that would, among other things, amend the RRP rule's refresher training requirements (Ref 2). Specifically, EPA proposed to eliminate the hands-on requirement in the refresher training that renovators must take to maintain their certification as required by the RRP rule. This change would make it easier for renovators to take the refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Renovators would save time and travel costs by taking the course from a single location, possibly their own home. If taking the training is made easier, EPA believes that more renovators would take the refresher training and become recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training would lead to a higher number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead-safe manner.

    If the Agency issues a final rule eliminating the hands-on requirement, it would not happen until near the end of 2015. Unfortunately, many renovator certifications will expire before the final rule can be published. In light of this, EPA is extending certifications of a portion of certified renovators until after the expected publication of the final rule to ensure that the benefit of such elimination, if promulgated, is not denied to renovators who were among the first to take the initial training course. Under today's action, renovators who received certification on or before March 31, 2010, now have until March 31, 2016, to get recertified. Renovators who received certification between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, will have one year added to their 5-year certification. Subsequent certifications for renovators receiving the extension will be five years. These extensions only apply to renovators that fall under EPA's renovation program and not to renovators under authorized state programs.

    EPA is creating two sets of extensions for two reasons. First, the Agency does not want to extend the certifications more than is necessary to accommodate the potential finalization of the proposed amendments. Renovator certifications from March 2010 and before need to be extended beyond one year so they will expire after any potential changes are finalized. Second, EPA is extending an additional group of renovator certifications for one year because the Agency does not want all of the extended certifications to expire on the same day. This will prevent hundreds of thousands of renovators from seeking recertification at the same time, which could overwhelm training providers.

    EPA specifically requested comment on such an extension of certifications for certain renovators and the Agency received several comments regarding an extension. Of those comments, the majority were in favor of the extension. In supporting the extension of renovator certifications, one commenter stated that it would alleviate burden on contractors that have difficulty finding a training course within a reasonable distance of them. Another commenter stated that the extension will help ensure that as many certified renovators as possible can take advantage of the burden savings associated with removing the hands-on requirement. Other commenters similarly believe that the certifications should be extended to allow renovators to take advantage of any potential changes that may be finalized. EPA agrees with these commenters and has, accordingly, extended certifications for a portion of renovators.

    Several commenters who supported the extension stated that EPA should announce the extension immediately, before renovators start taking the refresher training that includes the hands-on learning. One of the commenters urged the Agency to bifurcate the certification extension from the other parts of the proposed rule in order to expedite the extension. EPA agrees that it is important to extend the certifications as soon as possible. In order to expedite the extension, the Agency has finalized it separately from the other possible changes from the proposed rule allowing it to be finalized sooner than if it were part of the larger rule that could not be finalized until later in the year.

    One commenter who opposed the extension believes that it will confuse renovators in authorized states because renovators will assume the EPA extension applies to their state's program. To prevent any potential confusion, EPA would like to clarify that this final rule applies only in states where EPA implements the program and not in authorized states.

    Some commenters stated that the 5-year renovator certification is too long and therefore should not be extended. The Agency disagrees about extending the certifications. EPA believes that a one-time extension is justified to allow more renovators to realize the benefits of any potential changes. By extending the certifications, EPA believes that more renovators will seek recertification leading to a higher number of certified renovators resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead-safe manner. EPA previously explained in the preamble to the RRP rule why the Agency promulgated 5-year renovator certifications (Ref. 2)

    As proposed, EPA finds under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule, for the reasons explained in the proposed rule and in this Unit. The Agency believes it is in the public interest to relieve the certification deadline for the renovators identified in this Unit, so that they may benefit from any upcoming amendments to the refresher training requirements. EPA also believes that such action would relieve a restriction in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). EPA therefore issues this final rule making this change effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

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

    This final rule is being issued under the authority of sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3).

    III. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. Lead-based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements. Federal Register (80 FR 1873, January 14, 2015) (FRL-9920-85). 2. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not create any new reporting or recordkeeping obligations. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2070-0155.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule extends the certifications for subset of renovators. Those are the only small entities directly subject to this action, and the action has a positive economic effect on them. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards, Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    V. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 745—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.

    2. In § 745.90, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
    § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification.

    (a) * * *

    (4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician certification, an individual must complete a renovator or dust sampling technician refresher course accredited by EPA under § 745.225 or by a State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this part within 5 years of the date the individual completed the initial course described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the individual does not complete a refresher course within this time, the individual must re-take the initial course to become certified again. Individuals who complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized program on or before March 31, 2010, must complete a renovator refresher course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized program on or before March 31, 2016, to maintain renovator certification. Individuals who completed a renovator course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized program between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, will have one year added to their original 5-year certification.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08789 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 140117052-4402-02] RIN 0648-XD874 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; quota transfer.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2015 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia. These quota adjustments are necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provision. This announcement is intended to inform the public of the revised commercial quota for each state involved.

    DATES:

    Effective April 15, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9112.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are in 50 CFR 648.100-648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.10(c)(1)(i).

    The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan provided a mechanism for summer flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another (December 17, 1993; 58 FR 65936). Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) when evaluating requests for quota transfers or combinations.

    North Carolina has agreed to transfer 11,108 lb (5,039 kg) of its 2015 commercial summer flounder quota to Virginia. This transfer was prompted by landings of the F/V Captain Ed, a North Carolina vessel that was granted safe harbor in Virginia due to mechanical failure, on March 3, 2015. As a result of these landings, a quota transfer is necessary to account for an increase in Virginia landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota.

    The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) have been met. The transfer is consistent with the criteria because it will not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested, the transfer addresses an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery, and the transfer is consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The revised summer flounder commercial quotas for calendar year 2015 are: Virginia, 2,394,228 lb (1,086,003 kg); and North Carolina, 2,983,583 lb (1,353,330 kg).

    Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08735 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 73 Thursday, April 16, 2015 Proposed Rules FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 204 [Docket No. R-1513] RIN 7100-AE31 Regulation D: Reserve Requirements for Depository Institutions AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board is requesting comment on proposed amendments to Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) regarding the payment of interest on certain balances maintained at Federal Reserve Banks by or on behalf of eligible institutions. Specifically, the Board proposes to amend Regulation D to permit interest payments on certain balances to be based on a daily rate rather than on a maintenance period average rate. The proposed amendments should help to enhance the role of such rates of interest in moving the federal funds rate into the target range established by the FOMC, particularly on occasions when changes in those rates do not coincide with the beginning of a maintenance period.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sophia H. Allison, Special Counsel (202/452-3565), Legal Division, or Thomas R. Keating, Financial Analyst (202/973-7401), or Jeffrey W. Huther, Senior Economist (202/452-3139), Division of Monetary Affairs; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263-4869; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    For monetary policy purposes, section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (“the Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. Regulation D, which implements section 19 of the Act, requires that a depository institution meet reserve requirements by holding cash in its vault, or if vault cash is insufficient, in the form of a balance in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank (“Reserve Bank”).1 Section 19 also provides that balances maintained by or on behalf of certain institutions in an account at a Reserve Bank may receive earnings to be paid by the Reserve Bank at least once each quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates. Institutions that are eligible to receive earnings on their balances held at Reserve Banks (“eligible institutions”) include the institutions described in section 19(b)(1)(A) of the Act 2 and any trust company, corporation organized under section 25A or having an agreement with the Board under section 25, or any branch or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978).3 Section 19 also provides that the Board may prescribe regulations concerning the payment of earnings to the depository institutions that maintain balances or on whose behalf balances are maintained, and the responsibilities of depository institutions, Federal Home Loan Banks, and the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility with respect to the crediting and distribution of earnings attributable to balances maintained in a Federal Reserve bank by any such entity on behalf of depository institutions.4

    Regulation D currently requires Reserve Banks to pay interest on balances up to the top of the penalty-free band at a rate of 1/4 percent, and on excess balances at a rate of 1/4 percent.5 Regulation D defines “top of the penalty-free band” to mean an amount equal to an institution's reserve balance requirement plus an amount that is the greater of 10 percent of the institution's reserve balance requirement or $50,000.6 Regulation D defines “excess balances” to mean the average balance maintained in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank by or on behalf of an institution over a reserve maintenance period (“maintenance period”) that exceeds the top of the penalty-free band.7 As such, the balances on which interest is currently payable under Regulation D are balances that are defined as maintenance period average balances.

    1 12 CFR 204.5(a)(1).

    2 Section 19(b)(1)(A) defines “depository institution” as any insured bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act; any mutual savings bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act; any savings bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act; any insured credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act or any credit union which is an eligible to make application to become an insured credit union pursuant to section 201 of such Act; any member as defined in section 2 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act; and any savings association (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) which is an insured depository institution (as defined in such Act) or is eligible to apply to become an insured depository institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. See 12 U.S.C. 461(b)(1)(A).

    3 Federal Reserve Act section 19(b)(12)(C), 12 U.S.C. 461(b)(12)(C), see 12 CFR 204.2(y) (definition of “eligible institution”).

    4See Federal Reserve Act section 19(b)(12), 12 U.S.C. 461(b)(12).

    5See § 204.10(b)(1) and (2) of Regulation D, 12 CFR 204.10(b)(1) and (2).

    6See § 204.2(gg) of Regulation D, 12 CFR 204.2(gg).

    7See § 204.2(z) of Regulation D, 12 CFR 204.2(z).

    Currently, interest on balances up to the top of the penalty-free band and on excess balances of eligible institutions at Reserve Banks is, in each case, calculated by multiplying the average applicable interest rate over the maintenance period by the amount that the institution maintains, on average, over the maintenance period. If the rate of interest on excess balances were to change at a time other than at the beginning of a maintenance period, the interest on excess balances would be the average interest rate for excess balances over the maintenance period multiplied by the average excess balances maintained over the maintenance period. For example, if the interest rate on excess balances were to increase in the middle of a maintenance period from 25 basis points (1/4 percent) to 50 basis points (1/2 percent), the interest on excess balances for that maintenance period would be the average excess balances maintained over the maintenance period multiplied by the average excess balance rate, i.e., 37.5 basis points. As a result, the full effect of the increase in the excess balance rate to 50 basis points may not show through to market rates until some number of days following the announcement of the new rate.

    II. Summary of Proposal In General

    The Board proposes to amend Regulation D to permit interest payments on certain balances to be based on a daily rate rather than on a maintenance period average rate. The proposed amendments would define an “IORR 8 rate” and calculate interest on balances maintained up to the top of the penalty-free band as the average IORR rate over a maintenance period multiplied by the average balances maintained up to the top of the penalty-free band over the maintenance period. The proposed amendments would also define an “IOER 9 rate” and, for institutions that maintain balances in excess of the top of the penalty-free band on average over the maintenance period, would calculate interest as daily total balances multiplied by the daily IOER rate, reduced by an adjustment to avoid double payment of interest on balances up to the top of the penalty-free band. The proposed amendments would therefore facilitate the calculation of interest paid at the IOER rate on a daily basis applied to a daily balance, while preserving the calculation of interest paid at the IORR rate as a maintenance period average rate applied to a maintenance period average balance. The proposed amendments should allow the full effect of an increase in the IOER rate to show through to the daily level of short-term market rates when an IOER rate change does not coincide with the beginning of a maintenance period.

    8I.e., “interest on required reserves.” “Required reserves” is a term that historically referred to the amount that an institution must maintain on average over a maintenance period to satisfy its reserve balance requirement. Because Regulation D currently provides for a penalty-free band around an institution's reserve balance requirement, an institution's balances up to the top of the penalty-free band is the current equivalent of what was previously meant by “required reserves.”

    9I.e., “interest on excess reserves.”

    The proposed amendments would make other changes to Regulation D to conform certain provisions to current practices as well as to improve organization and make other clarifications. Currently, § 204.10(b)(3) of Regulation D provides for payment of interest on term deposits at any other rate or rates as determined by the Board from time to time, not to exceed the general level of short term interest rates. The proposed amendments would reflect current practices for term deposit offerings by providing that interest on term deposits is either the amount equal to the principal amount of the term deposit multiplied by a rate specified in advance, or multiplied by the rate determined by a term deposit auction. The proposed amendments would also make a conforming change to current § 204.10(d), governing “excess balance accounts,” 10 to provide for interest on such balances to be paid at the IOER rate.

    10 An excess balance account as an account at a Reserve Bank that is established by one or more eligible institutions through an agent and in which only excess balances of the participating eligible institutions may at any time be maintained. An excess balance account is not a pass-through account for purposes of this part.” See Regulation D 12 CFR 204.2(aa).

    The proposed amendments would make other changes to improve the organization of the section, including placing provisions generally applicable to payments of interest together into one section (proposed § 204.10(a)). The proposed amendments would also add a new provision to proposed § 204.10(a) specifying that the amount of a balance maintained in a Reserve Bank account is determined at the close of the Reserve Bank's business day. This provision would eliminate potential confusion over which balance (e.g., intra-day balance or end-of-day balance) would be used as the basis for the calculation of interest.

    Finally, the proposed amendments would delete the provision currently in § 204.10(b) of Regulation D providing that interest rates are as determined by the Board from time to time. The Board proposes to announce future changes to the IORR rate or the IOER rate, or to the mechanisms for calculating the interest on term deposits, through amendments to Regulation D. The proposed amendments would add § 204.10(f) to Regulation D, providing that generally no public comment will be sought on future changes to such rates or mechanisms, and that the effective date of such future changes will generally not be delayed.

    Following the detailed description of the proposal below are numerical examples illustrating the key features of the proposed amendments in cases when the IORR and IOER rates change in the middle of the reserve maintenance period.

    Detailed Description of Proposal 1. Proposed Calculation of Interest

    Currently, the amount of interest payable on balances maintained at a Reserve Bank by or on behalf of an eligible institution is equal to the sum of IORR and IOER. IORR is currently calculated as the arithmetic average of the daily IORR rates in effect over a maintenance period multiplied by the average level of balances up to the top of the penalty-free band maintained over that maintenance period. IOER is currently calculated as the arithmetic average of the daily IOER rate in effect over a maintenance period multiplied by the institution's average level of excess balances maintained over that maintenance period.

    As discussed above, the current methodology for calculating IOER implies that an increase in the IOER rate may not immediately show through fully to short-term market rates in cases when an IOER rate change does not coincide with the beginning of a maintenance period. To address this issue, for institutions that maintain balances on average over the maintenance period in excess of the top of the penalty-free band, the proposed amendments to Regulation D would implement the IOER rate by multiplying the IOER rate in effect each day of the maintenance period by the institution's total balances that day, less an adjustment to avoid the double payment of interest on balances maintained up to the top of the penalty-free band. The proposed amendments would make no changes to the calculation of IORR under the current provisions of Regulation D—that is, IORR would continue to be implemented by multiplying the average IORR rate over the maintenance period by the average level of balances up to the top of the penalty-free band maintained over the maintenance period.

    The implementation of IOER as set forth in the proposed amendments—that is, calculating IOER based on the daily IOER rate rather than the average of the daily rates—should support the implementation of monetary policy in cases when changes in policy rates are implemented in the middle of a maintenance period. For example, under the proposed amendments, if the Board raised the IOER rate from 25 basis points to 50 basis points in the middle of a maintenance period, eligible institutions would likely base their asset-liability management decisions on the effective IOER rate of 50 basis points for the remainder of that maintenance period.

    2. Addressing a Special Case: A Floor on Interest Payments for Institutions That Maintain Balances on Average Over a Maintenance Period in Excess of the Top of the Penalty-Free Band

    Under the proposed amendments, an institution's daily pattern of balances maintained over the maintenance period in a Reserve Bank account would determine its IOER. There is a special case, however, in which an institution that maintained positive excess balances on average over a maintenance period could end up receiving less in total interest payments than if it had held balances equal to the top of the penalty-free band on average over the maintenance period. This special case would arise only in those maintenance periods in which a rate change does not coincide with the beginning of a maintenance period and the institution maintains relatively high levels of total balances in its Reserve Bank account on days when the IORR rate and the IOER rate are lower.

    To address this special case, the proposed amendments specify a minimum interest payment, or floor, applicable to total interest payments for any institution that maintains balances on average over the maintenance period in excess of the top of the penalty-free band. Specifically, the proposed amendments set the floor for institutions maintaining excess balances 11 at an amount that would be equal to the interest payment that the institution would have received if it had maintained balances up to the top of its penalty-free band on average over the maintenance period. Including the interest payment floor in the proposed amendments for these institutions means that any institution that maintained balances in excess of the top of the penalty-free band on average over the maintenance period, but maintained balances each day of the period in a manner that would cause the special case above to apply, would be assured that it would receive interest payments no lower than the interest payments it would have received if it had maintained balances up to the top of the penalty-free band on average over the maintenance period.

    11 Specifically, institutions that maintain balances that are, on average over the maintenance period, in excess of the top of the penalty-free band.

    At present and for the foreseeable future, the proposed floor is one that likely will have little practical significance for most institutions or for federal funds market activity. Given the very large quantities of excess balances currently in the banking system, the Board believes that there are very few institutions for which this special case would be relevant. Nonetheless, the inclusion of the interest payment floor in the proposed amendments avoids penalizing an institution that maintained positive excess balances on average over a maintenance period, but nevertheless would receive less in interest under the proposed methodology than it would if it had maintained balances up to the top of the penalty-free band.

    3. Proposed Formulas for the Calculation of Interest and Examples

    The proposed methodology calculates IOER by multiplying the IOER rate in effect each day of the maintenance period by the institution's total balances that day, less an adjustment to avoid the double payment of interest on balances maintained up to the top of the penalty-free band. Under the proposed methodology, the formulas used in determining interest payments distinguish between two basic cases—one in which institutions maintain, on average over the maintenance period, balances in excess of the top of the penalty-free band, and a second in which the institution maintains, on average over the maintenance period, balances that are equal to or lower than the top of the penalty-free band. In the first case, the proposed methodology would result in calculating the interest on balances in an account at a Reserve Bank as follows:

    EP16AP15.003 Where: 14 = the number of days in a reserve maintenance period 360 = the number of days in the year used to annualize interest Avg. IORR rate = arithmetic average of the daily IORR rates in effect over a maintenance period BMRBR = average balances maintained to satisfy a reserve balance requirement (up to the top of the penalty-free band) over a maintenance period Avg. IOER rate = arithmetic average of the daily IOER rates in effect over a maintenance period Total Balances = daily total balance held

    In the second case, the proposed methodology would result in calculating the interest as follows:

    EP16AP15.004

    The following are examples of the application of the key features of the proposed amendments to a case where the IORR and IOER rates change in the middle of a maintenance period. Each of the examples assumes:

    • The top of the penalty-free band is $100,000;

    • Balances maintained are the same for each day of the calendar week of the two-week maintenance period. Thus, the average daily balance for each week is equal to the daily amount of balances maintained;

    • The IORR and IOER annual rates are set at 0.36 percent in week one and at 0.72 percent in week two; and

    • Interest is calculated based on a 360-day year.

    As a baseline, Example 1 applies the current methodology for calculating IORR and IOER interest payments for an eligible institution that maintains an average daily balance of $150,000 throughout the maintenance period:

    Example 1—Current Calculation of IORR and IOER Week Balance IORR Rate IOER Rate 1 150,000 0.0036 0.0036 2 150,000 0.0072 0.0072 IORR Payment 21.00 IOER Payment 10.50

    In Example 1, the institution maintains a balance of $150,000 each day of the maintenance period. IORR is calculated as the average IORR rate (annualized using a 360-day year) over the maintenance period (0.54 percent) multiplied by average balances up to the top of the penalty free band over the maintenance period ($100,000) times the number of days in the maintenance period (14), resulting in an IORR payment of $21.00. IOER is similarly calculated as the average IOER rate (annualized using a 360-day year) over the maintenance period (0.54 percent) multiplied by average excess balances over the maintenance period ($50,000) times the number of days in the maintenance period (14), resulting in an IOER payment of $10.50. The institution thus receives $31.50 in total interest payments for the two week maintenance period.

    Example 2—Proposed Amendments: Week 1 Balances = Week 2 Balances Week 1 Balance IORR Rate IEOR Rate 1 150,000 0.0036 0.0036 2 150,000 0.0072 0.0072 IORR Payment 21.00 IOER Payment 10.50

    In Example 2, the institution again maintains a balance of $150,000 each day of the maintenance period, but interest payments are calculated according to Equation (1) under the proposed amendments. The calculation of IORR is the same as in Example 1: The average IORR rate over the maintenance period (0.54 percent) multiplied by average balances up to the top of the penalty free band over the maintenance period ($100,000) times the number of days in the maintenance period (14), resulting in an IORR payment of $21.00. However, the calculation of IOER is based on the application of proposed § 204.10(b)(1)(B)(i) and (ii), where the amount of IOER is equal to the IOER rate in effect each day multiplied by the total balances maintained on that day for each day of the maintenance period, reduced by the amount specified in § 204.10(b)(1)(B)(ii). The amount of the reduction prescribed by proposed § 204.10(b)(1)(B)(ii) is equal to the average IOER rate over the maintenance period multiplied by the average balance up to the top of the penalty-free band maintained over the maintenance period. The proposed amendments described in Example 2 yield a total IOER payment of $10.50. Thus, the total interest payments in this case are exactly the same as in Example 1. For any institution that maintains excess balances, this is a general result: If balances are constant across all days of the maintenance period, the proposed methodology generates exactly the same interest payments as the calculation under current provisions of Regulation D.

    Example 3—Proposed Amendments: Week 2 Balances Exceed Week 1 Balances Week 1 Balance IORR Rate IOER Rate 1 100,000 0.0036 0.0036 2 200,000 0.0072 0.0072 IORR Payment 21.00 IOER Payment 14.00

    In Example 3, the eligible institution's maintenance of excess balances during the course of the maintenance period is tilted toward Week 2, when the higher IOER rate is in effect. The calculation for IORR under the proposed amendments is unchanged from Example 1 (current methodology), resulting in an IORR payment of $21.00. The calculation for IOER under the proposed amendments, however, results in an IOER payment of $14.00 calculated as follows:

    IOER = ($100,000 * 0.0036) * 7/360 + ($200,000 * 0.0072) * 7/360 − (100,000 * 0.0054) * 14/360 [(Daily Balance Week 1 * IOER Week 1) + (Daily Balance Week 2 * IOER Week 2) − (Avg. Required Reserve Balance * Average IOER rate)].

    IOER is higher under the proposed amendments as shown in Example 3 ($14.00) than under the current provisions of Regulation D as shown in Example 1 ($10.50). This illustrates a key feature of the proposed amendments: when an IOER rate change occurs in the middle of a maintenance period, eligible institutions immediately begin receiving interest on balances in excess of the penalty-free band at the new IOER rate. In Example 3, the eligible institution begins earning the higher IOER rate of 0.72 percent as soon as the higher IOER rate becomes effective in the middle of the maintenance period. In contrast, as shown in Example 1, the effective IOER rate on balances in excess of the penalty-free band under the current provisions of Regulation D is 0.54 percent—the average of the IOER rates in weeks 1 and 2. In Example 1, the full effect of the increase in IOER to 72 basis points would not be reflected in interest payments until the beginning of a new maintenance period.

    Example 4—Role of the Floor on Interest Payments in Proposed Methodology Week 1 Balance IORR Rate IOER Rate 1 130,000 0.0036 0.0036 2 80,000 0.0072 0.0072 IORR Payment 21.00 IOER Payment 0.00 Memo: IOER Payment (without Floor) −0.69

    In Examples 2 and 3, the provision in the proposed amendments for a floor on interest payments did not come into play. In Example 4, the institution's average total balances over the period are $105,000 (implying only $5,000 in excess), and the institution ends up holding higher balances during the first week of the maintenance period when the IOER rate is lower. As shown in the Example 4 table above, the institution maintains $130,000 in the first week of the maintenance period and $80,000 in the second week of the maintenance period. Calculating IOER under the proposed amendments would result in a “pre-floor” interest payment on excess balances of −$0.69. The negative “interest payment” results from the end of period adjustment factor in proposed § 204.10(b)(1)(B)(ii). That adjustment factor is equal to the average IOER rate over the maintenance period multiplied by the average balance up to the top of the penalty-free band maintained over the maintenance period. Since the institution held the majority of its balances that would receive the daily IOER rate when the daily IOER rate was below the average IOER rate, the adjustment factor in proposed § 204.10(b)(1)(B)(ii) was greater than the interest attributable to balances over the top of the penalty-free band in proposed § 204.10(b)(1)(B)(i). With the inclusion in the proposed amendments of the interest payment floor, however, the interest payment on excess balances is revised upwards to 0 and the eligible institution's total interest payment is $21.00—the same as the interest payments the institution would have earned had it held balances on average exactly equal to the top of the penalty-free band ($100,000) over the maintenance period.

    Example 5—Balances Equal to or Lower Than Top of Penalty-Free Band Week 1 Balance IORR Rate IOER Rate 1 90,000 0.0036 0.0036 2 106,000 0.0072 0.0072 IORR Payment 20.58 IOER Payment 0.00

    The first four examples involve eligible institutions that maintained balances, on average over the maintenance period, in excess of the top of their penalty-free bands. Example 5 involves an eligible institution that maintained balances on average over the maintenance period equal to $98,000, slightly lower than the top of the penalty-free band. Under the proposed amendments, the interest calculation method for institutions that hold average balances over the maintenance period equal to or lower than the top of the penalty-free band would not change from the current practice. For these institutions, interest would be calculated by taking the average IORR rate over the maintenance period (0.54 percent) multiplied by average balances up to the top of the penalty free band over the maintenance period ($98,000) times the number of days in the maintenance period (14), resulting in an IORR payment of $20.58. The institution does not hold balances above the top of the penalty-free band and thus would not receive an IOER payment nor would it benefit from holding larger balances on days when the higher IOER rate was in effect.

    III. Section by Section Analysis Section 204.10(a) General

    The Board proposes to amend § 204.10(a) to incorporate certain provisions of current § 204.10(b) and to add a new provision describing the amount of a “balance” in an account at a Reserve Bank for purposes of the section.

    Proposed § 204.10(a)(1) incorporates part of current § 204.10(b)(3) into current § 204.10(a) and provides that, except as provided in § 204.10(c), interest on balances maintained at Reserve Banks by or on behalf of an eligible institution is established by the Board in accordance with this section, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.

    Proposed § 204.10(a)(2) adds a new provision to Regulation D specifying that the amount of a “balance” in an account at a Reserve Bank for purposes of § 204.10 is determined at the close of the Reserve Bank's business day.

    Proposed § 204.10(a)(3) moves the definition of “short-term interest rates” from current § 204.10(b)(3) into proposed § 204.10(a)(3).

    Proposed § 204.10(a)(4) moves the provision in current § 204.10(a) regarding other terms and conditions for interest payments as the Board may prescribe into proposed § 204.10(a)(4).

    Section 204.10(b) Payment of interest

    Proposed § 204.10(b) relates to payments of interest on balances at Reserve Banks: excess balances, balances up to the top of the penalty-free band, and term deposits.

    Proposed § 204.10(b)(1) and (2) set forth the amount of interest to be paid on balances of institutions that, on average over the maintenance period, maintain balances in excess of the top of the penalty-free band. These two paragraphs provide for interest at the IORR rate, interest at the IOER rate, the adjustment to interest at the IOER rate, and the minimum interest amount.

    Proposed § 204.10(b)(3) provides that interest for institutions that, on average over the maintenance period, maintain balances that are equal to or lower than the top of the penalty-free band is the average IORR rate over the maintenance period multiplied by the average balances maintained over the maintenance period.

    Proposed § 204.10(b)(4) provides for interest on term deposits. New § 204.10(b)(4)(A) provides for interest on term deposits at a rate specified in advance by the Board, in light of existing short-term market rates, to maintain the federal funds rate at a level consistent with monetary policy objectives. Section 204.10(b)(4)(B) provides for interest on term deposits at a rate determined by the auction through which such term deposits are offered.

    Proposed § 204.10(b)(5) specifies the IORR rate used in proposed § 204.10(b)(1) and (3), and the IOER rate used in proposed § 204.10(b)(1)(B)(i) and (ii).

    Section 204.10(c) Pass-Through Balances

    Proposed § 204.10(c) sets forth the language of current § 204.10(c), with one change. In the second sentence of proposed § 204.10(c), the word “shall” is changed to “may” to conform the paragraph with the provisions of § 204.10(b).

    Section 204.10(d) Excess Balance Accounts

    Proposed § 204.10(d)(5) revises current § 204.10(d)(5) by specifying that interest on excess balance accounts is the amount equal to the IOER rate in effect each day multiplied by the total balances maintained on that day for each day of the maintenance period.

    Section 204.10(f) Procedure for Determination of Rates

    Proposed § 204.10(f) sets forth a provision not previously appearing in Regulation D governing the procedure for determination of rates. Specifically, proposed § 204.10(f) provides that the Board anticipates that it generally will not seek advance notice, public comment, or delayed effective dates with respect to changes in the rates of interest set forth in § 204.10. Proposed § 204.10(f) also specifies the reasons that the Board generally expects to apply in such cases.

    IV. Form of Comment Letters

    Comment letters should refer to Docket No. R-1513 and, when possible, should use a standard typeface with a font size of 10 or 12; this will enable the Board to convert text submitted in paper form to machine-readable form through electronic scanning, and will facilitate automated retrieval of comments for review. Comments may be mailed electronically to [email protected]

    V. Solicitation of Comments Regarding Use of “Plain Language”

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 requires the Board to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board invites comments on whether the proposed rule is clearly stated and effectively organized, and how the Board might make the proposed text easier to understand.

    VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    In accordance with Section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), the Board has reviewed the proposed amendments to Regulation D. A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after consideration of comments received during the public comment period.

    1. Statement of the objectives of the proposal. The Board is proposing to amend Regulation D in order to facilitate the conduct of monetary policy. Section 19 of the Act was enacted to impose reserve requirements on certain deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions for monetary policy purposes. The Board proposes to amend Regulation D to facilitate the transmission of monetary policy through the rates of interest paid on balances of eligible institutions at Reserve Banks. Specifically, the Board proposes to amend Regulation D to permit interest payments on certain balances to be based on a daily rate rather than on a maintenance period average rate. The proposed amendments should help to enhance the role of such rates of interest in moving the federal funds rate into the target range established by the FOMC.

    2. Small entities affected by the proposal. The proposal would affect all eligible institutions that maintain balances to satisfy reserve balance requirements or excess balances at a Reserve Bank. The Board estimates that there are currently approximately 8,725 eligible institutions that maintain such balances. The Board estimates that approximately 6,950 of these institutions could be considered small entities with assets of $550 million or less.

    3. Other federal rules. The Board believes that no federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed amendments.

    4. Significant alternatives to the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments do not impose any burden on depository institutions of any size. The proposed amendments relate to payment of earnings on balances of eligible institutions and do not provide for any new or additional reporting or other obligations.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposed rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Parts 204

    Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 204 as follows:

    PART 204—RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D) 1. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 371a, 461, 601, 611, and 3105.

    2. Section 204.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d)(5), and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 204.10 Payment of interest on balances.

    (a) General. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, interest on balances maintained at Federal Reserve Banks by or on behalf of an eligible institution shall be established by the Board in accordance with this section, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.

    (2) For purposes of this section, the amount of a “balance” in an account maintained by or on behalf of an eligible institution at a Federal Reserve Bank is determined at the close of the Federal Reserve Bank's business day.

    (3) For purposes of this section, “short-term interest rates” are rates on obligations with maturities of no more than one year, such as the primary credit rate and rates on term federal funds, term repurchase agreements, commercial paper, term Eurodollar deposits, and other similar instruments.

    (4) The payment of interest on balances under this section shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe.

    (b) Payment of interest. Interest on balances maintained at Federal Reserve Banks by or on behalf of an eligible institution is established as set forth in paragraphs

    (b)(1) through (4) of this section. The rates for IORR and IOER are set forth in paragraph (b)(5) of this section.

    (1) For institutions that maintain balances that are, on average over the maintenance period, in excess of the top of the penalty-free band, interest is:

    (A) The amount equal to the average IORR rate over the maintenance period multiplied by the average balance up to the top of the penalty-free band maintained over the maintenance period; plus

    (B)(i) The amount equal to the IOER rate in effect each day multiplied by the total balances maintained on that day for each day of the maintenance period; minus

    (ii) The amount equal to the average IOER rate over the maintenance period multiplied by the average balance up to the top of the penalty-free band maintained over the maintenance period.

    (2) The interest amount under paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall not be less than an amount equal to the amount specified in paragraph (b)(1)(A) of this section.

    (3) For institutions that maintain balances that are, on average over the maintenance period, equal to or lower than the top of the penalty-free band, interest is the amount equal to the average IORR rate over the maintenance period multiplied by the average balance maintained over the maintenance period.

    (4) For term deposits, interest is:

    (A) The amount equal to the principal amount of the term deposit multiplied by a rate specified in advance by the Board, in light of existing short-term market rates, to maintain the federal funds rate at a level consistent with monetary policy objectives; or

    (B) The amount equal to the principal amount of the term deposit multiplied by a rate determined by the auction through which such term deposits are offered.

    (5) The rates for IORR and IOER are:

    Rate Effective IORR 1/4 percent IOER 1/4 percent

    (c) Pass-through balances. A pass-through correspondent that is an eligible institution may pass back to its respondent interest paid on balances maintained to satisfy a reserve balance requirement of that respondent. In the case of balances maintained by a pass-through correspondent that is not an eligible institution, a Reserve Bank may pay interest only on the balances maintained to satisfy a reserve balance requirement of one or more respondents up to the top of the penalty-free band, and the correspondent shall pass back to its respondents interest paid on balances in the correspondent's account.

    (d) * * *

    (5) Interest on balances of eligible institutions maintained in an excess balance account is the amount equal to the IOER rate in effect each day multiplied by the total balances maintained on that day for each day of the maintenance period.

    (f) Procedure for determination of rates. The Board anticipates that notice and public participation with respect to changes in the rate or rates of interest to be paid under this section will generally be impracticable, unnecessary, contrary to the public interest, or otherwise not required in the public interest, and that there will generally be reason and good cause in the public interest why the effective date should not be deferred for 30 days. The reason or reasons in such cases are generally expected to include that such notice, public participation, or deferment of effective date would prevent the action from becoming effective as promptly as necessary in the public interest, would permit speculators or others to reap unfair profits or to interfere with the Board's actions taken with a view to accommodating commerce and business and with regard to their bearing upon the general credit situation of the country, would provoke other consequences contrary to the public interest, would not aid the persons affected, or would otherwise serve no useful purpose.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 13, 2015. Michael Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08743 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-143040-14] RIN 1545-BM59 Reporting for Premium; Basis Reporting by Securities Brokers and Basis Determination for Debt Instruments and Options; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-143040-14) that was published in the Federal Register on Friday, March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13292). The IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to information reporting by brokers for transactions involving debt instruments and options.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations published at 80 FR 13292, March 13, 2015, are still being accepted and must be received by June 11, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Lew at (202) 317-7053 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-143040-14) that is the subject of these corrections is under section 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-143040-14) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-143040-14), that was the subject of FR Doc. 2015-05654, is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 13293, in the preamble, first column, the second line of the third paragraph, the language “contained in section 1.6045A-1 relating ” is corrected to read “contained in § 1.6045A-1 relating”.

    2. On page 13293, in the preamble, third column, the tenth line from the top of the column, the language “not make the election. The temporary” is corrected to read “not made the election. The temporary”.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-08745 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 95 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 433 [CMS-2392-P] RIN 0938-AS53 Medicaid Program; Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems (90/10) AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would extend enhanced funding for Medicaid eligibility systems as part of a state's mechanized claims processing system, and would update conditions and standards for such systems, including adding to and updating current Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) conditions and standards. These changes would allow states to improve customer service and support the dynamic nature of Medicaid eligibility, enrollment, and delivery systems.

    DATES:

    To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2392-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

    You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2392-P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8016.

    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2392-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses prior to the close of the comment period:

    a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

    b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-0265 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.

    Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

    For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Victoria Guarisco (410) 786-0265, for issues related to administrative questions. Carrie Feher (410) 786-8905, for issues related to regulatory impact questions. Denise G. Osborn-Harrison (410) 786-1661 or Martin Rice (410) 786-2417, for general questions.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

    Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

    I. Executive Summary A. Purpose

    This proposed rule would revise the regulatory definition of Medicaid mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems to include Medicaid eligibility and enrollment (E&E) systems, which would have the consequence of making available for E&E systems the enhanced federal financial participation (FFP) specified in section 1903(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (the Act) on an ongoing basis. Enhanced FFP will be available, under certain circumstances, for costs of such systems at a 90 percent federal matching rate for design and development activities, and at a 75 percent federal matching rate for maintenance and operations activities. In addition to lifting the time limit that currently applies to the inclusion of E&E systems in the definition of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, we are proposing changes to the standards and conditions applicable to such systems in order to access enhanced funding. We are also soliciting comment on new approaches to systems development, acquisition approvals and formal certification. Specifically, we are proposing new definitions for “Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) software”, “open source,” “proprietary,” “shared services,” and “MMIS Module.”

    B. Summary of the Major Provisions

    We are proposing changes to §§ 433.110, 433.111, 433.112, 433.116, 433.119, and 433.120. These changes provide for the 90 percent enhanced FFP for design, development and implementation activities for E&E systems to continue on an ongoing basis. The proposed changes would allow the states to complete fully modernized E&E systems and will support the dynamics of national Medicaid enrollment and delivery system needs. The changes will also set forth additional criteria for the submission, review and approval of Advance Planning Documents (APDs).

    In addition, we are proposing changes to provisions within 45 CFR part 95, subpart F, § 95.611. These changes align all Medicaid IT requirements with existing policy for Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) pertaining to prior approvals when states release acquisition solicitation documents or execute contracts above a certain threshold amounts. In addition we propose to amend § 95.611(a)(2) by removing the reference to 45 CFR 1355.52.

    C. Summary of Costs and Benefits Provision description Total costs Total benefits 42 CFR part 433 The federal net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 of implementing the proposed regulation on eligibility systems is approximately $3 billion. This includes approximately $5.1 billion in increased federal costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated maintenance and operations costs. These costs represent only the federal share. These figures were derived from states' actual system development and maintenance costs as the foundation for projected costs We project lower costs over the 10-year budget window due to the increased savings to operating one E&E system and eliminating legacy systems. The costs shift from mostly 90 percent FFP for design, development, and installation to 75 percent FFP for maintenance and operations over time. (federal share only). 42 CFR part 433 The state net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 of implementing the proposed regulation on eligibility systems is approximately −$1.1 billion. This includes approximately $572 million in state costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated maintenance and operations costs. These costs represent only the state share We project savings for states over the 10-year budget window due to moving away from operating two or more systems, and replacing legacy systems. 45 CFR part 95, subpart F: § 95.611 This is an administrative change with no associated costs This administrative change is expected to result in nominal savings from increased efficiency. * See section VI. of this proposed rule for the underlying assumptions in support of these totals and further explanation. II. Background A. Legislative History and Statutory Authority

    Section 1903(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act provides for federal financial participation (FFP) at the rate of 90 percent for state expenditures for the design, development, or installation of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) determines are likely to provide more efficient, economical and effective administration of the state plan. In addition, section 1903(a)(3)(B) provides for federal financial participation (FFP) at the rate of 75 percent for state expenditures for maintenance and operation of such systems.

    In a final rule published October 13, 1989, at 54 FR 41966, CMS revised the definition of a mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system at 42 CFR 433.111(b) to provide that eligibility determination systems would not be considered part of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems or enhancements to those systems. As a result, CMS also indicated at 42 CFR 433.112(c) that the enhanced FFP for mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems in accordance with section 1903(a)(3) of the Act would not be available for eligibility determination systems.

    We published a final rule entitled the “Federal Funding for Medicaid Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Activities” on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21949-21975) that temporarily reversed the 1989 rule. We explained that this reversal was in response to changes made by the Affordable Care Act that required sweeping changes in Medicaid eligibility and enrollment systems and removed certain linkages between Medicaid eligibility determinations and eligibility determinations made by other federal-state programs, as well as changes in Medicaid eligibility and business processes that have occurred since our 1989 final rule to integrate eligibility and claims processing systems. The reversal was temporary to address the immediate need for eligibility system redesign to coordinate with the overall claims processing and reporting systems. Specifically, in the April 19, 2011 final rule (75 FR 21950), we included eligibility determination systems in the definition of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems in § 433.111(b)(3)(B). We also provided that the enhanced FFP would be available at the 90 percent rate for design, development, installation or enhancement of eligibility and enrollment systems and at the 75 percent rate for maintenance and operations of such systems, to the extent that the eligibility and enrollment systems were developed on or after April 19, 2011, operational by December 31, 2015, and met all standards for such systems. Under that rule, the 90 percent enhanced matching rate for system development is available through calendar year (CY) 2015 for state expenditures on eligibility and enrollment systems that meet specific standards and conditions, and the 75 percent match for maintenance and operations is available for systems that meet specific standards and conditions before the end of calendar year 2015, as long as those systems are in operation.

    In the April 19, 2011 (75 FR 21950) regulation, under the authority of sections 1903(a)(3)(A)(i) and 1903(a)(3)(B) of the Act, we codified the conditions at 42 CFR 433.112(b) that must be met by the states for Medicaid technology investments including traditional claims processing systems, as well as eligibility systems, to be eligible for the enhanced funding match. We also issued sub-regulatory guidance: “Medicaid IT Supplement Version 1.0” in April 2011 that outlined in greater detail the seven standards and conditions for enhanced funding.

    As explained in more detail below, we are proposing to make permanent the inclusion of eligibility and enrollment systems in the definition of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, and to consequently extend the availability of enhanced FFP. We propose to define a state Medicaid eligibility and enrollment system as the system of software and hardware used to process applications, renewals and updates from Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries. In part, this proposed change reflects a new understanding of the complexity of the required eligibility and enrollment system redesign, and a new appreciation of the need for eligibility and enrollment systems to operate as an integral part of the mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems using a standard Medicaid information technology architecture.

    We previously expected that fundamental changes to state systems would be completed well before December 31, 2015. It is now clear that additional improvements would benefit states and the federal government. It is also clear that such systems are integral to the operation of the state's overall mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems and must be designed and operated as a coordinated part of such systems. Without recognition as an integral part of such systems, and without ongoing enhanced federal funding, state Medicaid eligibility and enrollment systems are likely to become out of date and would not be able to coordinate with, and further the purposes of, the overall mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems.

    B. Program Affected

    Since 2011, CMS has worked with the states on the design, development and implementation of modernized Medicaid and CHIP eligibility and enrollment systems, supported by the enhanced FFP, to achieve the technical functionality necessary for the implementation of the new eligibility and renewal policies on January 1, 2014. In December 2012, we identified critical success factors in order for the states to demonstrate operational readiness, including: Ability to accept a single, streamlined application; ability to convert existing state income standards to modified adjusted gross income (MAGI); ability to convey state-specific eligibility rules to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM), as applicable; ability to process applications based on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) rules; ability to accept and send application files (accounts) to and from the Marketplace; ability to respond to inquiries from the Marketplace on current Medicaid or CHIP coverage; and, ability to verify eligibility based upon electronic data sources (the Federal Data Services Hub or an approved alternative).

    The states are in varying stages of completion of their E&E system functionality, with work still ahead to maximize automation, streamline processes, and to migrate non-MAGI Medicaid programs into the new system. In addition, the majority of the states are engaged in system integration with human services programs, further increasing efficiencies and improving the consumer experience for those seeking benefits or services from programs in addition to Medicaid.

    III. Provisions of the Proposed Regulations

    The proposed regulatory changes in this proposed rule would permanently recognize Medicaid and CHIP eligibility and enrollment systems as an integral part of Medicaid mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, and would remove the time limits on the availability of enhanced rates of FFP for qualifying systems.

    In addition, we are proposing to strengthen the standards and conditions for qualifying systems. Our purpose in the April 19, 2011 final rule (75 FR 21950) for moving to the standards and conditions-based approach to approving federal funding was intended to foster strong collaboration with the states, streamline the business process between the states and CMS by reducing unnecessary paperwork, and focus attention on the key elements of success for modern systems development and deployment. With the proposed on-going access to enhanced funding for eligibility systems, and in recognition of refinements needed to the standards and conditions that pertain to MMIS and eligibility and enrollment systems, we are proposing new criteria and modifying the existing standards and conditions required for the states to access the enhanced funding and provide greater accountability for the system investment.

    These changes will permit states additional time to complete their full system modernization and retire their outdated “legacy” systems. In addition, these changes will promote an integrated, enterprise approach to Medicaid information technology. An enterprise approach involves the identification of functionality that can be shared across multiple programs, systems and subsystems. For example, a master person index or provider directory can be built once for multiple uses within the larger Medicaid enterprise. We anticipate that this approach will help drive down potentially redundant IT costs.

    Criteria will be set forth stating requirements for APDs and review of the same such as; for both MMIS and E&E systems, the state must identify in an APD its own key personnel (by type and time commitment) assigned to the project to ensure that sufficient state capacity is there to support a successful project outcome. We are proposing that for both MMIS and E&E systems, the state must meet the industry standards and conditions already in place.

    We are proposing that states will need to, for both MMIS and E&E systems, develop mitigation plans for all major milestones and functionality that will contain strategies to mitigate the failure to achieve compliance with applicable requirements. For eligibility systems, the state must have delivered acceptable MAGI-based system functionality as demonstrated by performance testing and results based on critical success factors, with limited mitigations and workarounds.

    Where applicable, we have proposed additional conditions that align to the best practices outlined in the new U.S. Digital Service Playbook (https://playbook.cio.gov/), such as the role of open source development. Other Playbook ideas will be included in sub-regulatory guidance regarding how CMS expects states to implement their Medicaid IT projects.

    A. Proposed Amendments to 42 CFR Part 433

    We propose to amend § 433.110 by removing paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (iii) and paragraph (b). Previously, regulations at § 433.119 indicated that we would review at least once every 3 years each system operation initially approved under § 433.114 and, based on the results of the review, reapprove it for FFP at 75 percent of expenditures if certain standards and conditions were met. The final rule published April 19, 2011 (75 FR 21905) eliminated the requirement for the scheduled triennial review. Through a drafting error in the final rule published on April 19, 2011 (75 FR 21950), the reference to the scheduled triennial performance reviews at 42 CFR 433.110(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) was not deleted as intended, and we are proposing to delete the references here. The Secretary retains authority to perform periodic reviews of systems receiving enhanced FFP to ensure that these systems continue to meet the requirements of section 1903(a)(3) of the Act and that they continue to provide efficient, economical, and effective administration of the plan.

    We are also proposing a technical correction to amend § 433.110 by removing the reference to 45 CFR part 74, and replacing the reference with 45 CFR part 92. This proposed change is necessary because 45 CFR part 74 was supplanted by 45 CFR part 92 in September of 2003. Therefore, reference made to 45 CFR part 74 should have been removed at that time.

    We are proposing to amend 42 CFR 433.111 to revise the definition of “mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system”, and provide new definitions for “Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) software”, “open source”, “proprietary”, “shared services,” and “MMIS Module”. We are proposing to amend 42 CFR 433.112(c) to provide for the 90 percent enhanced FFP for design, development and implementation activities to continue on an on-going basis. Making enhanced E&E system funding available on an on-going basis, as is the case with the 90 percent match for the MMIS systems, would allow the states to complete fully modernized systems and avoid the situation where its ability to serve consumers well is limited by outdated systems. Enhanced funding will also support the dynamic and on-going nature of national Medicaid eligibility, enrollment, delivery system, and program integrity needs. Continued enhanced funding will support the retirement of remaining legacy systems, eliminating ongoing expense for maintaining these outdated systems. It will also achieve additional staffing and technology efficiencies over time by allowing for a more phased and iterative approach to systems development and improvement.

    Our 2011 final rule limited the availability of 75 percent enhanced funding for maintenance and operations to those eligibility and enrollment systems that have complied with the standards and conditions in that rule by December 31, 2015. Given our proposed modifications to 42 CFR part 433, subpart C, on-going successful performance, based upon CMS regulatory and sub-regulatory guidance, is a requisite for on-going receipt of the 75 percent FFP for operations and maintenance, including for any eligibility workers (http://www.medicaid.gov/State-Resource-Center/FAQ-Medicaid-and-CHIP-Affordable-Care-Act-Implementation/Downloads/FAQs-by-Topic-75-25-Eligibility-Systems.pdf). We intend to work with the states to do regular automated validation of accurate processing and system operations and performance.

    B. Technical Changes to 42 CFR Part 433, Subpart C—Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems

    We are authorized under the Act to approve enhanced federal funding for the design, development, and installation and operation and maintenance of such mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems that are likely to provide more efficient, economical, and effective administration of the Medicaid program and to be compatible with the claims processing and information retrieval systems utilized in the administration of the Medicare program.

    We implement this authority in part under regulations at 42 CFR part 433, subpart C. This regulation provides the primary technical and funding requirements and parameters for developing and operating the state MMIS and the state Medicaid eligibility and enrollment systems.

    We intend to amend § 433.116, which details how MMIS are initially approved and certified in order to be eligible for the 75 percent FFP for operations. Specifically, we propose that given the modular design approach required by our 2011 regulation, certification should also be available for MMIS modules, rather than only when the entire MMIS system is completed and operational. We have promulgated regulatory guidance at § 433.112(b) that MMIS development be modular. The states are accordingly taking a phased approach, with the procurement of a module or modules occurring at different times.

    We believe in the reusability of existing or shared components so in the case that technology products exist that can be used for MMIS or E&E, we want to encourage that by allowing FFP for the developmental costs of integrating existing or shared components as part of the MMIS or E&E systems. We clarify that, while E&E system investments must be approved beforehand in order to be eligible for the enhanced FFP, the MMIS system certification requirements are not applicable at this time.

    We will provide a series of artifacts, supporting tools, documentation and diagrams to the states as part of our technical assistance, monitoring and governance of MMIS systems design and development. It is also our intent to work with the states as systems are designed and developed on a continuous basis so that issues and solutions are identified and addressed prior to the certification stage.

    We invite comment on our intention to move to a modular certification process for MMIS, based upon the Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA) business processes http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Data-and-Systems/Medicaid-Information-Technology-Architecture-MITA.html in order to seek an optimal balance in the use of open source and proprietary commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software solutions, to further promote reuse, to expand the availability of open source solutions, and to encourage the use of shared services. Modular MMIS certification would allow the states to access the 75 percent FFP for maintenance and operations of the certified module(s) prior to having completed their total MMIS system replacement.

    We are also seeking comment on the advantages and disadvantages of certifying MMIS modules, versus whole systems. We believe that certifying MMIS modules will remove the barrier to entry for many small IT solution vendors, increase the availability of certified modules in the market for the states to choose from, and create an incentive for the states to take a modular approach both in IT architecture and in procurement strategy. We are soliciting comments on the opportunities that a modular MMIS certification process may create as well as the challenges that might arise, including defining a finite list of MMIS modules to ensure the appropriate combinations of certification criteria are established.

    We also are seeking comments on a model where vendors propose modules for CMS certification prior to the state installation, unrelated to the question of the state's enhanced match rate for maintenance and operations. We would issue sub-regulatory guidance on how MMIS modules would be defined and how a modular certification process would be implemented.

    With regard to all Medicaid IT, we are also seeking comments on how to achieve an effective and efficient balance when approving enhanced FFP for the acquisition of open source and proprietary COTS software and information technology solutions provided in the Medicaid information technology marketplace. 42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(3)(A), which provides 90 percent FFP for the “design, development, or installation of such mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems” could be interpreted to include use of COTS where that solution would be the more economical and efficient approach. CMS is proposing this approach, acknowledging that it would necessitate an exemption of COTS software (see proposed definition) from 45 CFR 95.617(b) to protect intellectual property. We are seeking comment on the inclusion of COTS software in DDI to further encourage the states to opt for COTS and Software-as-a-Service option, currently matched at 75 percent, rather than ground-up development approaches, which are duplicative and have a potentially much larger total cost over the span of the project. Commenters should take into consideration the costs and benefits to the Medicaid program of any proposed open source or proprietary COTS software solutions, as well as the technological benefits, including requirements for meeting the standards and conditions. Commenters are encouraged to recommend innovative ways to maximize CMS' and the states' ability to share and reuse IT solutions while at the same time ensuring that there are appropriate incentives in the marketplace to provide the best quality and value in IT solutions and services to enhance operation of Medicaid programs nationwide.

    Although we would like to encourage the use of COTS software solutions, we are proposing to clarify that states should only claim for the minimum necessary development costs to install and implement COTS. We are seeking to discourage the extra costs of unnecessary customization of COTS software solutions. Thus, we propose to explicitly provide in § 433.112(c)(2) that development costs at the enhanced match rate would only include the minimum necessary to install the COTS software and ensure that other state systems coordinate with the COTS software solution.

    Currently, regulations at 45 CFR 95.617(b) provide that the federal government shall have a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use and to authorize others to use for federal government purposes, software, modifications and documentation that are developed with federal support. We are also seeking comment on requiring that states affirmatively document and make available such software to ensure that others may use it. Commenters should note the infrastructure and resources that would be needed at the state and federal levels to support such a requirement in an effective manner. Commenters should also consider whether public disclosure of some types of Medicaid software systems might compromise enforcement of Medicaid requirements by announcing review strategies.

    Consistent with these requirements, and to encourage broader use and reuse of federally funded software, we are also proposing at § 433.112(b)(20) and (21) that software developed with the 90 percent federal match be adequately documented so that it can be operated by contractors and other users, and that states consider strategies to minimize the costs and difficulty of operating the software using alternate hardware or operating systems.

    We conduct periodic reviews of the states' MMIS and E&E system functionality and operations. Current regulations at § 433.120 allow for reduction of FFP for system operations from 75 percent to 50 percent if the system fails to meet any or all of the standards and conditions. We are proposing to allow for the FFP reduction to be tailored where appropriate to specific operational expenditures related to the subpar system component rather than only being able to apply it across all operational expenditures. For example, we might reduce the FFP for operational expenditures for a particular sub-system, but not for the whole system. It is conceivable that the FFP reduction could be applied to an increasing percentage of operational expenditures over time as the impact of the system non-compliance grows. We have an established escalation process that includes notice and state appeal rights. We are also proposing to revise current regulations that require the disallowance to be for a minimum of four quarters so that there is no defined timeframe. Furthermore, we propose to remove the restriction on the FFP reduction occurring at least four quarters after the system was initially approved. When providing comments, the states should refer to the definitions found in § 433.111 as they are provided to assist in formulating ideas and suggestions.

    C. Proposed Changes to 45 CFR Part 95—General Administration—Grant Programs, Subpart F

    In the final rule titled “State Systems Advance Planning Document (APD) Process”, (75 FR 66319, October 28, 2010), § 95.611 was modified to include an acquisition threshold for prior approval of the state costs at the regular matching rate but noted that equipment or services at the enhanced matching rate necessitated prior approval regardless of the cost. We propose to amend § 95.611 to align all Medicaid IT requirements with existing policy for MMIS regarding prior approvals, such that what is currently acceptable for regular match would be acceptable for enhanced match as well. We propose that if there is already an approved APD, prior approval will be required in order for the state to release acquisition solicitation documents or execute contracts when the contract is anticipated to or will exceed $500,000. For all Medicaid IT acquisition documents, an exemption from prior federal approval shall be assumed in the approval of an APD provided that: The acquisition summary provides sufficient detail to base an exemption request; the acquisition does not deviate from the terms of the exemption; and, the acquisition is not the initial acquisition for a high risk activity, such as software application development. All acquisitions, must comply with the federal provisions contained in § 95.610(c)(1)(viii) and, (c)(2)(vi) or, submit an Acquisition Checklist for prior approval.

    For noncompetitive acquisitions, including contract amendments, when the resulting contract is anticipated to exceed $1,000,000, the state will be required to submit a sole source justification in addition to the acquisition document. The sole source justification can be provided as part of the APD.

    If the state does not opt for an exemption or submittal of an Acquisition Checklist for the contract, prior to the execution, the state will be required to submit the contract when it is anticipated to exceed the following thresholds, unless specifically exempted by CMS: Software application development—$6,000,000 or more (competitive) and $1,000,000 or more (noncompetitive); Hardware and Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) software—$20,000,000 or more (competitive) and $1,000,000 or more (noncompetitive); Operations and Software Maintenance acquisitions combined with hardware, COTS or software application development—the thresholds stated in § 95.611(b)(1)(v)(A) and (B) apply.

    For contract amendments within the scope of the base contract, unless specifically exempted by the Department, prior to execution of the contract amendment involving contract cost increases which cumulatively exceed 20 percent of the base contract cost.

    In addition, we propose to amend § 95.611(a)(2) by removing the reference to 45 CFR 1355.52. This paragraph provides prior approval requirements when states plan to acquire ADP equipment or services with FFP at an enhanced matching rate for the title IV-D, IV-E, and XIX programs, regardless of acquisition costs. We propose to delete the reference to the title IV-E regulation, § 1355.52 because enhanced funding for information systems supporting the title IV-E program expired in 1997.

    IV. Collection of Information Requirements

    This proposed rule does not contain any new or revised reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320) do not apply.

    V. Response to Comments

    Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

    VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis A. Statement of Need

    Experience with the Affordable Care Act implementation has shown that Medicaid eligibility policies and business processes benefit from continued updating and strengthening. System transformations are needed to apply new rules to adjudicate eligibility for the program; enroll millions of newly eligible individuals through multiple channels; renew eligibility for existing enrollees; operate seamlessly with the Health Insurance Marketplaces (“Marketplaces”); participate in a system to verify information from applicants electronically; incorporate a streamlined application used to apply for multiple sources of coverage and financial assistance; and produce notices and communications to applicants and beneficiaries concerning the process, outcomes, and their rights to dispute or appeal.

    We wish to ensure that our technology investments result in a high degree of interaction and interoperability in order to maximize value and minimize burden and costs on providers and beneficiaries. Thus, we are committed to providing ongoing 90 percent FFP for design, development, and installation or 75 percent FFP for maintenance and operations of such systems. We have provided that states must commit to a set of standards and conditions in order to receive the enhanced FFP. This enhanced FFP reduces the financial burden on states to 10 percent of the costs compared to the 50 percent financial burden currently in place and ensures that states continue to utilize current technology development and deployment practices and produce reliable business outputs and outcomes.

    B. Overall Impact

    We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) (Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

    A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). We estimate that this rulemaking is “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence also a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. Accordingly, we have prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis that to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of the rulemaking.

    C. Anticipated Effects

    1. While it is difficult to predict state behavior, we believe all states will comply with the standards and conditions proposed in this regulation to receive the 90 percent FFP, and have assumed that for the purpose of these estimates.

    In order to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories must build new eligibility and enrollment (E&E) systems or modernize existing E&E systems. Most states have added new functionalities to interface with the Marketplaces and implemented new adaptability standards and conditions (such as incorporation of mandated eligibility categories).

    There are currently 9 states that have relatively new E&E systems and do not need replacement of whole systems, but are instead making modular improvements and upgrades. We believe that most states have not had sufficient time to complete the total system replacement for both MAGI and non-MAGI eligibility functionality. We assume that an additional 28 states will quickly move forward to retire their legacy E&E systems with ongoing 90 percent FFP for design and development. Based on previous spending trends, we assume that those 9 states with new systems account for 15 percent of E&E spending and the 28 states that we anticipate retiring their legacy E&E systems account for 55 percent of E&E spending. We believe that by eliminating 28 legacy systems, we reduce M&O costs by maintaining only one E&E system per state. Eventually, we assume that all states will replace their current E&E legacy system(s) using ongoing 90 percent FFP. To calculate the impact of the regulation, we assumed that new E&E systems on average would cost $50 million over 3 years for each state ($15 million federal costs at 90 percent FFP per year).

    States will see a decrease in their net state share due to the enhanced federal match for eligibility systems and states will also realize benefits by putting in place the set of standards and conditions articulated in this proposed regulation.

    The state net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 of implementing the proposed regulation on eligibility systems is approximately − $1.1 billion. This includes approximately $572 million in state costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated maintenance and operations costs. These costs represent only the state share.

    Similar to the federal budget impact, we expect to see higher savings achieved by states over the 10-year budget window due to the increased savings by moving away from operating two or more systems, and replacing legacy systems.

    The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Since this rule would primarily affect states, which are not considered small entities, the Secretary has determined that this proposed rule would not be likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we have not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. This rule will not have a significant impact on hospitals. Therefore, the Secretary has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2015, that is approximately $144 million. This rule does not mandate expenditures by the state governments, local governments, tribal governments, or the private sector. This rule provides that states can receive enhanced FFP if states ensure that the mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, including those that perform eligibility determination and enrollment activities, as well as the Medicaid portion of integrated eligibility determination systems, meet with certain conditions including migrating to the MITA framework and meeting certain performance requirements. This is a voluntary activity and the rule imposes no substantial mandates on states.

    2. The federal net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 of implementing the proposed regulation on eligibility systems is approximately $3 billion. This includes approximately $5.1 billion in increased federal costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated maintenance and operations costs. These costs represent only the federal share.

    We see lower costs over the 10-year budget window due to the increased savings to operating one E&E system and eliminating legacy systems. The costs shift from mostly 90 percent FFP for design, development, and installation to 75 percent FFP for maintenance and operations over time.

    Uncertainty exists because we are unsure of the rate of adoption for states to make the changes in this proposed rule.

    We considered a number of ways in which application of the standards and conditions, including increased use of MITA, could result in savings; however, as no states have yet reached MITA maturity, it is difficult to predict the savings that may accrue over any certain timeframe. These areas include the following:

    (a) Modular technology solutions: As states, or groups of states, would begin to develop “modular” technology solutions, these solutions could be used by others through a “plug and play” approach, in which pieces of a new MMIS would not need to be reinvented from scratch every time, but rather, could be incorporated into the MMIS framework.

    We assume that savings associated with reusable technology could be achieved in both the development and operation of new systems.

    (b) Increased use of industry standards and open source technologies: While HIPAA administrative transaction standards have existed for 8 to 10 years, use of more specific industry standards to build new systems would allow such systems to exchange information seamlessly. We also believe that more open source technology would encourage the development of software solutions that address the needs of a variety of diverse activities—such as eligibility, member enrollment, and pharmacy analysis of drug claims. Software that is sufficiently flexible to meet different needs and perform different functions could result in cost savings, as states are able to use the systems without making major adaptations to them.

    (c) Maintenance and operations: As states continue to implement changes, the maintenance and operation costs of new systems should decrease. Less maintenance should be required than that necessary to reengineer special, highly customized systems every time there is a new regulatory or legal requirement.

    (d) Reengineering business processes, more web based solutions, service-oriented architecture (SOA): Savings are likely to result from the modular design and operation of systems, combined with use of standardized business processes, as states are being compelled to rethink and streamline processes as a result of greater reliance on technology.

    There are uncertainties regarding our assumptions, including state behavior, and the associated cost estimates with respect to states implementing new systems. However, we have based our assumptions on data on states' previous behavior, spending and advance planning documents over the last 4 years. It is important to point out that we believe that systems transformation is necessary to meet the vision of the Affordable Care Act and consequently, these costs provide for efficient systems that in the end would provide for more efficient and effective administration of the state plan.

    D. Alternatives Considered

    We considered as an alternative to our proposed rule to not continue to provide enhanced match for state eligibility systems builds after December 2015, and to not update federal standards and conditions for Medicaid IT development. We also considered an extension for a 2 or 3 year timeline but deduced that it was both insufficient for states to effectively transition out of their legacy systems and to complete human services integration in the new shared eligibility system. Furthermore, this assumes that all significant policy changes that trigger the need for IT updates were limited to those in the Affordable Care Act, however systems reforms are an on-going facet of eligibility policy with an accompanying ongoing financial burden. A limited extension would also ignore that states that already modernized and did not replace their systems starting in 2011 will eventually need to do so in order to maintain system integrity and modernity sometime after a two or three year extension. Absent an ongoing extension, states would receive the traditional 50 percent FFP for reasonable administrative expenditures for designing, developing, installing, or enhancing Medicaid eligibility determination systems. Similarly, states would receive 50 percent FFP for expenditures associated with the maintenance and operation of such systems. However, states would have to continue to meet the requirements of federal legislation. Since the Affordable Care Act significantly alters Medicaid eligibility, we believe that treating eligibility and enrollment systems as an integral part of mechanized claims processing system and information retrieval systems is consistent with the federal statute. This would have the effect of continuing the higher federal matching rate, which would provide states additional resources to meet this challenge. In addition, the federal guidance in the form of clearer federal standards and conditions would facilitate the design, development, implementation, and operation of IT and systems projects that fully support the Medicaid program, including the new responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act. Supporting the transformation of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment systems through these enhanced funding and clearer federal guidelines will also reduce duplication of systems and overall system costs.

    E. Accounting Statement and Table

    Whenever a rule is considered a significant rule under Executive Order 12866, we are required to develop an Accounting Statement. We have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of this rule. Tables 1 through 5 provides our best estimate of the net costs as a result of the changes presented in this rule.

    Table 1—Federal Net Costs Category Estimates Units Year dollar Discount rate
  • (%)
  • Period covered
    Annualized Monetized ($million/year) 444.3
  • 363.6
  • 2016
  • 2016
  • 7
  • 3
  • 2016-2025
  • 2016-2025
  • Table 2—Federal Net Costs by Fiscal Year [In millions] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016-2025 E&E Systems—DDI 1,788 2,192 333 277 184 143 89 47 44 44 5,141 E&E Systems—M&O (19) (19) (95) (120) (165) (298) (325) (344) (360) (367) (2112) Total 1,769 2,173 238 157 19 (155) (236) (298) (315) (323) 3029 * Numbers in parentheses represent savings to the federal government. Table 3—State Net Costs Category Estimates Units Year dollar Discount rate
  • (%)
  • Period covered
    Annualized Monetized ($million/year) −81.2
  • −99.1
  • 2016
  • 2016
  • 7
  • 3
  • 2016-2025
  • 2016-2025
  • Table 4—State Net Costs by Fiscal Year [In millions] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016-2025 E&E Systems—DDI 199 244 37 31 20 16 10 5 5 5 572 E&E Systems—M&O (19) (19) (95) (120) (165) (213) (240) (263) (280) (286) (1700) Total 180 225 (58) (89) (145) (197) (230) (258) (275) (281) (1128) * Numbers in parentheses represent savings to State Governments. Table 5—Estimated Net Present Value of Federal Costs, FY 2016-2025 [In millions of dollars] Discount rate 7% 3% Federal Costs NPV $3,120.6 $3,101.8 State Costs NPV −$570.7 −$845.5 F. Conclusion

    We considered a number of ways in which application of the standards and conditions, including increased use of MITA, could result in savings. We see increased investments in DDI somewhat offset by lower costs over the 10-year budget window due to the increased savings to operating one E&E system and eliminating legacy systems. The costs shift from mostly 90 percent FFP for design, development, and installation to 75 percent FFP for maintenance and operations over time.

    The federal net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 of implementing the proposed regulation on eligibility systems is approximately $3 billion. This includes approximately $5.1 billion in increased federal costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated maintenance and operations costs. The state net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 of implementing the proposed regulation on eligibility systems is approximately − $1.1 billion. This includes approximately $572 million in state costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated maintenance and operations costs.

    There are uncertainties regarding our assumptions, including state behavior, and the associated cost estimates with respect to states implementing new systems. However, we have based our assumptions on data on states' previous behavior, spending and advance planning documents over the last 4 years. It is important to point out that we believe that systems transformation is necessary to meet the vision of the Affordable Care Act and consequently, these costs are necessary and would provide for efficient systems that in the end would provide for more efficient and effective administration of the state plan.

    The analysis above, together with the remainder of this preamble, provides a Regulatory Impact Analysis. The reason to refer to other portions of the preamble is that they include sections, such as the statutory authority and purpose that are required but are not normally included in the impact analysis section.

    In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    List of Subjects 42 CFR Part 433

    Administrative practice and procedure, Child support claims, Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    45 CFR Part 95

    Claims, Computer technology, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:

    PART 433—STATE FISCAL ADMINISTRATION 1. The authority citation for part 433 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).

    § 433.110 [Amended]
    2. In § 433.110— a. Amend paragraph (a)(1) by removing the reference “45 CFR part 74” and adding in its place “45 CFR part 92.” b. Remove paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (iii). c. Remove and reserve paragraph (b). 3. Section 433.111 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs (d) through (h) to read as follows:
    § 433.111 Definitions.

    (b) “Mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system”, or “system” means the system of software and hardware used to process claims for medical assistance and to retrieve and produce service utilization and management information required by the Medicaid single state agency and Federal government for program administration and audit purposes.

    (1) The system consists of—

    (i) Required subsystems specified by the Secretary.

    (ii) Required changes to the system or required subsystem that are specified by the Secretary.

    (iii) Approved enhancements to the system or subsystem.

    (2) A “Mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system” may include

    (i) An eligibility and enrollment system, or “E&E system”, used to process initial claims (applications) from Medicaid or CHIP applicants and beneficiaries for eligibility for enrollment in the Medicaid or CHIP programs, as well as change in circumstance updates and renewals; and/or

    (ii) A claims system, or MMIS, used to process claims for Medicaid payment from providers of medical care and services furnished to beneficiaries under the medical assistance program.

    (d) “Open source” means software that can be used freely, changed, and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone. Open source software is distributed under Open Source Initiative-approved licenses that comply with an open source framework that allows for free redistribution, provision of the source code, allowance for modifications and derived works, free and open distribution of licenses without restrictions and licenses that are technology-neutral.

    (e) “Proprietary” means closed source software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder with the intent that the licensee is given the right to use the software only under certain conditions, and restricted from other uses, such as modification, sharing, studying, redistribution, or reverse engineering.

    (f) “Shared Services” means the provision of a service by one part of an organization or group where that service had previously been found in more than one part of the organization or group. Thus the funding and resourcing of the service is shared and the providing department effectively becomes an internal service provider.

    (g) “MMIS Module” refers to a group of MMIS business processes that can be implemented through a collection of IT functionality.

    (h) “Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) software” refers to specialized software designed for specific applications that is available for sale or lease to other users in the commercial marketplace, and that can be used with little or no modification. COTS software does not include software developed specifically for public assistance programs.

    4. Section 433.112 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(12), (b)(16), and (c); and, adding paragraphs (b)(17) through (b)(22) to read as follows:
    § 433.112 FFP for design, development, installation or enhancement of mechanized processing and information retrieval systems.

    (b) CMS will approve the E&E or claims system described in an APD if certain conditions are met. The conditions that a system, whether a claims or E&E system, must meet are:

    (12) The agency ensures alignment with, and incorporation of, industry standards adopted by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT in accordance with 45 CFR part 170, subpart B: The HIPAA privacy, security and transaction standards; accessibility standards established under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, or standards that provide greater accessibility for individuals with disabilities, and compliance with Federal civil rights laws; standards adopted by the Secretary under section 1104 of the Affordable Care Act; and standards and protocols adopted by the Secretary under section 1561 of the Affordable Care Act.

    (16) The system supports seamless coordination and integration with the Marketplace, the Federal Data Services Hub, and allows interoperability with health information exchanges, public health agencies, human services programs, and community organizations providing outreach and enrollment assistance services as applicable.

    (17) For eligibility and enrollment systems, the State must have delivered acceptable MAGI-based system functionality, demonstrated by performance testing and results based on critical success factors, with limited mitigations and workarounds.

    (18) The State must submit plans that contain strategies for reducing the operational consequences of failure to meet applicable requirements for all major milestones and functionality.

    (19) The agency, in writing through the APD, must identify key personnel by type and time commitment assigned to each project.

    (20) Systems and MMIS modules developed, installed or improved with 90 percent match must include documentation of components and procedures such that the systems could be operated by a variety of contractors or other users.

    (21) For software systems and MMIS modules developed, installed or improved with 90 percent match, the State must consider strategies to minimize the costs and difficulty of operating the software on alternate hardware or operating systems.

    (22) Other conditions as required by the Secretary.

    (c) (1) FFP is available at 90 percent of a state's expenditures for the design, development, installation or enhancement of an eligibility and enrollment system that meets the requirements of this subpart and only for costs incurred for goods and services provided on or after April 19, 2011.

    (2) Design, development, installation or enhancement costs include costs to procure commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software, but should only include the minimum necessary costs to analyze the suitability of COTS software, install and integrate the COTS software, and modify non-COTS software to ensure coordination of operations. The nature and extent of such costs must be expressly described in the approved APD.

    5. Section 433.116 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 433.116 FFP for operation of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems.

    (b) CMS will approve enhanced FFP for system operations if the conditions specified in paragraphs (c) through (i) of this section are met.

    (c) The conditions of § 433.112(b)(1) through (22) must be met at the time of approval.

    6. Section 433.119 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 433.119 Conditions for reapproval; notice of decision.

    (a) * * *

    (1) The system meets the requirements of § 433.112(b)(1), (3), (4), and (7) through (22).

    7. Section 433.120 is revised to read as follows:
    § 433.120 Procedures for reduction of FFP after reapproval review.

    (a) If CMS determines after the reapproval review that the system no longer meets the conditions for reapproval in § 433.119, CMS will reduce FFP for certain expenditures for system operations.

    (b) CMS will reduce FFP from 75 percent to 50 percent for expenditures related to the operations of non-compliant functionality or system components.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR part 95 as set forth below:

    PART 95—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION—GRANT PROGRAMS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS) 8. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301, 42 U.S.C. 622(b), 629b(a), 652(a), 652(d), 654A, 671(a), 1302, and 1396a(a).

    9. Section 95.611 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 95.611 Prior approval conditions.

    (a) * * *

    (2) A State shall obtain prior approval from the Department which is reflected in a record, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, when the State plans to acquire ADP equipment or services with proposed FFP at the enhanced matching rate subject to one of the following:

    (i) If authorized by 45 CFR 205.35 and 45 CFR part 307, regardless of the acquisition cost.

    (ii) If authorized by 42 CFR part 433, subpart C, if the contract is anticipated to or will exceed $500,000.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dated: March 27, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08754 Filed 4-14-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    80 73 Thursday, April 16, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tongass Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tongass Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet in Ketchikan, Alaska. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Committee recommendations and advice may directly inform the development of a proposed action for modification of the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan. The meeting is open to the public. Additional information concerning the Committee, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R10/Tongass/TAC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on:

    • Wednesday, May 6, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (AKDT).

    • Thursday, May 7, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (AKDT).

    • Friday, May 8, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (AKDT).

    All meetings are subject to change and cancellation. For updated status of the meetings prior to attendance, please visit the Web site listed in the SUMMARY section, or contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held in the Ted Ferry Civic Center, 888 Venetia Avenue, Ketchikan, AK 99901. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Tongass National Forest Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marina Whitacre, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 907-772-5934, or by email at [email protected].us. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Finish work on the draft package of recommendations;

    2. Formally adopt the recommendations to be transmitted to the Secretary of Agriculture;

    3. Finalize communications strategy to publicize the recommendations; and

    4. Identify near-term implementation next steps and clarify the role of the TAC going forward.

    There will be time allotted on the agenda for oral public comment. Those interested can register at the meeting. In addition, written statements may be filed with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments may also be submitted by mail to Jason Anderson, Designated Federal Officer, Tongass National Forest, P.O. Box 309, Petersburg, Alaska 99833; or email to [email protected], or facsimile to 907-772-5895. Summary/minutes of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 45 days after the meeting.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Jason Anderson, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08776 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Forest Resource Coordinating Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) (Pub. L. 110-246). Additional information concerning the Committee, including the meeting agenda, supporting documents and minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/frcc/.

    DATES:

    The teleconference will be held on May 20, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The meeting is subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the SUMMARY section or contact Andrea Bedell-Loucks at [email protected] for further details. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments placed on the Committee's Web site listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrea Bedell-Loucks, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff, 202-205-1190. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Finalize recommendations and cover letter, and

    2. Report out from team developing outreach packet.

    The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing 10 days before the planned meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250 or by email to [email protected] A summary of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 21 days after the meeting.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Patricia Hirami, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08683 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Discontinue the Annual Publication of the Prices Paid Data AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to discontinue the annual publication of prices paid data in the April Prices report. NASS will continue to publish monthly Prices Paid Indexes.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to discontinue the publication of annual prices paid data. These data include prices paid for fuels, feed, seeds, fertilizer, machinery, and chemicals. These prices were published each year in the April Agricultural Prices report. NASS will continue to collect data on prices paid by farmers and use those data to generate the monthly indexes published in the monthly Prices report. The Prices Paid surveys and publications are approved under OMB #0535-0003.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333, or through the NASS OMB Clearance Officer at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Discontinuation of the Prices Paid Data found in the April 2015 Agricultural Prices publication.

    OMB Control Numbers: 0535-0003.

    Expiration Dates of Approval: May 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: To discontinue the publication of data from the Prices Paid Surveys.

    Abstract: The primary functions of the National Agricultural Statistics Service include the collection of data and the preparation and issuance of state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition, prices, and environmental and economic factors. On March 11, 2015, NASS announced via agricultural news media, Prices report subscribers and its Web site that it would be modifying the Agricultural Prices program. www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/Notices/03_11_2015a.asp.

    For more information about the NASS Prices program, visit: www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Prices/index.asp

    Agricultural farm input price data for 2014 and prior years are available at www.nass.usda.gov.

    Timeline: NASS will discontinue this information publication as of April 16, 2015.

    Authority: These data were collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a) (General Duties of the Secretary of Agriculture). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

    Estimate of Burden: There will be no change in public reporting burden for this collection of information.

    Signed at Washington, DC, April 1, 2015. Joseph T. Reilly, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08785 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection for Field Crops Production. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, the combining of several smaller surveys, and/or changes in questionnaire length.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by June 15, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0002, by any of the following methods:

    • Email: [email protected] Include docket number above in the subject line of the message.

    • Efax: (855) 838-6382.

    • Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    • Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand deliver to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Field Crops Production.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0002.

    Expiration Date of Approval: August 31, 2015.

    Type of Request: Intent to Seek Approval to Revise and Extend an Information Collection for 3 years.

    Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The Field Crops Production Program consists of probability field crops surveys and supplemental panel surveys. The panel surveys capture unique crop characteristics such as the concentration of crops in localized geographical areas. These surveys are extremely valuable for commodities where acreage and yield are published at the county level.

    Several of the smaller surveys will be discontinued with this approval. The Alaska Acreage and Production Survey and the Alaska Spring Acreage Survey have been incorporated into the County Estimates Survey and the Quarterly Crops/Stocks surveys. The Sweet Potato Buyers Survey, the Tobacco Forecast Survey, and the Tobacco Buyer Survey have been discontinued, and the data will be collected through the Sweet Potato Price Survey, the Quarterly Crops/Stocks surveys, and the Tobacco Price Inquiry respectively. The total burden has been increased to account for the cover letter and the internet access instruction sheet that will be mailed out to the target samples.

    Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

    NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this information collection is based on a group of similar surveys with expected response times of 5-20 minutes and a frequency of 1-40 times per year. Estimated number of responses per respondent is 1.27.

    Respondents: Farmers and Ranchers.

    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 626,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 194,000 hours.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information 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 collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods.

    All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, April 1, 2015. Joseph T. Reilly, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08788 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss and Vote Upon a Project Proposal Regarding the School to Prison Pipeline in Oklahoma AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Oklahoma Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, May 1, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. CST for the purpose of discussing the potential speakers and logistics for a July meeting on the school to prison pipeline.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-811-5436, conference ID: 3877995. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by April 27, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Oklahoma Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions—3:00 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.; Vicki Limas, Chair Discussion of Proposal on School to Prison Pipeline in Oklahoma—3:05 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.; Oklahoma Advisory Committee Planning Next Steps—3:35 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Adjournment—4:00 p.m.
    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, May 1, 2015, at 3:00 p.m.

    Public Call Information Dial: 888-466-4462 Conference ID: 7610695 Dated March 3, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08731 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Nebraska Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Potential Project Topics AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, May 5, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing and voting on a project proposal regarding the civil rights impact of LB 403.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-539-3678, conference ID: 9136560. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by June 5, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Nebraska Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions—Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, Chair Discussion of project proposal on LB 403—Nebraska Advisory Committee Members Future plans and actions Adjournment—4:00 p.m.
    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 5, 2015, at 3:00 p.m.

    Public Call Information Dial: 888-539-3678 Conference ID: 9136560 Dated April 13, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08730 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1976] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 80 Under Alternative Site Framework San Antonio, Texas

    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 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the City of San Antonio, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 80, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-77-2014, docketed October 22, 2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area of Bexar County in its entirety and portions of Comal and Guadalupe Counties, Texas, in and adjacent to the San Antonio Customs and Border Protection port of entry, to renumber existing Site 7A as Site 7, to renumber existing Site 7B as Site 11, and FTZ 80's Sites 1 through 11 (as renumbered) would be categorized as magnet sites;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 64169, October 28, 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 recommendation 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 80 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08782 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1972] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 71 Under Alternative Site Framework Windsor Locks, Connecticut

    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 Economic and Industrial Development Commission of Windsor Locks, grantee of FTZ 71, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-73-2014, docketed 10-15-2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area of the Counties of Hartford, Middlesex, Windham, Tolland and Litchfield, Connecticut, adjacent to the Hartford Customs and Border Protection port of entry, and FTZ 71's existing Sites 1 and 2 would be categorized as magnet sites;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 62940, 10-21-2014) 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 71 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 2 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce, for Enforcement and Compliance Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08763 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1973] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 263 Under Alternative Site Framework Lewiston-Auburn, Maine

    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 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council, grantee of FTZ 263, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-64-2014, docketed 09-11-2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area of the Counties of Androscoggin, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc, Maine, within and adjacent to the Portland Customs and Border Protection port of entry, and FTZ 263's existing Sites 1 and 2 would be categorized as magnet sites;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 56057, 09-18-2014) 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 263 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 2 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08764 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-21-2015] Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone—Western Kentucky Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Paducah McCracken County Riverport Authority to establish a foreign-trade zone adjacent to the Evansville, Indiana CBP port of entry, under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new “subzones” or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone project. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on April 10, 2015. The applicant is authorized to make the proposal under the Kentucky Revised Statutes, Section 65.530.

    The proposed zone would be the third zone for the Evansville CBP port of entry. The existing zones are as follows: FTZ 146, Lawrence County, Illinois (Grantee: Bi-State Authority, Board Order 371, 2/11/1988); and, FTZ 177, Evansville, Indiana (Grantee: Ports of Indiana, Board Order 513, 3/12/1991).

    The applicant's proposed service area under the ASF would be portions of McCracken and Livingston Counties. If approved, the applicant would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The applicant has stated that the proposed service area is adjacent to the Evansville Customs and Border Protection port of entry.

    The proposed zone would include one “magnet” site: Proposed Site 1 (30 acres)—Paducah/McCracken Riverport, 2000 Wayne Sullivan Drive, Paducah, McCracken County.

    The application indicates a need for zone services in the Western Kentucky area. Specific production approvals are not being sought at this time. Such requests would be made to the FTZ Board on a case-by-case basis.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    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 June 15, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 30, 2015.

    A copy of the application 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:

    Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08762 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-887] Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations made by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (“THFA”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Stolz, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4474.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On June 18, 2004, the Department published the final determination of sales at less than fair value on THFA from the PRC in the United States.1 On August 6, 2004, the Department published the AD Order with respect to imports of THFA from the PRC.2

    1See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004) (“Final Determination”).

    2See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 47911 (August 6, 2004) (“Order”).

    There have been no administrative reviews since issuance of the AD Order. There have been no related findings or rulings (e.g., changed circumstances review, scope ruling, duty absorption review, etc.) since issuance of the Order. The Order remains in effect for all producers and exporters of subject merchandise.

    On November 5, 2009, the final results of the first expedited sunset review of THFA published in the Federal Register. 3 In the First Sunset, the Department found that revocation of the AD Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.4 In addition, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), that revocation of the AD Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5 Thus, the Department published the notice of continuation of the AD Order on December 16, 2009.6

    3See Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 57290 (November 5, 2009) (“First Sunset”).

    4Id.

    5See Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1046 (Review), USITC Publication 4118, (November 2009); see also Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, 74 FR 63788 (December 4, 2009).

    6See Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 66616 (December 16, 2009) (“Continuation Notice”).

    On November 3, 2014, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the AD Order on THFA from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.7 As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on THFA from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.8 On April 9, 2015, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on THFA from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.9

    7See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review, 79 FR 65186 (November 3, 2014) (“Sunset Initiation”).

    8See Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Second Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 12981 (March 12, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    9See Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China: Determination, 80 FR 19092 (April 9, 2015); see also Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1046 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4524 (April 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is THFA (C5H10O2). THFA, a primary alcohol, is a clear, water white to pale yellow liquid. THFA is a member of the heterocyclic compounds known as furans and is miscible with water and soluble in many common organic solvents. THFA is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheading 2932.13.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

    Continuation of the Order

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD Order on THFA from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

    This five-year (“sunset”) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08766 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to evaluate.

    SUMMARY:

    The NOAA Office for Coastal Management announces its intent to evaluate the performance of the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program.

    Coastal Zone Management Program evaluations are conducted pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA) and regulations at 15 CFR part 923, subpart L. The CZMA requires continuing review of the performance of states and territories with respect to coastal program implementation. Evaluation of a Coastal Management Program requires findings concerning the extent to which a state or territory has met the national objectives, adhered to its Coastal Management Program document approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance awards funded under the CZMA.

    The evaluations will include a public meeting, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. When the evaluation is completed, the Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings. Notice is hereby given of the date, local time, and location of the public meeting.

    Date and Time: The Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program public meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. local time at the Environmental Agencies Building, PR-8838 Km. 6.3, El Cinco, Rio Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the most recent performance report, as well as the Office for Coastal Management evaluation notification letter to the territory, are available upon request. Written comments from interested parties are encouraged and will be accepted until May 22, 2015. Please direct written comments to Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419, Coastal Zone Management Program Administration

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Christopher C. Cartwright, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08719 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to evaluate and notice of availability of final findings.

    SUMMARY:

    The NOAA Office for Coastal Management announces its intent to evaluate the performance of the American Samoa, Ohio, and Virginia Coastal Management Programs.

    The Coastal Zone Management Program evaluations will be conducted pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA) and regulations at 15 CFR part 923, subpart L. The CZMA requires continuing review of the performance of states with respect to coastal program implementation. Evaluation of a Coastal Management Program requires findings concerning the extent to which a state has met the national objectives, adhered to its Coastal Management Program document approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance awards funded under the CZMA.

    The evaluations will include a public meeting, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. When the evaluation is completed, the Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings. Notice is hereby given of the date, local time, and location of the public meeting.

    DATES:

    Date and Time: The American Samoa Coastal Management Program public meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. local time at the North Wing of the Lee Auditorium.

    The Ohio Coastal Management Program public meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, at 5:30 p.m. at the Ritter Public Library—Community Meeting Room, 5680 Liberty Avenue, Vermilion, OH 44089.

    The Virginia Coastal Management Program public meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2nd Floor Training Room, 629 E. Main St., Richmond, VA 23219.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of each state's most recent performance report, as well as the Office for Coastal Management evaluation notification letter to the state, are available upon request. Written comments from interested parties regarding these programs are encouraged and will be accepted until June 5, 2015 for the American Samoa Coastal Management Program, May 29, 2015 for the Ohio Coastal Management Program, and May 15, 2015 for the Virginia Coastal Management Program. Please direct written comments to Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given of the availability of the final evaluation findings for the Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Michigan Coastal Management Programs (CMPs) and Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). Sections 312 and 315 of the CZMA, as amended, require a continuing review of the performance of coastal states with respect to approval of CMPs and the operation and management of NERRs. The states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Michigan were found to be implementing and enforcing their federally approved coastal management programs, addressing the national coastal management objectives identified in CZMA Section 303(2)(A)-(K), and adhering to the programmatic terms of their financial assistance awards. The Waquoit Bay NERR was found to be adhering to programmatic requirements of the NERR System.

    Copies of these final evaluation findings may be downloaded at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/evaluations/evaluation_findings/index.html or obtained upon written request from: Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Coastal Zone Management Program Administration. Christopher C. Cartwright, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management National, Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08721 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserve AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to evaluate and notice of availability of final findings.

    SUMMARY:

    The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) announces its intent to evaluate the performance of the San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

    The National Estuarine Research Reserve evaluation will be conducted pursuant to sections 312 and 315 of the CZMA and regulations at 15 CFR part 921, subpart E and part 923, subpart L. Evaluation of a National Estuarine Research Reserve requires findings concerning the extent to which a state has met the national objectives, adhered to its Reserve final management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance awards funded under the CZMA.

    The evaluation will include a public meeting, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. When the evaluation is completed, OCM will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings. Notice is hereby given of the date, local time, and location of the public meeting.

    DATE AND TIME:

    The San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve public meeting will be held June 8, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. at the Bay Conference Center, Romberg Tiburon Center, 3152 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the reserve's most recent performance report, as well as OCM's evaluation notification letter to the state, are available upon request from OCM. Written comments from interested parties regarding these programs are encouraged and will be accepted until June 19, 2015. Please direct written comments to Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given of the availability of the final evaluation findings for the Texas Coastal Management Program. Sections 312 and 315 of the CZMA, as amended, require a continuing review of the performance of coastal states with respect to approval of CMPs. The state of Texas was found to be implementing and enforcing its federally approved coastal management program, addressing the national coastal management objectives identified in CZMA Section 303(2)(A)-(K), and adhering to the programmatic terms of financial assistance awards.

    Copies of the final evaluation findings may be downloaded at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/evaluations/evaluation_findings/index.html or obtained upon written request from: Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Coastal Zone Management Program Administration. Christopher C. Cartwright, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08722 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD867 General Advisory Committee and Scientific Advisory Subcommittee to the U.S. Section to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; Meeting Announcement AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces a public meeting of the Scientific Advisory Subcommittee (SAS) to the U.S. Section to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) on June 2, 2015, and a meeting of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Section to the IATTC on June 3, 2015. The meeting topics are described under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    DATES:

    The meeting of the SAS will be held on June 2, 2015, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. PDT (or until business is concluded). The meeting of the GAC will be held on June 3, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. PDT (or until business is concluded).

    ADDRESSES:

    Both meetings will be held in the Pacific Conference Room (Room 300) at NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, California 92037-1508. Please notify Taylor Debevec if you plan to attend either meeting. The meetings will be accessible by webinar—instructions will be emailed to meeting participants.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Taylor Debevec, West Coast Region, NMFS, at [email protected], or at (562) 980-4066.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act, 16 U.S.C. 953, the U.S. Department of State has appointed a General Advisory Committee (GAC) and a Scientific Advisory Subcommittee (SAS) to the U.S. Section to the IATTC. The U.S. Section consists of four U.S. Commissioners to the IATTC and a representative of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries. The GAC and SAS support the U.S. Section to the IATTC in an advisory capacity; in particular, they provide advice on the development of U.S. policies and positions. NMFS West Coast Region provides administrative support for the GAC and SAS in cooperation with the U.S. Department of State. The meetings of the GAC and SAS are open to the public. The time and manner of public comment will be at the discretion of the chairs for the GAC and SAS.

    The 89th meeting of the IATTC, the 31st Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), as well as working group meetings for both the AIDCP and IATTC will be held in Guayaquil, Ecuador, from June 22 to July 3, 2015. For more information on these meeting, please visit the IATTC's Web site: https://www.iattc.org/MeetingsENG.htm.

    SAS and GAC Meeting Topics

    The SAS meeting topics will include, but are not limited to, the following:

    (1) Outcomes of the 2015 Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to the IATTC (e.g., stock status updates for tuna, tuna-like species, and other species caught in association with those fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean);

    (2) Issues related to the impact of fishing on non-target species, such as shark, seabirds, sea turtles;

    (3) Evaluation of the IATTC staff's recommended conservation measures for 2015;

    (4) U.S. proposals for the 89th meeting of the IATTC, and proposals from other IATTC members; and

    (5) Other issues as they arise.

    The GAC meeting topics will include, but are not limited to, the following:

    (1) Outcomes of the 2015 SAC to the IATTC (e.g., stock status updates for tuna, tuna-like species, and other species caught in association with those fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean);

    (2) Recent U.S. regulations that could affect tuna and tuna-like fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean;

    (3) The status of U.S legislation to implement the Antigua Convention;

    (4) Input from the SAS;

    (5) Formulation of advice on issues that may arise at the upcoming 89th meeting of the IATTC, including: IATTC staff's recommended conservation measures, U.S. proposals, and proposals from other IATTC members; and

    (6) Other issues as they arise.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Taylor Debevec (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by May 18, 2015.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08734 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD899 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (NPFMC) Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Plan Team (CPT) will meet in Anchorage, AK.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held May 4-7, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 W 3rd Avenue, King Salmon/Illiamna Room, Anchorage, AK.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Marrinan; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Plan Team will review final assessments for Aleutian Island Golden King Crab, Pribilof Island Golden King Crab, and Western Aleutian Red King Crab and recommend Overfishing Levels (OFLs) and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABCs) for these stocks. Model scenarios will be presented for Snow crab, Bristol Bay Red King Crab, Tanner Crab, Saint Matthew Blue King Crab and Pribilof Red King Crab. Additional topics include an update on progress on generic modeling framework for Alaskan crab stocks (GMACs) applications to Bristol Bay Red King Crab, the forthcoming Center for Independent Experts (CIE) review as well as recommendations on the Eastern Bering Sea survey time series, and update on Golden King crab research in the Aleutian Islands and recommendations on 2015 Research Priorities. The Plan Team will also receive a presentation of biological considerations relative to the 10 year crab rationalization program review.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. 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 Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08717 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD864 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council's) Law Enforcement Committee will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 5, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., via internet webinar.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org will have details on the proposed agenda, webinar access, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is for the Law Enforcement Committee to discuss enforcement issues related to the Council's Deep Sea Corals Amendment, including the enforceability of current amendment alternatives. Comments and recommendations from the Law Enforcement Committee will be forwarded to the full Council prior to the Council taking final action on the Deep Sea Corals Amendment.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Webinar and phone connection information, a detailed agenda, and any briefing materials will be posted at www.mafmc.org prior to the meeting. Background information and documents for the Deep Sea Corals Amendment can be found at: http://www.mafmc.org/actions/msb/am16.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08716 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD862 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 43 assessment webinar for Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish will consist of one in-person workshop and a series of webinars. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR Assessment webinar I will be held May 4, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Eastern Time. The established time may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data/Assessment Workshop, and (2) a series of webinars. The product of the Data/Assessment Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:

    1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the In-person Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

    2. Panelists will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08715 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0013, Exemptions From Speculative Limits AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on exemptions from speculative limits.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Exemptions from Speculative Limits,” OMB Control No. 3038-0013, by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hannah Ropp, Surveillance Analyst, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; phone: (202) 418-5228; fax: (202) 418-5507; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.1

    1 This notice does not solicit comment on the proposed amendments to this collection that may result from the proposal titled Position Limits for Derivatives (78 FR 75680, Dec. 12, 2013). Comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act implications of the Position Limits for Derivatives proposal were solicited through the proposal itself, the comment period for which (as extended and reopened) closed on March 30, 2015.

    Title: Exemptions from Speculative Limits (OMB Control No. 3038-0013). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Section 4a(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) allows the Commission to set speculative limits in any commodity for future delivery in order to prevent excessive speculation. Certain sections of the Act and/or the Commission's regulations allow exemptions from the speculative limits for persons using the market for hedging and, under certain circumstances, for commodity pool operators and similar traders. This information collection contains the recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure regulatory compliance with Commission rules relating to this issue.

    With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.2

    2 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be 3 hours per response. These estimates include the time to locate the information related to the exemptions and to file necessary exemption paperwork.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Swap Dealers, Large Traders, and other entities affected by Rules 1.47 and 1.48 and part 150 of the Commission's regulations.

    Estimated number of respondents: 9.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 48 hours.

    Frequency of collection: 1-2 reports annually.

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08706 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; State Tribal Education Partnership Program AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information

    State Tribal Education Partnership Program (STEP) Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.415A. DATES:

    Applications Available: April 16, 2015.

    Date of Pre-Application Webinar: April 30, 2015.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: May 21, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 15, 2015.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 14, 2015.

    Deadline for Submission of Final Agreement: March 31, 2016.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purposes of Program: The purposes of this program are to: (1) Promote increased collaboration between tribal education agencies (TEAs) and the State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) that serve students from the affected tribes; and (2) build the capacity of TEAs to conduct certain administrative functions under certain Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) formula grant programs for eligible schools, as determined by the TEA, SEA, and LEA.

    Priorities: These priorities are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program (NFP), published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11550).

    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards based on the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet these priorities.

    These priorities are:

    Priority 1—Established TEAs.

    To meet this priority, a TEA must be an established TEA.

    Priority 2—TEAs with Limited Prior Experience.

    To meet this priority, a TEA with limited prior experience is, for any STEP competition, a TEA that does not meet the definition of an “established TEA.”

    Requirements: Applicants must meet the following requirements from the NFP:

    Schools and ESEA Formula Grant Programs Included in Project:

    (a) Schools. (1) Projects must include at least two eligible schools, at least one of which must be a public school.

    (2) All schools included in the project must receive services or funds for the specific ESEA formula grant program(s) selected by the applicant.

    (3) For projects that include one or more tribally controlled schools—

    (i) The applicant TEA must include in its application evidence that it submitted a copy of the application to BIE; and

    (ii) If the proposed project includes SEA-type functions with regard to the tribally controlled school, the TEA may be required by BIE to enter into an agreement with BIE, to be submitted to the Department at the same time as the final agreement.

    (b) ESEA Formula Grant Programs. Projects must include at least one ESEA formula grant program that is State-administered.

    Preliminary Agreement: An applicant must submit with its application for funding a signed preliminary agreement among the TEA, SEA, and LEA. Letters of support from an SEA or LEA will not meet this requirement and will not be accepted as a substitute.

    The preliminary agreement must include:

    (a) An explanation of how the parties will work collaboratively to:

    (1) Administer selected ESEA formula grant programs in eligible schools; and

    (2) Cooperate on administering other educational programs or services as agreed to by the parties.

    (b) The primary ESEA formula grant program(s) for which the TEA will assume SEA-type or LEA-type administrative functions;

    (c) A description of the primary SEA-type or LEA-type administrative functions that the TEA will assume;

    (d) The training and other activities that the SEA or LEA, as appropriate, will provide for the TEA to gain the knowledge and skills needed to administer ESEA formula programs;

    (e) The assistance that the TEA will provide to the SEA or LEA, as appropriate, to facilitate the project, such as cultural competence training;

    (f) A statement concerning student data that—

    (1) Acknowledges that access by the TEA to data on students who are tribal members is important to building the capacity of the TEA, and, depending on the project design, may be one of the factors the Secretary considers in determining whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project for the purpose of making continuation awards; and

    (2) Commits the parties to making their best efforts to:

    (i) Participate in training and technical assistance, provided by or through the Department, on the requirements of section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly referred to as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA) and on the possible ways in which the TEA could be provided access to tribal student data consistent with FERPA; and

    (ii) Reach agreement on and include as part of the Final Agreement to be submitted during year 1 of the grant, a provision on data sharing that is consistent with FERPA, if data sharing is required by the project design;

    (g) The names of at least one LEA and two or more eligible schools, at least one of which must be a public school, that are expected to participate in the project;

    (h) An explanation of how the STEP funds will be used to build on existing activities or add new activities rather than replace tribal or other funds; and

    (i) Signatures of the authorized representatives of the TEA, SEA, participating LEA(s), and any BIE-funded tribally controlled school that is included in the project.

    Final Agreement: Each grantee must submit to the Department a final agreement by March 31, 2016. The final agreement must contain:

    (a) All of the elements from the preliminary agreement, in final form;

    (b) A timetable for accomplishing each of the objectives and activities that the parties will undertake;

    (c) Goals of the project and measureable objectives towards reaching the goals; and

    (d) The actions that the parties will take to sustain the relationships and activities established in the agreement after the project ends.

    ISDEAA Hiring Preference:

    (a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee—

    (1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and

    (2) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.

    (b) For purposes of this section, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian tribe.

    Definitions: The following definitions are from the NFP and apply to this competition:

    Cultural competency means the use of culturally responsive education that takes into account a student's own cultural experiences, creates connections between home and school experiences, and uses the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and learning styles of diverse students to make learning more appropriate and effective.

    Eligible Indian tribe means a federally recognized or a State-recognized tribe.

    Eligible school means a school that is included in the applicant's preliminary and final agreements, and that is:

    (a) A public school, including a public charter school, or

    (b) A BIE-funded tribally controlled school.

    Established TEA means, for purposes of this competition, a TEA that:

    (a) Previously received a STEP grant, or

    (b) Has an existing prior relationship with an SEA or LEA as evidenced by a prior written agreement between the TEA and SEA or LEA, and meets two or more of the following criteria:

    (i) Has an existing tribal education code;

    (ii) Has administered at least one education program (for example, a tribally operated preschool or afterschool program) within the past five years; or

    (iii) Has administered at least one Federal, State, local, or private grant within the past five years.

    ESEA formula grant program means one of the following programs authorized under the ESEA, for which SEAs or LEAs receive formula funding:

    (a) Improving Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged (title I, part A);

    (b) School Improvement Grants (section 1003(g));

    (c) Migrant Education (title I, part C);

    (d) Neglected and Delinquent State Grants (title I, part D);

    (e) Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (title II, part A);

    (f) English Learner Education State Grants (title III, part A);

    (g) 21st Century Community Learning Centers (title IV, part B); and

    (h) Indian Education Formula Grants (title VII, part A).

    Note:

    State-administered ESEA formula grant programs are the programs identified in paragraphs (a)-(g) of the definition of ESEA formula grant program. If an applicant chooses the Indian Education Formula Grants program (title VII, part A), which makes direct grants to LEAs, it must also choose at least one State-administered program listed in (a)-(g), as required by paragraph (b) of Schools and ESEA Formula Grant Programs Included in Project, in the Requirements section of this notice. Applicants can still choose SEA- or LEA-type functions for the State-administered ESEA formula grant.

    LEA-type function means the type of activity that LEAs typically conduct, such as direct provision of educational services to students, grant implementation, school district curriculum development, staff professional development pursuant to State guidelines, and data submissions.

    SEA-type function means the type of activity that SEAs typically conduct, such as overall education policy development, supervision and monitoring of school districts, provision of technical assistance to districts, statewide curriculum development, collecting and analyzing performance data, and evaluating programs.

    Tribal educational agency (TEA) means the agency, department, or instrumentality of an eligible Indian tribe that is primarily responsible for supporting tribal students' elementary and secondary education, which may include early learning.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 7451(a)(4).

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The NFP published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11550).

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $1,950,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: Awards for a single TEA range from $150,000 to $330,000; awards for a consortium of TEAs range from $300,000 to $500,000.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $390,000.

    Maximum Award: We will reject any application from a single TEA that proposes a budget exceeding $330,000 for a single budget period of 12 months, or from a consortium of TEAs that proposes a budget exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the Federal Register.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 4-6.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 48 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: (a) A TEA that is from an eligible Indian tribe and authorized by its tribe to administer this program; or (b) a consortium of such TEAs.

    To be eligible for an award, an applicant must include, as a part of its application, certification by the eligible Indian tribe that the applicant is the agency, department, or instrumentality of the eligible Indian tribe that is primarily responsible for supporting the elementary and secondary education of the tribe's students.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Other: (a) To be eligible for an award, a TEA must submit a preliminary agreement, signed by an SEA and at least one LEA, with its application.

    (b) Projects funded under this competition must budget funds for a representative from the TEA, a representative from the SEA, and a representative from at least one LEA to attend a two-day Project Director's meeting in the Washington, DC area during each year of the project period.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: Shahla Ortega, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W223, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5602 or by email: [email protected]

    To obtain a copy of the application package via the Internet, use the following address: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/step/index.html.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to review grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply. Therefore, the Assistant Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of their intent to submit an application for funding no later than May 21, 2015. To do so, please email [email protected] with the subject line “Intent to Apply,” and include the following information:

    1. Applicant's name, mailing address, and phone number;

    2. Contact person's name and email address;

    3. Name of SEA; and

    4. Whether the applicant intends to apply as a single TEA or a consortium of TEAs.

    Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information provided.

    Pre-Application Webinar: The Department intends to hold a pre-application webinar designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants. Information about webinar times and instructions for registering are on the Department Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/STEP/index.html.

    Page Limit: The project narrative (Part IV) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the project narrative to no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: April 16, 2015.

    Date of Pre-Application Webinar: April 30, 2015.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: May 21, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 15, 2015.

    Deadline for Submission of Final Agreement: March 31, 2016.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 14, 2015.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under STEP, CFDA number 84.415A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for STEP at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.415, not 84.415A).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because--

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Shahla Ortega, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W223, Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 401-0606.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.415A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.415A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from the NFP and from 34 CFR 75.210. We will award up to 100 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion are noted in parentheses.

    a. Need for Project (Maximum 5 points). In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the goals and objectives in the preliminary agreement, including the TEA capacity-building activities, address identified educational needs of the Indian students to be served.

    b. Quality of the Project Design (Maximum 35 points). In determining the quality of project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the proposed project would recognize and support tribal sovereignty. (5 points)

    (ii) The extent to which the preliminary agreement defines goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project that are likely to be achieved by the end of the project period. (10 points)

    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project would build relationships and better communication among the TEA, SEA, and LEA, as well as families and communities, to the benefit of Indian students in the selected schools, including by enhancing the cultural competency of SEA and LEA staff. (10 points)

    (iv) The extent to which the proposed project would enhance the capacity of the TEA to administer ESEA formula grants during the grant period and beyond. (10 points)

    c. Adequacy of Resources (Maximum 5 points). In determining the adequacy of resources, the Secretary considers the extent to which the TEA has established, prior to developing the preliminary agreement, a relationship with either the SEA or an LEA that will enhance the likelihood of the project's success.

    d. Quality of the Management Plan (Maximum 25 points). In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (10 points)

    (ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (5 points)

    (iii) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of the services, or others, as appropriate. (10 points)

    Note:

    In addressing the third subpart of the Quality of the Management Plan selection criteria, applicants may want to consider describing the involvement of the SEA and LEA in the project, in addition to the input of other affected groups, as appropriate.

    e. Quality of Project Personnel (Maximum 15 points). In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers:

    (i) The extent to which the proposed project director has experience in education and in administering Federal grants. (5 points)

    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (5 points)

    (iii) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (5 points)

    Note:

    Please note that section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act requires that to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee must give to Indians preference and opportunities in connection with the administration of the grant, and give Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.

    In addressing the third subpart of the Quality of Project Personnel selection criterion, applicants may want to consider including the context of training or professional development among all three entities—TEA, SEA, and LEA. For example, the SEA or LEA could provide training to TEA staff with regard to Federal grant administration, and the TEA could provide training to SEA and LEA staff with regard to cultural competence.

    f. Quality of Project Evaluation (Maximum 15 points). In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (5 points)

    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies. (5 points)

    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (5 points)

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: The Department has established the following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance measures:

    (1) Number of TEA grantees that report increased collaboration among TEAs, SEAs, and LEAs.

    (2) The number of SEA-type and LEA-type administrative functions for which the TEA grantees have assumed responsibility.

    These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in developing the proposed project and identifying the method of evaluation. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahla Ortega, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W223, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 453-5602 or by email: [email protected].

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Deborah S. Delisle, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08681 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat.770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, May 7, 2015, 12:45 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. (EDT)—Registration, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT)—Meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3G-043, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lou Capitanio, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone: (202) 586-5098.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee is to provide advice on potential applications of methane hydrate to the Secretary of Energy, and assist in developing recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy's Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program.

    Tentative Agenda: The agenda will include: Welcome and Introduction by the Designated Federal Officer; Committee Business; Report by the Chair regarding recommendations to the Secretary; Update on gas hydrate research activity including FY 2015 research initiatives and plans; Alaska update; Advisory Committee Discussion; and Public Comments, if any.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The Designated Federal Officer and the Chair of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Lou Capitanio at the phone number listed above and provide your name, organization, citizenship, and contact information. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present government-issued identification. Space is limited. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the three-minute rule.

    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the following Web site: http://energy.gov/fe/services/advisory-committees/methane-hydrate-advisory-committee.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on April 10, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08798 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG] Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Domestically Produced Natural Gas Through Canada to Non-Free Trade Agreement Countries After Liquefaction for a 25-Year Term AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on February 25, 2015, by Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC (collectively, Bear Head),1 requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced natural gas as follows: (i) To export the natural gas by pipeline to Canada at the United States-Canada border (at a point near Calais, Maine, and St. Stephen, New Brunswick, respectively) on the Maritimes & Northeast (M&N) Pipeline in a volume of 440 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr), or approximately 1.2 Bcf per day (Bcf/d); 2 (ii) to use approximately 42.4 Bcf/yr of the U.S.-sourced natural gas as feedstock in a Canadian natural gas liquefaction and export facility currently being developed by Bear Head within the Point Tupper/Bear Head Industrial Park near the town of Port Hawksbury, on the Straight of Canso, in Richmond County, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada (Project); 3 and (iii) to export a portion of the U.S.-sourced natural gas in the form of LNG in a volume equivalent to approximately 397.6 Bcf/yr of natural gas (1.1 Bcf/d) by vessel from Nova Scotia, Canada, to one or more countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries).4 Only Bear Head's proposed export of LNG produced from U.S-sourced natural gas to non-FTA countries is subject to this Notice. Bear Head states that its proposed Project and LNG exports will not involve the construction of any facilities in the United States giving rise to cognizable effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., but may require modification and expansion of the M&N Pipeline system, which Bear Head expects will interconnect with the Project's proposed pipeline header near Goldboro, Nova Scotia, for the delivery of natural gas feedstock to the Project.5 Bear Head requests the authorization for a 25-year term to commence on the earlier of the date of first export or 10 years from the date the authorization is granted. Bear Head seeks to export this LNG on its own behalf and as agent for other entities who hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Additional details can be found in Bear Head's Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: https://cms.doe.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f21/15_33_lng_fta_nfta.pdf.

    1 Bear Head states that Bear Head Corp. is a Canadian company incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia, and that Bear Head (USA) is a Delaware limited liability company. Both have their principal place of business in Houston, Texas, and both are wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries of Liquefied Natural Gas Limited, a publicly listed Australian company based in Perth, Australia.

    2 Bear Head refers to this requested authorization as the “NG Authorization.” Bear Head states that the M&N Pipeline is operated by Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. in the United States and by its Canadian pipeline affiliate, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership, in Canada.

    3See Application at 1 n.3 (“approximately 42.4 Bcf/y of the natural gas volume proposed to be exported will be consumed in Canada and not exported as LNG [liquefied natural gas]”); id. at 12 (description of project).

    4 In the Application, Bear Head also requests authorization to export U.S.-sourced LNG to any nation that currently has, or in the future may enter into, a FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas (FTA countries). DOE/FE will review Bear Head's request for a FTA export authorization separately pursuant to NGA § 3(c), 15 U.S.C. 717b(c). Additionally, on January 23, 2015, Bear Head filed a separate application with DOE/FE requesting authorization to access certain Canadian natural gas supplies, in a volume up to 250 Bcf/yr, that it states must flow through the United States due to the configuration of existing North American pipeline infrastructure. Application at 2-3 n.7. Bear Head refers to this requested authorization as the “Canadian NG authorization.” Id. That application is pending before DOE/FE in FE Docket No. 15-14-NG, and is the subject of a notice being published in the Federal Register concurrently with this Notice.

    5See Application at 4-5 & n.18.

    Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.

    DATES:

    Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic Filing of Comments Using Online Form: http://www.energy.gov/node/1044731/.

    Electronic Filing of Protests, Motions To Intervene, and Notices of Intervention: [email protected].

    Regular Mail: U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, DC 20026-4375.

    Hand Delivery or Private Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larine Moore or Benjamin Nussdorf, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478; (202) 586-7991.

    Edward Myers or Cassandra Bernstein, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3397; (202) 586-9793.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE/FE Evaluation

    The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and the cumulative impact of the requested authorization and any other LNG export application(s) previously approved on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy (including GDP, consumers, and industry), job creation, the U.S. balance of trade and international considerations; and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements.

    Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:

    Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014); 6 and

    6 The Addendum and related documents are available at: http://energy.gov/fe/draft-addendum-environmental-review-documents-concerning-exports-natural-gas-united-states.

    Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 32260 (June 4, 2014).7

    7 The Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Report is available at: http://energy.gov/fe/life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-perspective-exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-united-states.

    Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

    NEPA requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.

    Public Comment Procedures

    In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested parties will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit their comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

    Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590, as supplemented below.

    Comments may be submitted using one of the following supplemental methods: (1) Submitting the comments using the online form at http://www.energy.gov/node/1044731/; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the comments to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the comments to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES. For administrative efficiency, DOE/FE prefers comments to be filed electronically using the online form (method 1). However, for those commenters lacking access to the Internet, comments may be filed in hard copy using one of the other two methods identified above. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG.

    Protests, motions to intervene, and notices of intervention (including those consolidated with comments) may be submitted using one of the following supplemental methods: (1) Emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG. Please note: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater than 50 pages in length must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

    A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

    The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2015. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Oil and Natural Gas.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08760 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, May 13, 2015, 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Shoney's Restaurant Meeting Room, 204 S. Illinois Ave., Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email: [email protected] or check the Web site at http://energy.gov/orem/services/community-engagement/oak-ridge-site-specific-advisory-board.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda:

    • Welcome and Announcements • City of Oak Ridge Perspectives on the Oak Ridge Environmental Management Program • Public Comment Period • Call for Additions to the Agenda • Other Business • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Melyssa P. Noe at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Melyssa P. Noe at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Melyssa P. Noe at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://energy.gov/orem/services/community-engagement/oak-ridge-site-specific-advisory-board.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on April 10, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08805 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FE Docket No. 15-14-NG] Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Import Natural Gas From, for Subsequent Export to, Canada for a 25-Year Term AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on January 23, 2015, by Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC (collectively, Bear Head),1 requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to import up to 250 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas (approximately 0.7 Bcf per day (Bcf/d)) by pipeline from Canada, for subsequent export by pipeline to Canada, for a 25-year term to commence on the earlier of the date of first export or 10 years from the date the authorization is granted. Bear Head states that this requested authorization is necessary to access Canadian gas supplies that must be imported by pipeline from Canada to the United States to reach demand markets in Nova Scotia through the Maritimes & Northeast (M&N) Pipeline. Bear Head further states that this Application is being filed with DOE/FE in connection with the development of a proposed Canadian natural gas liquefaction and export facility currently being developed by Bear Head within the Point Tupper/Bear Head Industrial Park near the town of Port Hawksbury, on the Straight of Canso, in Richmond County, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada (Project). Bear Head states that the Canadian natural gas subject to the requested authorization will be used as feedstock for the production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) at the Project.2 Bear Head seeks to import and export this Canadian natural gas on its own behalf and as agent for other entities who hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Additional details can be found in Bear Head's Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/15_14_ng_Bear_Head.pdf.

    Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.

    1 Bear Head states that Bear Head Corp. is a Canadian company incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia, and that Bear Head (USA) is a Delaware limited liability company. Both have their principal place of business in Houston, Texas, and both are wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries of Liquefied Natural Gas Limited, a publicly listed Australian company based in Perth, Australia.

    2See Application at 6. On February 25, 2015, Bear Head filed a separate application with DOE/FE requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced natural gas as follows: (i) To export the natural gas by pipeline to Canada at the United States-Canada border (at a point near Calais, Maine, and St. Stephen, New Brunswick, respectively) on the M&N Pipeline in a volume of 440 Bcf/yr of natural gas (1.2 Bcf/d); (ii) to use approximately 42.4 Bcf/yr of the U.S.-sourced natural gas as feedstock in the Project; and (iii) to export a portion of the U.S.-sourced natural gas in the form of LNG in a volume equivalent to approximately 397.6 Bcf/yr of natural gas (1.1 Bcf/d) by vessel from Nova Scotia, Canada, to one or more countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries). That application is pending before DOE/FE in FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG, and is the subject of a notice being published in the Federal Register concurrently with this Notice. See also infra at 3 (DOE/FE Evaluation).

    DATES:

    Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic Filing of Comments Using Online Form: http://www.energy.gov/node/1045041/.

    Electronic Filing of Protests, Motions to Intervene, and Notices of Intervention: [email protected].

    Regular Mail: U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, DC 20026-4375.

    Hand Delivery or Private Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larine Moore or Benjamin Nussdorf, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478; (202) 586-7991.

    Edward Myers or Cassandra Bernstein, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3397; (202) 586-9793.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE/FE Evaluation

    Bear Head asserts that DOE/FE should grant the requested authorization under section 3(c) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(c), because Canada is a nation with which the United States has a FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas.3 According to Bear Head, however, “[t]he Project is proposed for the purpose of exporting North American LNG to foreign markets.” 4 Therefore, DOE/FE requests comment on whether section 3(c) of the NGA or section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), provides the appropriate standard for review of the Application. Parties that may oppose this Application may address this issue in their comments and/or protests, as well as any other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

    3See Application at 2-3.

    4Id. at 4-5; see also id. at 2 n.6 (“Once constructed, the Project will be capable of receiving, processing and liquefying natural gas . . . and loading LNG onto ocean-going vessels for delivery to export markets.”). See also supra at 2 n.2.

    Public Comment Procedures

    In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested parties will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit their comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

    Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590, as supplemented below.

    Comments may be submitted using one of the following supplemental methods: (1) Submitting the comments using the online form at http://www.energy.gov/node/1045041/; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the comments to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the comments to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES. For administrative efficiency, DOE/FE prefers comments to be filed electronically using the online form (method 1). However, for those commenters lacking access to the Internet, comments may be filed in hard copy using one of the other two methods identified above. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 15-14-NG.

    Protests, motions to intervene, and notices of intervention (including those consolidated with comments) may be submitted using one of the following supplemental methods: (1) Emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 15-14-NG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 15-14-NG. PLEASE NOTE: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater than 50 pages in length must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

    A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

    The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2015. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Oil and Natural Gas.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08752 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, May 13, 2015, 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee (EM&R): The EM&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EM&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.

    Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.

    Tentative Agenda:

    • Call to Order and Introductions • Approval of Agenda • Approval of Minutes from April 8, 2015 • Old Business • Consideration and Action on Draft Recommendation 2015-04 “Fiscal Year 2017 Project Prioritization” • New Business • Update from Executive Committee • Update from DOE • Presentation by DOE • “Groundwater Periodic Monitoring Reports” • Public Comment Period • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The NNMCAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on April 10, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08811 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 5066-001] Charles L. Woodman; Kinky Creek Operating Company; Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed March 30, 2015, Charles L. Woodman informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Darwin Ranch Project, FERC No. 5066, originally issued December 1, 1981,1 has been transferred to the Kinky Creek Operating Company. The project is located on Kinky Creek, a tributary to the Gros Ventre River in Teton County, Wyoming. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.

    1 17 FERC ¶ 62,322, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less (1981).

    2. Kinky Creek Operating Company is now the exemptee of the Darwin Ranch Project, FERC No. 5066. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Ms. Kathy Bole, Kinky Creek Operating Company, 19 7th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94118.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08688 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-56-000] City of Burbank, California; City of Glendale, California v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on April 3, 2015, pursuant to sections 211A, 212, 307, 308, and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824i, 824j-k, 825f, 825g, and 825h and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, the City of Burbank California and the City of Glendale, California (Complainants) filed a formal complaint against the City of Los Angeles, California's Department of Water and Power (Respondent), alleging, that the Respondent's modified transmission tariff fails to meet the comparability and non-discrimination requirements of the FPA section 211A, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    The Complainants certifies that a copy of the complaint was served on the Respondents.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 23, 2015.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08689 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-859-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 04/08/15 Capacity Release Index Pricing Supporting Publication/Tariff Clean Up to be effective 5/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-860-000.

    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Statement of Negotiated Rates, Version 10.0.0 to be effective 4/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5080.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-861-000.

    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: QPC Cleanup 2015 to be effective 5/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-862-000.

    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cleanup to be effective 5/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-863-000.

    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: QOPC Cleanup Filing to be effective 5/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-864-000.

    Applicants: Paiute Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Non-conforming TSAs—Rate Case to be effective 4/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-865-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report of Operational Imbalances and Cash-out Activity of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-866-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report of Interruptible Transportation Revenue Sharing of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-867-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report of Penalty Revenues of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-868-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report of Transportation Imbalances and Cash-out Activity of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-869-000.

    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: QSTP Cleanup Filing to be effective 5/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5174.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    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 9, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08747 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ15-12-000] Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 6, 2015, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Oncor Tex-La Tariff Rate Changes, Effective March 20, 2015.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 27, 2015.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08710 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-118-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm LLC, Rising Tree Wind Farm II LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Rising Tree Wind Farm LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5153.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-119-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.

    Description: Application for Authority to Acquire Transmission Facilities of American Transmission Company LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2570-017.

    Applicants: Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Amendment to December 16, 2014 Triennial Market Power Analysis of Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 4/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150403-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2956-006.

    Applicants: Hoopeston Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Hoopeston Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-527-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Errata to Compliance Filing in Docket No. ER15-527-000 to be effective 2/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1487-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Dominion submits revisions to OATT Att H-16A re: prepayments to be effective 1/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1488-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PPL submits revisions to OATT Attachment H-8G re PBOP expense to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1489-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): BPA Construction Agreement (Summer Lake CB & SCADA) to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1490-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-10_Attachment O Reconciliation Filing to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1491-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Concurrence of EPE to APS Service Agreement No. 193, Amendment 3 to be effective 2/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1492-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Concurrence of EPE to APS Service Agreement Nos. 190, 192, 194, and 195 to be effective 3/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1493-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): FAP to be effective 6/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1494-000.

    Applicants: Convergent Energy and Power LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority to be effective 6/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5197.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1495-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Clay Solar LGIA Filing to be effective 3/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150410-5253.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    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 10, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08748 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Lake Charles Liquefaction Project Trunkline Gas Company, LLC Docket Nos. CP14-119-000. Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC CP14-120-000. Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC CP14-122-000.

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Lake Charles Liquefaction Project, proposed by Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline), Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC, and Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC in the above-referenced dockets. Trunkline requests authorization to construct, install, and operate new natural gas pipeline and compression facilities and meter stations; modify certain existing pipeline facilities; modify certain compressor and meter stations; and abandon one compressor unit in the states of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana (collectively referred to as the Non-Liquefaction Facilities). Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC and Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC (collectively referred to as Lake Charles LNG) jointly request authorization to site, construct, and operate new liquefaction facilities adjacent to an existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and to construct and operate certain facility modifications at the existing LNG terminal. The new liquefaction facilities would have a design production capacity of 16.45 million metric tons of LNG per annum.

    Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC also requests authorization to abandon certain terminal facilities previously certificated under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 7; abandon services provided under its existing FERC Gas Tariff and Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity; cancel its FERC Gas Tariff, including all rate schedules therein; and convert such certificated facilities and operation under NGA section 3, so that the entirety of the company's facilities and operations are authorized solely under NGA section 3.

    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the Lake Charles Liquefaction Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project would have some adverse environmental impacts; however, most of these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Lake Charles LNG's and Trunkline's proposed mitigation and the additional measures recommended in the draft EIS.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Transportation participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the draft EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by a proposal and participate in the National Environmental Policy Act analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input on the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective records of decision or determinations for the project.

    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction, modification, and operation of the following project facilities:

    • Three liquefaction trains, each with a production capacity sufficient to produce 5.48 million metric tons per annum of LNG for export (each train would contain metering and gas treatment facilities, liquefaction and refrigerant units, safety and control systems, and associated infrastructure);

    • modifications and upgrades at the existing LNG terminal;

    • about 0.5 mile of 48-inch-diameter feed gas line to supply natural gas to the liquefaction facility from existing gas transmission pipelines;

    • approximately 17.9 miles of 24- and 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;

    • a new 98,685 horsepower (hp) compressor station;

    • abandonment of a 3,000-hp compressor unit, installation of a 15,002-hp unit, and piping modifications at one existing compressor station;

    • modification of station piping at three other existing compressor stations;

    • five new meter stations and modifications and upgrades of five existing meter stations;

    • modification of certain existing pipeline facilities; and

    • construction of miscellaneous auxiliary and appurtenant facilities.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners; other interested individuals and non-governmental organizations; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a compact disk version. In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of hardcopies are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before June 1, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number(s) (CP14-119-000, CP14-120-000, and CP14-122-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected].

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project.

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type.

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend a public comment meeting its staff will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. We encourage interested groups and individuals to attend and present oral comments on the draft EIS. A transcript of the meeting will be available for review in eLibrary under the project docket numbers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and is scheduled as follows:

    Date Location May 7, 2015 Holiday Inn Lake Charles—W. Sulphur, 330 Arena Road, Sulphur, Louisiana 70665, (337) 527-0858.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding that no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Questions?

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number(s) excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-119, CP14-120, and CP14-122). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08740 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-59-000] Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 8, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Navopache), filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission confirm Navopache's rights to purchase power and energy to serve its customer from suppliers other than the Public Service Company of New Mexico without anticompetitive limitations on the amount of such purchases, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 8, 2015.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08741 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-116-000.

    Applicants: Lone Valley Solar Park I, LLC, Lone Valley Solar Park II, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for expedited action of Lone Valley Solar Park I, LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-117-000.

    Applicants: BHE Geothermal, LLC, Saranac Power Partners, LP,TIFD III-A, Inc.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Confidential Treatment of BHE Geothermal, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2719-021; ER10-2718-021; ER10-2633-019; ER10-2570-019; ER10-2717-019; ER10-3140-018; ER13-55-009.

    Applicants: East Coast Power Linden Holding, LLC, Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, LP, Birchwood Power Partners, LP, Shady Hills Power Company, LLC, EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC, Homer City Generation, LP.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the GE Companies.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1308-006.

    Applicants: Palouse Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Palouse Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1146-001.

    Applicants: Bucksport Mill, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Bucksport Mill, LLC supplement 2015-04-09 to be effective 4/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1147-001.

    Applicants: Bucksport Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Bucksport Generation, LLC supplement 2015-04-09 to be effective 4/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1476-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Blaine TX SA 785, 786, & 787 to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1477-000.

    Applicants: Illinois Municipal Electric Agency.

    Description: Waiver Request of the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5216.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1478-000.

    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Cancellation of Agreement No. 1823 between NiMo and Athens to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5063.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1479-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-09_SA 2773 ATC-Adams-Columbia Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5102.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1480-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-09_SA 2774 ATC-City of Cedarburg Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1481-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-09_SA 2776 ATC-Village of Prairie du Sac CFA to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1482-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-09_SA 2777 ATC-City of Wisconsin Rapids CFA to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1483-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-09_SA 2775 ATC-Marshfield Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1484-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-09 Q1 Tariff Clean up Filing to be effective 4/10/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1485-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC, Monongahela Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PJM and Monongahela Power submit Revised Service Agreement No. 3513 (HREA) to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1486-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original Service Agreement No. 4113, Queue No. T182 to be effective 3/10/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150409-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH15-14-000.

    Applicants: Consolidated Edison, Inc.

    Description: Consolidated Edison, Inc. submits FERC 65-B Material Change in Facts of Waiver Notification.

    Filed Date: 4/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150408-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF15-616-000.

    Applicants: CCI U.S. Asset Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Form 556 of CCI U.S. Asset Holdings, LLC [CCI San Juan,LLC] under QF15-616.

    Filed Date: 4/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150406-5199.

    Comments Due: Non Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08709 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9926-37-OEI; EPA-HQ-OEI-2014-0758] Establishment of a New System of Records Notice for the Emergency Management Portal—Field Readiness Application (EMP-FR) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is giving notice that it proposes to create a new system of records pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). The EPA is implementing the Emergency Management Portal—Field Readiness Application (EMP-FR) which will contain information used by the Agency to (1) track and manage training and certifications for Agency emergency management and response personnel and those subject to Agency safety, health, and environmental management training and medical monitoring requirements; (2) contact EPA staff who are members of the Response Support Corps (RSC) in off-hours when they are needed to be sent to an emergency response incident or to contact an emergency point of contact in case of injury to the RSC member while working at an incident; and (3) respond to requests for statistical compilations of such information made by the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security.

    DATES:

    Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must do so by May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2014-0758, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 202-566-1752.

    Mail: OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Hand Delivery: OEI Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2014-0758. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the 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 the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joan Karrie, Office of Solid Waste, Office of Emergency Management, Resource Management Division, USEPA Headquarters, MC 5104A, WJC North Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone number (202) 564-9469.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    General Information

    EPA plans to create a Privacy Act system of records for the Emergency Management Portal—Field Readiness Application (EMP-FR). EMP-FR will be used to track various items of concern to OEM, the Agency's Emergency Management and Response community; and the Agency's Safety, Health and Environmental Management community.

    EMP-FR contains training and certification records for EPA employees (training taken, training required, certifications received and certifications required.) Additional fields for Response Support Corps (RSC) members include emergency response experience and workgroup membership. RSC members may also have entered personal and emergency contact name and address information (home address; personal email; home and cell phone numbers; emergency contact name, relationship and phone numbers). As this information is retrievable using search criteria that identifies an individual, including the person's name, email address and EPA LAN user ID, it is considered non-sensitive personally identifiable information (PII).

    As specified by law and an EPA Order, the Agency's Occupational Medical Surveillance Program (OMSP) provides for baseline, exit and periodic health evaluations to ensure, to the extent feasible, that EPA employees subject to extraordinary physical demands or hazardous exposures have not suffered adverse health effects. The employee data about this program that are managed in EMP-FR include only the date that an occupational medical review was conducted and the date by which the next review is required. No specifics of employee health, exposures, or other medical confidential information are included in EMP-FR.

    The EMP-FR application is owned and managed by the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Office of Emergency Management (OEM). It is hosted by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of Technology Operations and Planning (OTOP), National Computer Center (NCC) located at Research Triangle Park, NC. EMP-FR is accessible through the Internet, with identity and access management handled by OEI's Web Application Management software.

    EMP-FR is available to all EPA employees by default, although targeted to the Emergency Management and Health and Safety personnel in particular. Internal and external trusted partners can be given access with the consent of an EPA point of contact. Each employee can see and edit his/her own record. Supervisors can view records of their employees. Emergency Management and Safety and Health program managers and, according to stated protocols, other EPA employees and their delegates may be given rights to manage/edit other employee records as required. Access to the parallel reporting software, the Emergency Management Business Intelligence (EMBI)—FR tool, is managed separately but with similar protocols.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Ann Dunkin, Chief Information Officer. EPA-70 System Name:

    Emergency Management Portal—Field Readiness Application (EMP—FR)

    System Location:

    The system is located at the EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, National Computing Center, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

    Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:

    This system covers current and former EPA employees, grantees, interns and staff of other federal agencies posted at the EPA who are members of the emergency management and response community and/or who are subject to the EPA's health and safety training requirements. The emergency management and response community includes on scene coordinators, removal managers, RSC members and coordinators and other field personnel. Other EPA employees that are subject to health and safety training requirements include inspectors, special agents and enforcement officers.

    Categories of Records Covered by the System:

    • Personal and emergency contact information for the EPA RSC volunteers:

    ○ Home address, personal email, home and cell phone numbers as well as emergency contact name, relationship and phone numbers.

    • Certification and training information for emergency response personnel and members of the EPA's health and safety community; Incident Command System training and certifications for the response personnel; health and safety training and certifications required for other EPA personnel:

    ○ Training taken, training required, certifications received and certifications required.

    ○ For RSC members, additional fields include emergency response experience and workgroup membership.

    • As specified by law and EPA Order, the Agency's Occupational Medical Surveillance Program (OMSP) provides for baseline, exit and periodic health evaluations to ensure, to the extent feasible, that EPA employees subject to extraordinary physical demands or hazardous exposures have not suffered adverse health effects. The employee data about this program that are managed in EMP-FR include only the date that an occupational medical review was conducted and the date by which the next review is required. No specifics of employee health, exposures, or other medical confidential information are included in EMP-FR.

    Authority for Maintenance of the System:

    CERCLA section 105 (National contingency plan; preparation, contents, etc.); EPCRA section 305 (Emergency training and review of emergency systems); EPA Order 1440.2 (partial list: Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and E.O. 12196, Occupational Health and Safety Programs for Federal Employees); EPA Order 1460.1 (partial list: 29 U.S.C. 655, section 6, and 29 U.S.C. 668, section 19, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended). Purposes(s): Personal and Emergency Contact Information is used by line supervisors and managers of the RSC Program (1) to contact the RSC member in off-hours when he/she is needed to deploy to an incident and (2) in case of injury to the RSC member while deployed at an incident. Emergency planning, management and response-related training and certification information is used by individuals and managers of the various emergency management and response programs across the Agency to track required emergency response training.

    Safety and health-related training and certification information is used by individuals and managers of the safety, health and environmental management program across the Agency to track required safety, health and environmental management training and medical monitoring data.

    Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users, and Purposes of Such Uses:

    General routine uses A, D, E, F, G, H, K and L apply to this system. Records may also be disclosed to home-agency supervisors of non-EPA federal employees.

    Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records in the System:

    • Storage: Data are stored on in a computer database on a database server.

    • Retrievability: Personally identifiable information (PII) can be retrieved by name and EPA personnel identification number. Searches by training or certification name can also be used to access user records.

    • Safeguards: Access to EMP by external trusted partners, such as state employees, other federal employees and contractors as well as internal contractors, grantees, interns and non-EPA federal employees must be requested through OEI's Web Access Management process and must be approved by the requestor's EPA point of contact. In addition, requestor's EPA point of contact must explain and approve all read/edit access to the EMP-FR application. Access is then granted via the EMP Help Desk data managers. Those with edit rights to profiles other than their own, have rights granted individually through the EMP Help Desk in accordance with procedures determined by the various field readiness user community program managers such as the RSC project manager; the National Incident Management System project manager and the Safety, Health and Environmental Management Division of the Office of Administration and Resources Management. Access to the personal and emergency contact information is limited to the person himself/herself; the person's supervisor, as listed in EMP-FR; and the person's organizational RSC Coordinators and their specific designees. This access is managed through the standard EMP database security and policies.

    • Retention and Disposal: An EMP-FR records schedule is currently under development.

    System Manager(s) and Address: Christopher Burgess, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency Management, Resource Management Division, USEPA, MC 5104A, WJC North, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Notification Procedure: Any individual who wants to know whether this system of records contains a record about him or her, who wants access to his or her record, or who wants to contest the contents of a record, should make a written request to the EPA Freedom of Information Act Office, Attn: Privacy Act Officer, MC 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Record Access Procedure: Individuals seeking access to information in this system of records about themselves are required to provide adequate identification (e.g. driver's license, military identification card, employee badge or identification card and, if necessary, proof of authority). Additional identity verification procedures may be required, as warranted. Requests must meet the requirements of EPA regulations that implement the Privacy Act of 1974, at 40 CFR part 16.

    Contesting Record Procedure: Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be changed and the corrective action sought. Complete EPA Privacy Act procedures are described in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

    Record Source Categories: Information will come from the individual, from program managers such as OARM/SHEMD and OSWER/OEM/PROD, and from training rosters.

    System Exempted from Certain Provisions of the Act: None.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08804 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014; FRL-9925-44] Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit III., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Any distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

    DATES:

    The cancellations are effective April 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janeese Hackley, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 605-1523; email address: [email protected]

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request.

    III. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Product Cancellations EPA registration No. Product name Chemical name 060061-00139 Kop-Coat Cooper Treat 80 Copper carbonate, basic. CA-050009 Deadline Bullets Metaldehyde. CA-890001 Durham Metaldehyde Granules 7.5 Metaldehyde. KY-100002 Dual Magnum Herbicide S-Metolachlor. KY-110032 Ridomil Gold SL Metalaxyl-M. MI-100003 Scholar SC Fludioxonil. OR-030002 Warrior Insecticide with Zeon Technology Lambda-cyhalothrin. OR-060010 Mocap EC Nematicide-Insecticide Ethoprop. OR-060024 Mocap EC Nematicide-Insecticide Ethoprop. OR-080027 Axiom DF Herbicide Metribuzin and Flufenacet. OR-090003 Mocap EC Nematicide-Insecticide Ethoprop. WA-000037 Wakil XL Fludioxonil, Metalaxyl-M and Cymoxanil. WA-100007 Graduate SC Fludioxonil.

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 2—Registrants of Cancelled Products EPA company No. Company name and address 60061 Kop-Coat, Inc., 3020 William Pitt Way, Pittsburg, PA 15238. CA-050009 and CA-890001 Amvac Chemical Corporation, 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 1200, Newport Beach, CA 92660-1706. KY-100002, KY-110032, MI-100003, OR-030002, WA-000037, WA-100007 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. OR-060010, OR-060024, OR-080027, OR-090003 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    This cancellation order follows a notice of receipt of voluntary cancellation requests received from the registrants that issued in the Federal Register of June 11, 2014 (79 FR 33550) (FRL-9911-36)), and a correction notice issued in the Federal Register of July 16, 2014 (79 FR 41551) (FRL-9913-20) that removed two products that were inadvertently listed in the June 11, 2014 document. In the June 2014 document, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 180-day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests.

    IV. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments

    The comment period closed on December 8, 2014. EPA received one comment. The comment did not contain information about any specific product cancellation request. For this reason, the Agency does not believe that the comment submitted during the comment period merits further review or a denial of the request for voluntary cancellation.

    Further, the registrants did not withdraw their requests.

    V. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit III. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit III. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this order is April 16, 2015. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit III. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

    VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.

    The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit III. until April 18, 2016, which is 1 year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from selling or distributing products listed in Table 1 of Unit III. except for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit III. until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Michael Goodis, Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08787 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-1004] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority 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 the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 15, 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Benish Shah, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact [email protected], (202) 418-7866.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1004.

    Title: Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents: 235 respondents; 565 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3.8 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One time and then quarterly.

    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 303, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,145 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: N/A.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The existing information collection is based on the Commission's regulatory authority pursuant to its regulatory responsibilities under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (“OBRA-1993”), which added Section 309(j) to the Communications Act of 1934. Given that delays in compliance could impact the delivery of safety-of-life services to the public, it is imperative that the CMRS carriers be brought into compliance, required in the various orders, and that the reports and compliance plans be timely submitted by the carriers.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08674 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10014, Ameribank, Inc., Northfork, West Virginia

    NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Ameribank, Inc., Northfork, West Virginia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Ameribank, Inc. on September 19, 2008. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    On April 10, 2015, the FDIC published its Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of Ameribank, Inc., in the Federal Register (80 FR 19319). In that Notice, the location of Ameribank, Inc., was incorrectly identified as Northfolk, West Virginia. This Notice is to correct that error.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame. Dated: April 13, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08742 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and its Continuation on Thursday, April 23, 2015 at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109 (formerly 2 U.S.C. 437g). Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08906 Filed 4-14-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2015-08045) published on pages 18442 and 18443 of the issue for Wednesday, April 8, 2015.

    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco heading, the entry for Cathay Financial Holding Co., Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan, is revised to read as follows:

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. Cathay Financial Holding Co., Ltd., Cathay Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Liang Ting Industrial Co., Ltd., Lin Yuan Investment Co., Ltd., Pai Hsing Investment Co., Ltd., Tung Chi Capital Co., Ltd., and Wan Ta Investment Co., Ltd., all in Taipei, Taiwan, and Wan Bao Development Co., Ltd., New Taipei, Taiwan; to acquire Conning Holdings Corp., Hartford, Connecticut, and thereby engage in financial and investment advisory activities, and agency transactional services for customer investments, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6) and (b)(7).

    Comments on this application must be received by April 23, 2015.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 13, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08713 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC-2014-0013; Docket Number NIOSH-274] Issuance of Final Guidance Publication AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of final guidance publication.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the availability of the following publication: “NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin 67: Promoting Health and Preventing Disease and Injury through Workplace Tobacco Policies” [2015-113].

    ADDRESSES:

    This document may be obtained at the following link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2015-113/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Martin, NIOSH Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop H-2900, Morgantown, WV 26505-2888. (304) 285-5734 (not a toll free number).

    Dated: April 9, 2015. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08737 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Proposed Projects: Immediate Disaster Case Management Intake Assessment (hardcopy and electronic versions).

    Title: Immediate Disaster Case Management Intake Assessment.

    OMB No.: 0970-NEW.

    Description: Section 426 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5189d authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Department of Health Services' Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Immediate Disaster Case Management (IDCM) services under the federal Disaster Case Management Program (DCMP).

    The use of the Electronic Case Management Record System (ECMRS) is aligned with Executive Order of the President 13589 and the memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies M-12-12 from the Office of Management and Budget to “Promote Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations.”

    The primary purpose of the information collection pertains to ACF/OHSEPR's initiative to improve the intake process and delivery of case management services to individuals and households impacted by a disaster. Further, the information collection will be used to support ACF/OHSEPR's goal to quickly identify critical gaps, resources, needs, and services to support State, local and non-profit capacity for disaster case management and to augment and build capacity where none exists. All information gathered will be exclusively used to inform the delivery of disaster case management services and programmatic strategies and improvements.

    Respondents: Individuals impacted by a disaster.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • IDCM Intake Assessment 3,500 1 40 2,333

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,333 hours or 140,000 minutes

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08684 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0672] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use Devices AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0577. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers On Single-Use Devices (OMB Control Number 0910-0577)—Extension

    Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 352), among other things, establishes requirements that the label or labeling of a medical device must meet so that it is not misbranded and subject to regulatory action. Section 301 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250) amended section 502 of the FD&C Act to add section 502(u) to require devices (both new and reprocessed) to bear prominently and conspicuously the name of the manufacturer, a generally recognized abbreviation of such name, or a unique and generally recognized symbol identifying the manufacturer.

    Section 2(c) of the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-43) amends section 502(u) of the FD&C Act by limiting the provision to reprocessed single-use devices (SUDs) and the manufacturers who reprocess them. Under the amended provision, if the original SUD or an attachment to it prominently and conspicuously bears the name of the manufacturer, then the reprocessor of the SUD is required to identify itself by name, abbreviation, or symbol in a prominent and conspicuous manner on the device or attachment to the device. If the original SUD does not prominently and conspicuously bear the name of the manufacturer, the manufacturer who reprocesses the SUD for reuse may identify itself using a detachable label that is intended to be affixed to the patient record.

    The requirements of section 502(u) of the FD&C Act impose a minimal burden on industry. This section of the FD&C Act only requires the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a device to include their name and address on the labeling of a device. This information is readily available to the establishment and easily supplied. From its registration and premarket submission database, FDA estimates that there are 67 establishments that distribute approximately 427 reprocessed SUDs. Each response is anticipated to take 0.1 hours (6 minutes) resulting in a total burden to industry of 43 hours.

    In the Federal Register of December 30, 2014 (79 FR 78445), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 12 Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures
  • per respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    Establishments listing fewer than 10 SUDs 58 2 116 0.1 (6 minutes) 12 Establishments listing 10 or more SUDs 9 34 306 0.1 (6 minutes) 31 Total 43 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Numbers have been rounded.
    Dated: April 13, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08749 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0449] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Sun Protection Factor Labeling and Testing Requirements and Drug Facts Labeling for Over-the-Counter Sunscreen Drug Products AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on Sun Protection Factor (SPF) labeling and testing requirements for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen products containing specified ingredients and marketed without approved applications, and on compliance with Drug Facts labeling requirements for all OTC sunscreen products.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    SPF Labeling and Testing Requirements for OTC Sunscreen Products Containing Specified Active Ingredients and Marketed Without Approved Applications, and Drug Facts Labeling for All OTC Sunscreen Products—21 CFR 201.327(a)(1) and (i), 21 CFR 201.66(c) and (d) (OMB Control Number 0910-0717)—Extension

    In the Federal Register of June 17, 2011 (76 FR 35620) we published a final rule establishing labeling and effectiveness testing requirements for certain OTC sunscreen products containing specified active ingredients without approved applications (2011 sunscreen final rule; § 201.327 (21 CFR 201.327)). In addition to establishing testing requirements, this sunscreen final rule lifts the delay of implementation of the prior 1999 sunscreen final rule (published May 21, 1999, at 64 FR 27666 and stayed December 31, 2001, 66 FR 67485) from complying with the 1999 labeling final rule (published March 17, 1999, 64 FR 13254) in which we amended our regulations governing requirements for human drug products to establish standardized format and content requirements for the labeling of all marketed OTC drug products in part 201 (21 CFR part 201). Specifically, the 1999 labeling final rule added new § 201.66 to part 201. Section 201.66 sets content and format requirements for the Drug Facts portion of labels on OTC drug products. We specifically exempted OTC sunscreen products from complying with the 1999 labeling final rule until we lifted the stay of the 1999 sunscreen final rule. The 2011 sunscreen final rule became effective December 17, 2012, for sunscreen products with annual sales of $25,000 or more and December 17, 2013, for sunscreen products with annual sales of less than $25,000 when we published an extension date notice on May 11, 2012 (77 FR 27591).

    SPF Labeling and Testing for OTC Sunscreens Containing Specified Active Ingredients and Marketed Without Approved Applications

    In the Federal Register of June 17, 2011 (76 FR 35678), we published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information in regard to SPF labeling and testing requirements for OTC sunscreen products containing specified ingredients and marketed without approved applications. In that notice, we stated that § 201.327 (a)(1) requires the principal display panel (PDP) labeling of a sunscreen covered by the 2011 final rule to include the SPF value determined by conducting the SPF test outlined in § 201.327(i). Therefore, this provision results in information collection with a third-party disclosure burden for manufacturers of OTC sunscreens covered by the rule. We determined that products need only complete the testing and labeling required by the rule one time, and then continue to utilize the resultant labeling (third-party disclosure) going forward without additional burden. This one-time testing would need to be conducted within the first 3 years after publication of the 2011 final rule for all OTC sunscreens covered by that rule. We determined that the third-party disclosure burden by manufacturers of OTC sunscreens covered by the rule was based on an estimate: (1) Of the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing each collection of information; (2) on the conduct of SPF testing based on the estimated number of existing formulations; (3) of the time to relabel currently marketed OTC sunscreens containing specified ingredients and marketed without approved applications; and (4) on testing and labeling of new products introduced each year. The estimate for this burden in the 2011 60-day PRA notice was a total of 30,066 hours in years one and two and a total burden of 966 in each subsequent year.

    All currently marketed OTC sunscreen drug products are required at this time to be in compliance with the SPF labeling requirements specified by the 2011 final rule. However, our original estimate included the burden of new products introduced each year. We estimated that as many as 60 new OTC sunscreen products stock keeping units (SKUs) may be introduced each year which will have to be tested and labeled with the SPF value determined in the test. We estimated that the 60 new sunscreen SKUs represent 39 new formulations. The burden for testing and labeling these formulations was estimated at 30 hours per year.

    We have received no further comments on our estimate of burden for the collection of this information other than two comments (FDA-2011-N-0449-0002 and FDA-2011-N-0449-0003). These comments were already addressed in FDA's notice of “Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Sun Protection Factor Labeling and Testing Requirements and Drug Facts Labeling for Over-the Counter Sunscreen Drug Products” published on May 9, 2012 (77 FR 27230).

    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures
  • per respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    Conduct SPF testing in accordance with § 201.327(i) for new sunscreens 20 1.95 39 24 936 Create PDP labeling in accordance with § 201.327(a)(1) for new sunscreen SKUs 20 3 60 0.5 (30 min.) 30 Total 966 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Drug Facts Labeling for OTC Sunscreens

    Because the 2011 final rule also lifts the delay of implementation of the Drug Facts regulations (§ 201.66) for OTC sunscreens, the rule also modifies the information collection associated with § 201.66 (currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0340) and adds an additional third-party disclosure burden resulting from requiring OTC sunscreen products to comply with Drug Facts regulations. In the Federal Register of March 17, 1999 (64 FR 13254), we amended our regulations governing requirements for human drug products to establish standardized format and content requirements for the labeling of all marketed OTC drug products, codified in § 201.66 (the 1999 Drug Facts labeling final rule). Section 201.66 sets requirements for the Drug Facts portion of labels on OTC drug products, requiring such labeling to include uniform headings and subheadings, presented in a standardized order, with minimum standards for type size and other graphical features. Therefore, currently marketed OTC sunscreen products will incur a one-time burden to comply with the requirements in § 201.66(c) and (d). The burden was estimated in the 60-day PRA notice published in the Federal Register of June 17, 2011 (76 FR 35678) as 43,200 hours for existing sunscreen SKUs and 720 hours for new sunscreen SKUs.

    The compliance dates for the 2011 final rule lifting the delay of the § 201.66 labeling implementation data for OTC sunscreen products were December 17, 2012, for sunscreen products with annual sales of $25,000 or more and December 17, 2013, for sunscreen products with annual sales of less than $25,000, respectively, when we published an extension date notice on May 11, 2012 (77 FR 27591). All currently marketed sunscreen products are, therefore, already required to be in compliance with the Drug Facts labeling requirements in § 201.66 and will incur no further burden in the 1999 labeling final rule. However, new OTC sunscreen drug products will be subject to a one-time burden to comply with Drug Facts labeling requirements in § 201.66. In the 2011 60-day PRA, we estimated that as many as 60 new product SKUs marketed each year will have to comply with Drug Facts regulations. We estimated that these 60 SKUs would be marketed by 30 manufacturers. We estimated that approximately 12 hours would be spent on each label, based on the most recent estimate used for other OTC drug products to comply with the Drug Facts labeling final rule, including public comments received on this estimate in 2010 that addressed sunscreens. This is equal to 720 hours annually (60 SKUs × 12 hours/SKU). We stated that we do not expect any OTC sunscreens to apply for exemptions or deferrals of the Drug Facts regulations in § 201.66(e). However, we took this into consideration in 2013 and estimated the burden for an exemption or deferral by considering the number of exemptions or deferrals we have received since publication of the 1999 final rule (one response) and estimating that a request for deferral or exemption would require 24 hours to complete. Multiplying the annual frequency of response (0.125) by the number of hours per response (24) gives a total response time for requesting an exemption or deferral equal to 3 hours.

    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 2—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures
  • per respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    Format labeling in accordance with § 201.66(c) and (d) for new sunscreen SKUs 20 3 60 12 720 Request for Drug Facts exemption or deferral § 201.66(e) 1 0.125 0.125 24 3 Total 723 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: April 13, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08750 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-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 Childhood Home Visiting (Home Visiting) Program fiscal year (FY) 2015, FY2016, FY2017 Non-Competing Continuation Progress Report for Formula Grant.

    OMB No. 0915-0355—Extension.

    Abstract: The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (Home Visiting) Program, administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (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. The purpose of this formula grant program is to support the delivery of coordinated and comprehensive voluntary early childhood home visiting program services and effective implementation of high-quality evidence-based practices. Fifty states, the District of Columbia, 5 territories, and eligible nonprofit organizations are eligible for formula grants and submit non-competing continuation progress reports annually. There are 56 jurisdictions/entities eligible for formula awards, and 56 formula awards are issued annually.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: This information collection is needed for grantees to report progress under the Home Visiting Program annually. On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 2951 of the ACA amended title V of the Social Security Act by adding a new section, 511, which authorized the Home Visiting Program (http://frwebgate.access.thefederalregister.org/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf, pages 216-225). Congress extended funding for the Home Visiting Program by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-93). A portion of funding provided under this program is awarded to participating states, jurisdictions, and entities by formula.

    The information collected will be used to review grantee progress on proposed project plans to assess whether the project is performing adequately to achieve the goals and objectives that were previously approved. This report will also provide implementation plans for the upcoming year, to permit assessment of whether the plan is consistent with the grant as approved, and is expected to, will result in, implementation of a high-quality project that will complement the Home Visiting Program as a whole. Progress Reports are submitted through the Electronic Handbooks. Failure to collect this information would impair federal monitoring and oversight of the use of grant funds in keeping with legislative and policy requirements. Grantees are required to provide a performance narrative with the following sections: Project identifier information; accomplishments and barriers; Home Visiting Program goals and objectives; update on the Home Visiting Program promising approach; implementation of the Home Visiting Program in targeted at-risk communities; progress toward meeting legislatively-mandated reporting on benchmark areas; home visiting quality improvement efforts; and updates on the administration of the Home Visiting Program.

    Likely Respondents: Grantees with Home Visiting Formula Awards Awarded in Federal FY 2013-FY 2017.

    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:

    The burden estimates presented in the table below are based on consultations with a few states on the guidance. Grantees receive a new formula grant annually and are expected to report on progress annually, so the expectation is that grantees would submit non-competing continuation progress reports four times between federal FY 2015 and FY 2018. Only seven grantees are currently implementing a promising approach and require an annual update on the promising approach.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Formula Grant Award 56 1 56 42 2,352 Total 56 1 56 42 2,352

    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. 2015-08707 Filed 4-15-15; 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 Childhood Home Visiting (Home Visiting) Program fiscal year (FY) 2012-FY 2017 Non-Competing Continuation Progress Report for Competitive Grants.

    OMB No. 0915-0356—Extension.

    Abstract: The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (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. Competitive grants support the efforts of states and entities that have previously received formula-based Home Visiting awards and that have made significant progress towards a high-quality home visiting program or embedding their home visiting program into a comprehensive, high-quality early childhood system. Fifty states, the District of Columbia (DC), 5 territories, and eligible nonprofit organizations are eligible for competitive grants and must submit non-competing continuation progress reports annually.1 There are currently 41 entities that have been awarded competitive grants. Some entities have been awarded more than one competitive grant.

    1 In the event of a new, 1-year Funding Opportunity Announcement for the competitive grant program, the application for new grant funds may be permitted by HRSA to replace a non-competing continuation progress report.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: This information collection is needed for grant recipients to report progress under the Home Visiting Program annually. On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 2951 of the ACA amended title V of the Social Security Act by adding a new section 511, which authorized the Home Visiting Program (http://frwebgate.access.thefederalregister.org/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf, pages 216-225). Funding for the Home Visiting program was extended by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-93). A portion of funding made available under this program is awarded to participating states and eligible entities competitively.

    The information collected will be used to review grantee progress on proposed project plans so as to assess whether the grantee is performing adequately to achieve the goals and objectives that were previously approved. This report will also provide implementation plans for the upcoming year, which will be assessed for consistency with the approved grant and assist the grantee in achieving implementation of a high-quality project that will complement the Home Visiting Program as a whole. Failure to collect this information could impair federal monitoring and oversight of the use of grant funds by grantees in keeping with legal and policy requirements. Grantees are required to provide a performance narrative with the following sections: Project identifier information, accomplishments and barriers; state home visiting program goals and objectives; update on the state home visiting program promising approach and evaluations conducted under the competitive grant; implementation of the state home visiting program in targeted at-risk communities; progress toward meeting legislatively-mandated reporting on benchmark areas; state home visiting quality improvement efforts; and updates on the administration of state home visiting program.

    Since federal fiscal year 2011, 48 eligible entities have received competitive grant awards. Some grantees have been awarded up to three competitive grants to date. Grantees of the competitive grant program need to complete annual reports in order to comply with legal and policy reporting requirements.

    Likely Respondents: Grantees with Home Visiting Competitive Awards Awarded in Federal FY 2013-FY 2017.

    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
  • Home Visiting Competitive Grant Progress Report—FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014 37 1 37 25 925 Home Visiting Competitive Grant Progress Report—FY 2015 32 1 35 25 875 Home Visiting Competitive Grant Progress Report—FY 2016 FY 2017 47 2 94 25 2350 Total 116 4 166 75 4150

    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. 2015-08708 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0111] Agency Information Collection Activities: Arrival and Departure Record (Forms I-94 and I-94W) and Electronic System for Travel Authorization AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension and revision of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: CBP Form I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record), CBP Form I-94W (Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure), and the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a change to the burden hours and a revision to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before May 18, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (79 FR 73096) on December 9, 2014, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Arrival and Departure Record, Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure, and Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

    OMB Number: 1651-0111.

    Form Numbers: I-94 and I-94W.

    Abstract:

    Background

    CBP Forms I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record) and I-94W (Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record) are used to document a traveler's admission into the United States. These forms are filled out by aliens and are used to collect information on citizenship, residency, passport, and contact information. The data elements collected on these forms enable the DHS to perform its mission related to the screening of alien visitors for potential risks to national security, and the determination of admissibility to the United States. The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) applies to aliens traveling to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and requires that VWP travelers provide information electronically to CBP before embarking on travel to the United States. Travelers who are entering under the VWP in the air or sea environment, and who have a travel authorization obtained through ESTA, are not required to complete the paper Form I-94W.

    Pursuant to an interim final rule published on March 27, 2013 in the Federal Register (78 FR 18457) related to Form I-94, CBP has partially automated the Form I-94 process. CBP now gathers data previously collected on the paper Form I-94 from existing automated sources in lieu of requiring passengers arriving by air or sea to submit a paper I-94 upon arrival. Passengers can access and print their electronic I-94 via the Web site at www.cbp.gov/I94.

    ESTA can be accessed at: https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov. Samples of CBP Forms I-94 and I-94W can be viewed at:http://www.cbp.gov/document/forms/form-i-94-arrivaldeparture-record and http://www.cbp.gov/document/forms/form-i-94w-visa-waiver-arrivaldeparture-record.

    Recent and Proposed Changes

    In response to the increasing concerns regarding national security, DHS used the emergency Paperwork Reduction Act process to strengthen the security of the VWP by adding data elements to ESTA and to Form I-94W. DHS determined that the addition of these new data elements improves the Department's ability to screen prospective VWP travelers while more accurately and effectively identifying those who pose a security risk to the United States and facilitates adjudication of ESTA applications.

    The following data elements are either new elements that were approved in the emergency PRA submission or data elements that were collected previously that were changed from “optional” to “mandatory” on the ESTA application:

    1. Other Names or Aliases Mandatory. 2. Other Country of Citizenship Mandatory. 3. If yes, passport number on additional citizenship passport Optional. 4. Home Address Mandatory. 5. Parents' Names Mandatory. 6. Current or Previous Job Title Optional. 7. Current or Previous Employer Name Mandatory. 8. Current or Previous Employer Address Mandatory. 9. Current or Previous Employer Telephone number Optional. 10. Primary Email Mandatory—was optional. 11. Primary Telephone Number Mandatory—was optional. 12. U.S. Point of Contact Name Mandatory. 13. U.S. Point of Contact Address Mandatory. 14. U.S. Point of Contact Email Mandatory. 15. U.S. Point of Contact Phone Mandatory. 16. City of Birth Mandatory. 17. National Identification Number Mandatory. 18. Emergency Point of Contact Information Name Mandatory. 19. Emergency Point of Contact Information Email Mandatory. 20. Emergency Point of Contact Information Phone Mandatory. 22. Do you have a current or previous employer? Mandatory. 21. Is your travel to the U.S. occurring in transit to another country? Mandatory. For the following “mandatory” fields ESTA applicants are permitted to enter “unknown,” if they do not have or know the information, without impeding the submission of their ESTA application: City of Birth, Parents' Names, National Identification Number, Emergency Contact Information, U.S. Point of Contact information, and Employer Address.

    In accordance with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CBP also proposes to revise the current question about diseases on ESTA and on Form I-94W as follows:

    Currently approved question:

    Do you have a physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict; or currently have any of the following diseases:

    • Chancroid • Gonorrhea • Granuloma inguinale • Leprosy, infectious • Lymphogranuloma venereum • Syphilis, infectious • Active Tuberculosis

    Proposed new question:

    Do you have a physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict; or do you currently have any of the following diseases (communicable diseases are specified pursuant to section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act):

    • Cholera • Diphtheria • Tuberculosis, infectious • Plague • Smallpox • Yellow Fever • Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers, including Ebola, Lassa, Marburg, Crimean-Congo • Severe acute respiratory illnesses capable of transmission to other persons and likely to cause mortality.

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with a change to the burden hours based on updated estimates of the numbers of respondents. Specifically, the number of respondents for the I-94 Web site was decreased by 1,188,899 from 5,047,681 to 3,858,782; the number of respondents for the ESTA burden was increased by 920,000 from 22,090,000 to 23,010,000; and the number of respondents paying the ESTA fee was increased by 747,000 from 18,183,000 to 18,930,000.

    There is also a proposed change to the question about diseases on ESTA and on Form I-94W as described in the Abstract section of this document. There are no changes to the information collected on Form I-94, or the I-94 Web site.

    Type of Review: Extension (with change).

    Affected Public: Individuals, Carriers, and the Travel and Tourism Industry.

    Form I-94 (Arrival and Departure Record)

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,387,550.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8 minutes.

    Estimated Burden Hours: 583,544.

    Estimated Annual Cost to Public: $26,325,300.

    I-94 Web Site

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,858,782.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4 minutes.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 254,679.

    Form I-94W (Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure)

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 941,291.

    Estimated Time per Response: 13 minutes.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 204,260.

    Estimated Annual Cost to the Public: $5,647,746.

    Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 23,010,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,662,330.

    Estimated Annual Cost to the Public: $265,020,000.

    Dated: April 13, 2015, Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08768 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNM006200 L99110000.EK0000 XXX L4053RV] Revision of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0179 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) invites public comment, and announces that it intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) renew and revise control number 1004-0179, “Helium Contracts.” This request is prompted by the need to update the control number in response to legislation.

    DATES:

    Please submit comments on the proposed information collection by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic mail.

    Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Attention: Jean Sonneman, Washington, DC 20240.

    Fax: to Jean Sonneman at 202-245-0050.

    Electronic mail: [email protected]

    Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0179” regardless of the form of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Jolley, at 806-356-1002. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Mr. Jolley. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, require that interested members of the public and affected agencies be given an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d) and 1320.12(a)). This notice identifies an information collection that the BLM plans to submit to OMB for approval. The Paperwork Reduction Act provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

    The BLM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany our submission of the information collection requests to OMB.

    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.

    The following information pertains to this request:

    Title: Helium Contracts (43 CFR part 3195).

    OMB Control Number: 1004-0179.

    Summary: At present, control number 1004-0179 (expiration date: April 30, 2017) enables the BLM to monitor purchases and sales of helium from the Federal Helium Reserve. This information collection activity is in accordance with the BLM's authority to implement in-kind sales of helium in accordance with 43 CFR part 3195. The BLM intends to seek OMB clearance to revise and extend this ongoing collection of information for another 3 years. The requested revision will be the addition of a new form (“Refined Helium Deliveries Detail”) that will replace the existing non-form activity titled “Sales Reports.”

    In addition, the BLM intends to seek OMB clearance to add information collection activities that are necessary for the implementation of the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 (Act or 2013 Act), Public Law 113-40 (127 Stat. 534, codified at 50 U.S.C. 167-167q). Section 5(b)(8) of the 2013 Act amends 50 U.S.C. 167d, and establishes the following additional terms and conditions of Federal helium sales that necessitate new information collection activities:

    • Parties to a helium storage contract with the BLM must disclose:

    (1) The volumes and associated prices in dollars per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in purchase and sales transactions in the United States involving at least 15 million standard cubic feet of crude or pure helium;

    (2) The volumes and associated costs in dollars per Mcf of converting crude helium into pure helium; and

    (3) Refinery operational capacity, future operational capacity, and excess refining capacity in Mcf; and

    • Refiners of crude helium that enter into “tolling agreements” must submit a Tolling Occurrence Report to the BLM whenever they enter into such tolling agreements. (“Tolling agreements” refers to the helium industry's practice of processing or refining another party's helium at an agreed upon price. While refiners can purchase, access, and refine their own helium, non-refiners rely upon the refiners to process and refine the helium that they have purchased—this process is called tolling.)

    Frequency of Collection: Quarterly for the Refined Helium Deliveries Detail; annually for the Calculation of Excess Refining Capacity and Refiners' Annual Tolling Report; and “on occasion” for the Refiners' Tolling Occurrence Report.

    Forms:

    Refined Helium Deliveries Detail;

    Calculation of Excess Refining Capacity;

    Refiners' Annual Tolling Report; and

    Refiners' Tolling Occurrence Report.

    Description of Respondents: Suppliers, purchasers, and refiners of Federal helium.

    Estimated Annual Responses: 60.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 110.

    Estimated Annual Non-Hour Costs: None.

    The estimated annual burdens of these revised and new collection activities are itemized in the following table:

    A.
  • Type of response
  • B.
  • Frequency
  • C.
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • D.
  • Number of
  • responses
  • E.
  • Hours per
  • response
  • F.
  • Total hours
  • (column D x column E)
  • Refined Helium Deliveries Detail Quarterly 10 40 1 40 Calculation of Excess Refining Capacity Annually 4 4 8 32 Refiners' Annual Tolling Report Annually 4 4 8 32 Refiners' Tolling Occurrence Report On occasion 4 12 0.5 6 Totals 22 60 110
    Jean Sonneman, Bureau of Land Management, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Bureau of Land Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08686 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCACO9000 1430000000 ET0000 14XL 1109AF; CACA 052573) Public Land Order No. 7834; Withdrawal of Public Lands, North and Middle Fork of the American River, California AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Public Land Order.

    SUMMARY:

    This order withdraws 6,737.42 acres of public lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws for 20 years on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management to protect and preserve the riparian areas, wildlife habitat, scenic quality, and high recreational values of lands within the North and Middle Fork of the American River and to provide protection of lands associated with the congressionally designated Auburn Dam Reclamation Project Area pending a decision on future development of the site. The lands, which are located in El Dorado and Placer Counties, California, will remain open to leasing under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jodi Lawson, Bureau of Land Management Mother Lode Field Office, 916-941-3139, or write: Field Manager, BLM Mother Lode Field Office, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, California 95762. 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. 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 Bureau of Land Management will manage the lands to protect the unique natural, scenic, cultural, and recreational values along the North and Middle Fork of the American River.

    Order

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:

    1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, to protect the unique natural, scenic, cultural, and recreational values along the North and Middle Fork of the American River and to provide protection of lands associated with the congressionally designated Auburn Dam Reclamation Project pending a decision on future development of the site:

    Mount Diablo Meridian T. 12 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 12, S1/2SW1/4; Sec. 25, North Extension of the Wilhelm Lode Mineral Survey No. 6091. T. 12 N., R. 9 E., Sec. 1, lots 10 and 11; Sec. 4, lots 12, 13, and 14, and S1/2NE1/4; Sec. 5, lots 19, 20, and 21; Sec. 18, lot 1. T. 13 N., R. 9 E., Sec. 1, that portion of unpatented Mineral Survey No. 2653 lying in the NE1/4; Sec. 2, lots 1, 2, and 7, N1/2SW1/4, SW1/4SW1/4, and N1/2SE1/4SW1/4; Sec. 11, lot 2 and S1/2SW1/4; Sec. 13, SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 22, N1/2SW1/4 and SW1/4SW1/4; Sec. 23, Mineral Survey U-3; Sec. 25, SE1/4NE1/4, W1/2NW1/4SE1/4, W1/2W1/2W1/2SW1/4SE1/4, and Summit Hill Consolidated Quartz Mine; Sec. 28, NW1/4SW1/4, N1/2SW1/4SW1/4, E1/2SW1/4SW1/4SW1/4, and W1/2SE1/4SW1/4SW1/4; Sec. 32, lots 4 and 5; Sec. 34, lot 4. T. 13 N., R. 10 E., Sec. 2, lot 1, and lots 3 to 15, inclusive; Sec. 9, lots 8, 12, 13, and SW1/4NE1/4; Sec. 10, lots 1 to 10, inclusive, E1/2NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, SW1/4NW1/4 and SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 11, lot 1 and SW1/4NE1/4; Sec. 18, lots 1 to 4, inclusive, S1/2 of lot 5, S1/2 of lot 8, and lots 11 and 13; Sec. 19, lot 24; Sec. 20, lots 1, 2, 3, and 8, N1/2NE1/4, and SE1/4NE1/4; Sec. 30, lots 1, 5, and 6, S1/2NE1/4, and NE1/4SE1/4. T. 14 N., R. 9 E., Sec. 1, lot 5, S1/2NW1/4, Gitaway Quartz Mine, and Blue Rock Quartz Mine; Sec. 12, N1/2 and SE1/4; Sec. 13, NE1/4; Sec. 24, S1/2; Sec. 25, lots 9 to 13, inclusive, lots 15 to 22, inclusive, S1/2SW1/4, NE1/4SE1/4, and SW1/4SE1/4; Sec. 35, lots 5, 6 and 7, NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, SW1/4SW1/4, and E1/2SE1/4; Sec. 36, lots 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 22, and NW1/4. T. 14 N., R. 10 E., Sec. 7, lots 6, 15, 27, 28, 42, and 45; Sec. 18, lots 2 to 7, inclusive, and lots 10 to 15, inclusive; Sec. 30, lots 4, 8, 9, 10, and lots 15 to 18, inclusive, NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, SE1/4SW1/4, and SW1/4SE1/4. T. 15 N., R. 9 E., Sec. 36, E1/2NW1/4SW1/4, unsurveyed S1/2SE1/4SW1/4, and unsurveyed SW1/4SE1/4.

    The areas described aggregate 6,737.42 acres, more or less, in El Dorado and Placer Counties.

    2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of public land laws other than the mining laws.

    3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order, unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

    Dated: April 5, 2015. Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08687 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNM950000 L13110000.BX0000 15XL1109PF] Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New Mexico AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey.

    SUMMARY:

    The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment. Contact Carlos Martinez at 505-954-2096, or by email at [email protected], for assistance. 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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico (NM)

    The plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey in Township 22 South, Range 8 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted April 2, 2015 for Group, 1150, NM.

    The plat, representing the retracement and dependent resurvey in Township 16 South, Range 21 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted March 11, 2015, for Group 1157, NM.

    The Indian Meridian, Oklahoma (OK)

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 10 North, Range 25 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted April 2, 2015, for Group 221 OK. These plats are scheduled for official filing 30 days from the notice of publication in the Federal Register, as provided for in the BLM Manual Section 2097—Opening Orders. Notice from this office will be provided as to the date of said publication. If a protest against a survey, in accordance with 43 CFR 4.450-2, of the above plats 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 and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.

    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Director stating that they wish to protest.

    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the Notice of Protest to the State Director or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.

    Robert A. Casias, Acting Branch Chief, Cadastral Survey.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08736 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCAD01000 L12100000.MD0000 15XL1109AF] Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, will meet in formal session on Saturday, May 9, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the University of California Riverside Extension Building, Conference Rooms D-E, located at 1200 University Avenue, Riverside, CA. A Friday, May 8, 2015 resource area field trip is not scheduled. Agenda for the Saturday meeting will include updates by council members, the BLM California Desert District Manager, five Field Managers, and council subgroups. The focus topic for the meeting will be the West Mojave (WEMO) Planning Area Route Network Project. Final agenda items for the public meeting will be posted on the DAC Web page at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/rac/dac.html when finalized.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Razo, BLM California Desert District External Affairs, (951) 697-5217. 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 individuals. You will receive a reply during normal hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    All DAC meetings are open to the public. Public comment for items not on the agenda will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting Saturday morning. Time for public comment is made available by the council chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.

    While the Saturday meeting is tentatively scheduled from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., the meeting could conclude prior to 4:30 p.m. should the council conclude its presentations and discussions. Therefore, members of the public interested in a particular agenda item or discussion should schedule their arrival accordingly.

    Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land Management, External Affairs, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553. Written comments also are accepted at the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will be incorporated into the minutes.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Teresa A. Raml, California Desert District Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08778 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-15-013] Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    April 23, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: none 2. Minutes 3. Ratification List 4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-531-533 and 731-TA-1270-1273 (Preliminary) (Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (“PET Resin”) from Canada, China, India, and Oman). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination on April 24, 2015; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on May 1, 2015. 5. Outstanding action jackets: none

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08870 Filed 4-14-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Comment Request for Information Collection for 1205-0179: Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees Handbook No. 391, Extension Without Revision AGENCY:

    Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees which expires October 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Stephanie Garcia, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-693-3207 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Email: [email protected]. To obtain a copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR), please contact the person listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Chapter 5 U.S.C. 8506 states that “Each agency of the United States and each wholly or partially owned instrumentality of the United States shall make available to State agencies which have agreements, or to the Secretary of Labor, as the case may be, such information concerning the Federal service and Federal wages of a Federal employee as the Secretary considers practicable and necessary for the determination of the entitlement of the Federal employee to compensation under this subchapter.” The information shall include the findings of the employing agency concerning:

    (1) Whether or not the Federal employee has performed Federal service;

    (2) The periods of Federal service;

    (3) The amount of Federal wages; and

    (4) The reasons for termination of Federal service.

    The law (5 U.S.C. 8501, et seq.) requires State Workforce Agencies (SWA's) to administer the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program in accordance with the same terms and provisions of the paying State's unemployment insurance law which apply to unemployed claimants who worked in the private sector. SWA's must be able to obtain certain information (wage, separation data) about each claimant filing claims for UCFE benefits to enable them to determine his/her eligibility for benefits. The Department of Labor has prescribed forms to enable SWAs to obtain this necessary information from the individual's Federal employing agency. Each of these forms is essential to the UCFE claims process and the frequency of use varies depending upon the circumstances involved. The UCFE forms are: ETA-931, ETA-931A, ETA-933, ETA-934, and ETA-935. II. Review Focus

    The Department is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions

    Type of Review: Extension without revision.

    Title: Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees Handbook No. 391.

    OMB Number: 1205-0179.

    Affected Public: State Workforce Agency.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondents: 53.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 151,050.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,024.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: 0.

    Form Annual
  • frequency
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average time
  • per response
  • (minutes)
  • Burden
  • (hours)
  • ETA-931 1 77,000 5 6,416 ETA-931A 1 24,000 5 2,000 ETA-935 1 38,500 9 5,775 ETA-933 1 3,850 5 320 ETA-934 1 7,700 4 513 Totals 5 151,050 15,024

    We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, comments received in response to this comment request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08725 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Request of Recommendations for Membership for Directorate and Office Advisory Committees ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests recommendations for membership on its scientific and technical Federal advisory committees. Recommendations should consist of the submitting person's or organization's name and affiliation, the name of the recommended individual, the recommended individual's curriculum vita, an expression of the individual's interest in serving, and the following recommended individual's contact information: Employment address, telephone number, FAX number, and email address. Self recommendations are accepted. If you would like to make a membership recommendation for any of the NSF scientific and technical Federal advisory committees, please send your recommendation to the appropriate committee contact person listed in the chart below.

    ADDRESSES:

    The mailing address for the National Science Foundation is 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

    Web links to individual committee information may be found on the NSF Web site: NSF Advisory Committees.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Each Directorate and Office has an external advisory committee that typically meets twice a year to review and provide advice on program management; discusses current issues; and reviews and provides advice on the impact of policies, programs, and activities in the disciplines and fields encompassed by the Directorate or Office. In addition to Directorate and Office advisory committees, NSF has several committees that provide advice and recommendations on specific topics including: Astronomy and astrophysics; environmental research and education; equal opportunities in science and engineering; advanced cyberinfrastructure; international science and engineering; and business and operations.

    A primary consideration when formulating committee membership is recognized knowledge, expertise, or demonstrated ability 1 . Other factors that may be considered are balance among diverse institutions, regions, and groups underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Committee members serve for varying term lengths, depending on the nature of the individual committee. Although we welcome the recommendations we receive, we regret that NSF will not be able to acknowledge or respond positively to each person who contacts NSF or has been recommended. NSF intends to publish a similar notice to this on an annual basis. NSF will keep recommendations active for 12 months from the date of receipt.

    1 Federally registered lobbyists are not eligible for appointment to these Federal advisory committees.

    The chart below is a listing of the committees seeking recommendations for membership. Recommendations should be sent to the contact person identified below. The chart contains Web addresses where additional information about individual committees are available.

    Advisory committee Contact person Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences http://www.nsf.gov/bio/advisory.jsp Charles Liarakos, Directorate for Biological Sciences; phone: (703) 292-8400; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9154. Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering http://www.nsf.gov/cise/advisory.jsp Carmen Whitson, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering; phone: (703) 292-8900; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9074. Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure https://www.nsf.gov/cise/aci/advisory.jsp Kristen Oberright, Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, phone: (703) 292-7151; [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9060. Advisory Committee for Education and Human Resources http://www.nsf.gov/ehr/advisory.jsp Teresa Caravelli, Directorate for Education and Human Resources; phone: (703) 292-8600; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9179. Advisory Committee for Engineering http://www.nsf.gov/eng/advisory.jsp Cecile Gonzalez, Directorate for Engineering; phone: (703) 292-8300; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9013. Advisory Committee for Geosciences http://www.nsf.gov/geo/advisory.jsp Melissa Lane, Directorate for Geosciences: phone: (703) 292-8500; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9042. Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering http://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/advisory.jsp Cassandra Dudka, Office of International and Integrative Activities, phone: (703) 292-7250; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9067. Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences http://www.nsf.gov/mps/advisory.jsp Eduardo Misawa, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; phone: (703) 292-8800; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9151. Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/advisory.jsp Deborah Olster, Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences; phone: (703) 292-8700; EMail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9083. Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/ceose/ Bernice Anderson, Office of International and Integrative Activities; phone: (703) 292-8040; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9040. Advisory Committee for Business and Operations http://www.nsf.gov/oirm/bocomm/ Jeffrey Rich, Office of Information and Resource Management; phone: (703) 292-8100; email: [email protected]; fax:(703) 292-9084. Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education http://www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb/advisory.cfm Linda Deegan, Directorate for Biological Sciences; phone: (703) 292-7870; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9042. Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac.jsp Elizabeth Pentecost, Division of Astronomical Sciences; phone: (703) 292-4907; email: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9034. Dated: April 13, 2015. Suzanne Plimpton, Acting Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08714 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2014-0178] Standard Review Plan for Conventional Uranium Mills and Heap Leach Facilities AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft NUREG; reopening of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 18, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a request for public comment on draft NUREG-2126, “Standard Review Plan for Conventional Uranium Mills and Heap Leach Facilities.” The public comment period closed on March 18, 2015. The NRC has decided to reopen the public comment period on this document until June 18, 2015, to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for draft NUREG-2126, “Standard Review Plan for Conventional Uranium Mills and Heap Leach Facilities,” published on December 18, 2014 (79 FR 75597), has been reopened. Comments should be filed no later than June 18, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0178. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas T. Mandeville, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0724, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0178 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0178.

    • NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] Draft NUREG-2126, “Standard Review Plan for Conventional Uranium Mills and Heap Leach Facilities,” is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14325A634.

    • NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0178 in the subject line of your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Discussion

    On December 18, 2014, the NRC published a request for public comment on draft NUREG-2126, “Standard Review Plan for Conventional Uranium Mills and Heap Leach Facilities.” Pursuant to the provisions of part 40 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (10 CFR), “Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” an NRC materials license is required to conduct uranium recovery activities by conventional mill or heap leach techniques. Applicants for a new license and operators seeking an amendment or renewal of an existing license are required to provide detailed information on the facilities, equipment, and procedures to be used in the proposed activities. This information is used by the NRC staff to determine whether the proposed activities will be protective of public health and safety and the environment. Each section in draft NUREG-2126 provides guidance on what information is to be reviewed, the basis for the review, how the NRC staff review is to be accomplished, what the staff will find acceptable in a demonstration of compliance with applicable regulations, and the evaluation criteria for determining compliance with the applicable regulations. Draft NUREG-2126 is intended to improve the understanding of the NRC staff's review process by interested members of the public and the uranium recovery industry. Any interested party may submit comments on draft NUREG-2126 for consideration by the NRC staff. The public comment period closed on March 18, 2015. The National Mining Association (NMA) submitted a letter on February 26, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15062A629), requesting a 90-day extension of the public comment period on this document. Additionally, the State of Utah submitted a letter on March 16, 2015 requesting a 60-day extension of the public comment period on this document (ADAMS Accession No. ML15082A286). The Commission may grant, in its discretion, the additional reasonable opportunity for the submission of comments. In the present case, as the request for an extension from NMA points out, there are two notable current Federal Register notices on this general subject matter that have been noticed for public comment, including the present document, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed 40 CFR part 192 rulemaking. The State of Utah cites its current workload and role in regulating the only operating conventional uranium mill in the United States as reasons for extending the comment period. As such, these factors justify the Commission granting additional reasonable opportunity for the submission of comments. The NRC has decided to reopen the public comment period on this document until June 18, 2015, to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Andrew Persinko, Deputy Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08797 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0091] Quality Group Classifications and Standards for Water-, Steam-, and Radioactive-Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG) DG-1314, “Quality Group Classifications and Standards forWater-, Steam-, and Radioactive-Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants.” This guidance has been revised to update references to related NRC guidance, to incorporate lessons learned from recent NRC reviews and regulatory activities, and to align the format and content of the guide with the current program guidance for regulatory guides (RGs) which was developed since Revision 4 of RG 1.26 was issued.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by June 15, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specified subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0091. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: O12H08M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sardar Ahmed, telephone: 301-415-2836, email: [email protected] or Stephen Burton, telephone: 301-415-7000, email: [email protected] Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0091 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain pubically-available information related to this document, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0091.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The DG is electronically available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14356A249.

    • NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0091 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Additional Information

    The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

    The DG, entitled, “Quality Group Classifications and Standards forWater-, Steam-, and Radioactive-Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1314. This DG-1314 is proposed revision 5 of RG 1.26. The guide describes a quality classification system related to specified national standards that may be used to determine quality standards acceptable to the staff of the NRC for satisfying General Design Criterion 1, “Quality Standards and Records,” as set forth in appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” for components containing water, steam, or radioactive material in light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.

    This guidance has been revised to update references to related guidance, to incorporate lessons learned from recent reviews and regulatory activities, and to align the format and content of the guide with the current program guidance for regulatory guides since Revision 4 of RG 1.26 was issued.

    III. Backfitting and Issue Finality

    This draft regulatory guide may be used by applicants for construction permits and operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50, and early site permits, standard design certifications, standard design approvals, and combined licenses under 10 CFR part 52. Holders of construction permits, operating licenses, early site permits, standard design approvals, and combined licenses, and applicants for standard design certifications after the NRC issues a final design certification rule may also use the guidance in this draft regualtory guide, if finalized.

    This DG, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and would not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this DG, the NRC has no current intention to impose this DG on current holders of operating licenses or combined licenses.

    This DG, if finalized, may be applied to applications for operating licenses and combined licenses docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final RG, as well as future applications for operating licenses and combined licenses submitted after the issuance of the RG. Such action does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) or is otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants or potential applicants, with exceptions not applicable here, are not within the scope of entities protected by the Backfit Rule or the relevant issue finality provisions in part 52.

    The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a part 52 license (e.g., an early site permit) and/or NRC's regulatory approval (e.g., a design certification rule) with specified issue finality provisions. The staff does not, at this time, intend to impose the positions represented in this regulatory guide in a manner that is inconsistent with any of the issue finality provisions applicable to early site permits (10 CFR 52.39), design certifications (10 CFR 52.63), or combined license applications referencing an early site permit (10 CFR 52.83). If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in this regulatory guide in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must make address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described applicable issue finality provision.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Thomas H. Boyce, Chief, Regulatory Guidance and Generic Issues Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08739 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304; NRC-2015-0087] ZionSolutions, LLC, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption from certain emergency planning requirements in response to a June 20, 2012, request from ZionSolutions, LLC. The requirements were part of a final rule that the NRC issued on November 23, 2011.

    DATES:

    April 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0087 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0087. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

    adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John B. Hickman, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3017, email: [email protected]

    I. Background

    Zion Nuclear Power Station (ZNPS) Units 1 and 2 were permanently shut down in February 1998, for economic reasons, and the licensee placed the plant in SAFSTOR. The licensee isolated the spent fuel pool (SFP) within its Fuel Building and established a spent fuel pool nuclear island with SFP-dedicated support systems. In 1999, the NRC issued an exemption from certain requirements in part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), for the ZNPS licensee to discontinue offsite emergency planning activities and to reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning. In September 2010, the licensed ownership, management authorities, and decommissioning trust fund of the permanently shut down facility was transferred to ZionSolutions (ZS), a subsidiary of EnergySolutions, for the purpose of completing all decommissioning activities with the end goal of full site restoration. Active decommissioning is currently underway.

    The NRC's emergency planning (EP) regulations provide in part that no initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Additionally, the NRC's EP regulations establishe minimum requirements for emergency plans for use in attaining an acceptable state of emergency preparedness.

    On November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72560), the NRC issued a Final Rule amending certain EP requirements for licensees of nuclear power and non-power reactors. The Final EP Rule was effective on December 23, 2011.

    The Final EP Rule modified or added several EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50, including changes in 10 CFR 50.47, 10 CFR 50.54, and appendix E. The Final EP Rule codified certain voluntary protective measures contained in NRC Bulletin 2005-02, “Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events,” and made generically applicable requirements similar to those previously imposed by NRC Order EA-02-026, “Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures,” dated February 25, 2002.

    In addition, the Final EP Rule amended other licensee emergency plan requirements to: (1) Enhance the ability of licensees in preparing and in taking certain protective actions in the event of a radiological emergency; (2) address, in part, security issues identified after the terrorist events of September 11, 2001; (3) clarify regulations to effect consistent emergency plan implementation among licensees; and (4) modify certain EP requirements to be more effective and efficient.

    II. Request/Action

    By letter dated June 20, 2012, (ADAMS Accession No. ML12173A316) ZS, submitted a request for exemption, “Request for Exemption to Revised Emergency Planning Rule,” from specific emergency planning requirements of 10 CFR part 50 for the ZNPS.

    III. Discussion

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present.

    The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and determined that exemptions should be granted, or continue to be granted, from the following requirements: the requirement: “arrangements to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's Emergency Operations Facility have been made” of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3); the requirement: “and State and local response plans call for reliance on information provided by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial offsite response measures” of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4); the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10); the requirement, “and onsite protective actions during hostile action” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E.IV.1; the requirement of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.2; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.3; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.4; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.5; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.6; the requirement: “offsite” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.A.4; the requirements: “By June 23, 2014,” and “a description of the” and “including hostile action at the site. For purposes of this appendix, “hostile action” is defined as an act directed toward a nuclear power plant or its personnel that includes the use of violent force to destroy equipment, take hostages, and/or intimidate the licensee to achieve an end. This includes attack by air, land, or water using guns, explosives, projectiles, vehicles, or other devices used to deliver destructive force” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.A.7; the requirement of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.A.9; the requirements: “and outside,” and “and offsite, and “By June 20, 2012, for nuclear power reactor licensees, these action levels must include hostile action that may adversely affect the nuclear power plant” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.B.1; the requirements, “By June 20, 2012,” and “within 15 minutes” and “to protect public health and safety provided that any delay in declaration does not deny the State and local authorities the opportunity to implement measures necessary to protect the public health and safety” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.C.2; the requirements, “within 15 minutes” and “The licensee shall demonstrate that the appropriate governmental authorities have the capability to make a public alerting and notification decision promptly on being informed by the licensee of an emergency condition. Prior to initial operation greater than 5 percent of rated thermal power of the first reactor at the site, each nuclear power reactor licensee shall demonstrate that administrative and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public with the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. The use of this alerting and notification capability will range from immediate alerting and notification of the public (within 15 minutes of the time that State and local officials are notified that a situation exists requiring urgent action) to the more likely events where there is substantial time available for the appropriate governmental authorities to make a judgment whether or not to activate the public alert and notification system. The alerting and notification capability shall additionally include administrative and physical means for a backup method of public alerting and notification capable of being used in the event the primary method of alerting and notification is unavailable during an emergency to alert or notify all or portions of the plume exposure pathway EPZ population. The backup method shall have the capability to alert and notify the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, but does not need to meet the 15 minute design objective for the primary prompt public alert and notification system. When there is a decision to activate the alert and notification system, the appropriate governmental authorities will determine whether to activate the entire alert and notification system simultaneously or in a graduated or staged manner. The responsibility for activating such a public alert and notification system shall remain with the appropriate governmental authorities” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.D.3; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.D.4; the requirement: “and an emergency operations facility” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.E.8.a.(i); the requirement: of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.E.8.a.(ii); the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.E.8.b; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.E.8.c; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.E.8.d; the requirement of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.E.8.e; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.F.2.a; the requirements: “Nuclear power reactor licensees shall submit exercise scenarios under § 50.4 at least 60 days before use in an exercise required by this paragraph 2.b. The exercise may be included in the full participation biennial exercise required by paragraph 2.c. of this section” and the requirements “and offsite” and “(Technical Support Center (TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC), and the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF))” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.F.2.b; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.F.2.c; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.F.2.d; the requirement: “Such scenarios for nuclear power reactor licensees must include a wide spectrum of radiological releases and events, including hostile action” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.F.2.i; the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.F.2.j; and the requirement of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV.I.

    The exemption request was reviewed against the acceptance criteria included in 10 CFR 50.47, appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, 10 CFR 72.32 and Interim Staff Guidance—16. The review considered the permanently shut-down and defueled status of the reactor, and the low likelihood of any credible accident resulting in radiological releases requiring offsite protective measures. These evaluations were supported by the previously documented licensee and staff accident analyses. The staff concludes that the Defueled Station Emergency Plan for ZNPS provides: (1) An adequate basis for an acceptable state of emergency preparedness, and (2) in conjunction with arrangements made with offsite response agencies, provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the ZNPS Site.

    The Commission has concluded that the licensee's request for an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV as specified above are acceptable in view of the greatly reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current plant status as permanently shut-down.

    The NRC has determined that other requirements from which ZS requested exemptions were not applicable to the ZNPS or are being met by the ZNPS Defueled Station Emergency Plan or an exemption was not appropriate. Therefore, an exemption was not necessary or was denied for those requirements. Additional information regarding the staff's evaluation is documented in a Safety Evaluation Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML14272A315).

    A. Exemption Is Authorized by Law

    The NRC has found that ZS meets the criteria for an exemption in § 50.12. The NRC has determined that granting the exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.

    B. The Exemption Presents No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety and Is Consistent With the Common Defense and Security

    As noted in Section II, “Request/Action,” above, ZS's compliance with the EP requirements in effect before the effective date of the Final EP Rule demonstrated reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security. In the Safety Evaluation Report, the NRC staff explains that ZS's implementation of the ZNPS Defueled Station Emergency Plan, with the exemptions, will continue to provide this reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Thus, granting the exemptions will not present an undue risk to public health or safety and is not inconsistent with the common defense and security.

    C. Special Circumstances Are Present

    For the Commission to grant an exemption, special circumstances must exist. Under § 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when [a]pplication of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. These special circumstances exist here. The NRC has determined that ZS's compliance with the regulations listed above is not necessary for the licensee to demonstrate that, under its emergency plan, there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Consequently, special circumstances are present because requiring ZS to comply with the regulations listed above is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the EP regulations.

    D. Environmental Considerations

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact related to this exemption was published in the Federal Register. Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that issuance of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

    IV. Conclusion

    The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's submittals and concludes that the licensee's request for an exemption from certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 as specified above are acceptable in view of the greatly reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current plant status as permanently shut down.

    The Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, are consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present in that compliance with the specified regulations is not necessary for reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the ZNPS facility based on its permanently shut down condition.

    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of March 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Larry W. Camper, Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08676 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting DATE AND TIME:

    April 14, 2015, at 3 p.m.

    PLACE:

    San Mateo, CA, via Teleconference.

    STATUS:

    Committee Votes to Change Time and Place of its meeting scheduled for April 13 and 14, 2015: By telephone vote on April 8, 2015, members of the Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service met and voted unanimously to cancel its closed meeting session scheduled for April 13, 2015 in San Mateo, CA, and to begin its closed meeting session scheduled for April 14, 2015 at 3:00 p.m., rather than the previously announced time of 8:30 a.m. Moreover, it voted unanimously to hold the April 14, 2015, meeting in San Mateo, CA via teleconference. The Committee determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

    Matters To Be Considered Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 3:00 p.m.

    1. Strategic Issues.

    2. Financial Matters.

    3. Pricing.

    4. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board governance.

    GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION:

    The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202-268-4800.

    Julie S. Moore, Secretary, Board of Governors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08834 Filed 4-14-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74704; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-86] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Change to Remove the Exchange's Quote Mitigation Plan as Provided by Exchange Rule 970.1NY April 10, 2015. I. Introduction

    On October 2, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to remove the Exchange's quote mitigation plan as provided by NYSE MKT Rule 970.1NY. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 21, 2014.3 On December 2, 2014, the Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the proposal, disapprove the proposal, or to institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal, to January 19, 2015.4 On January 16, 2015, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.5 The Commission received 2 comment letters in further support of the proposal from NYSE MKT.6

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73367 (October 15, 2014), 79 FR 63009 (“Notice”).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73718 (December 2, 2014), 79 FR 72748 (December 8, 2014).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74087 (January 16, 2015), 80 FR 3697 (January 23, 2015) (“Order Instituting Proceedings”).

    6See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Elizabeth King, Secretary & General Counsel, Exchange, dated January 8, 2015 and February 27, 2015.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 7 provides that, after initiating disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.8 The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination.9 The proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on October 21, 2014. April 19, 2015, is 180 days from that date, and June 18, 2015, is 240 days from that date.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II).

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposal, and the issues raised in NYSE MKT's comment letters.

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 designates June 18, 2015 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-86).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.11

    11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08698 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Rules 8b-1 to 8b-33, SEC File No. 270-135, OMB Control No. 3235-0176.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    Rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 (17 CFR 270.8b-1 to 8b-33) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (“Investment Company Act”) set forth the procedures for preparing and filing a registration statement under the Investment Company Act. These procedures are intended to facilitate the registration process. These rules generally do not require respondents to report information.1

    1 Although the rules under Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act are generally procedural in nature, two of the rules require respondents to disclose some limited information. Rule 8b-3 (17 CFR 270.8b-3) provides that whenever a registration form requires the title of securities to be stated, the registrant must indicate the type and general character of the securities to be issued. Rule 8b-22 (17 CFR 270.8b-22) provides that if the existence of control is open to reasonable doubt, the registrant may disclaim the existence of control, but it must state the material facts pertinent to the possible existence of control. The information required by both of these rules is necessary to ensure that investors have clear and complete information upon which to base an investment decision.

    The Commission believes that it is appropriate to estimate the total respondent burden associated with preparing each registration statement form rather than attempt to isolate the impact of the procedural instructions under Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act, which impose burdens only in the context of the preparation of the various registration statement forms. Accordingly, the Commission is not submitting a separate burden estimate for rules 8b-1 through 8b-33, but instead will include the burden for these rules in its estimates of burden for each of the registration forms under the Investment Company Act. The Commission is, however, submitting an hourly burden estimate of one hour for administrative purposes.

    The collection of information under rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 is mandatory. The information provided under rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 is not kept confidential. 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.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08693 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74707; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-16] Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGA Exchange, Inc. April 10, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on April 1, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members 5 of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a) and (c) (“Fee Schedule”) to: (i) Amend the fees charged for and description of the logical ports 6 offered; (ii) amend the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier; and (iii) make a series of immaterial, non-substantive changes.

    5 The term “Member” is defined as “any registered broker or dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will have the status of a “member” of the Exchange as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.” See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).

    6 A logical port is commonly referred to as a TCP/IP port, and represents a port established by the Exchange within the Exchange's system for trading and billing purposes. Each logical port established is specific to a Member or non-member and grants that Member or non-member the ability to operate a specific application, such as FIX order entry or Multicast PITCH data receipt.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend the fees charged for and description of the logical ports offered; (ii) amend the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier; and (iii) make a series of immaterial, non-substantive changes.

    Logical Ports

    Currently, the Exchange maintains logical ports for order entry, drop copies, testing, and market data for which it currently charges $500 per month per port, with the first two (2) ports provided free of charge. Ports used to request a re-transmission of market data from the Exchange are also provided free of charge.

    In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, Direct Edge Holdings LLC, with BATS Global Markets, Inc., the parent of BZX and BYX (together with BZX, EDGA, and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).7 In the context of the Merger, the BGM Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain system and regulatory functionality, retaining only intended differences between the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. This includes migrating the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, which are currently located in different data centers, into a single data center. As part of the data center migration, the operation and categorization of logical ports provided to access the Exchange would be identical to those utilized to access BZX and BYX. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to harmonize its description of logical ports within its Fee Schedule to align with the descriptions included in the BZX and BYX fee schedules.8 As a result, the Exchange also proposes to no longer provide free of charge: (i) The first two (2) logical ports per month; and (ii) ports used to request a re-transmission of market data from the Exchange. The Exchange communicated to Members and non-Members of [sic] these changes via a trading notice issued on October 7, 2014.9

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71449 (January 30, 2014), 79 FR 6961 (February 5, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2013-043; SR-EDGA-2013-034).

    8 The Exchange notes that EDGA intends to file a proposal very similar to this proposal that will align its logical port fees across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange also notes that BZX and BYX also intend to file a proposal to increase its port fees from $400 per month per port to $500 per month per port as well as to change references to “GRP Ports” to “Multicast PITCH GRP Ports”.

    9See BATS Global Markets Access Fee Changes for 2015, available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/fee_schedule/2015/BATS-Global-Markets-Access-Services-Fee-Changes-for-2015.pdf (issued October 7, 2014).

    First, the Exchange proposes to harmonize its description of logical ports within its Fee Schedule to align with the descriptions included in the BZX and BYX fee schedules. As part of the data center migration discussed above, the operation and categorization of ports provided to access the Exchange would be identical to those utilized to access BZX and BYX. Currently, the Exchange charges direct session logical ports fees of $500 per month and separately categorizes those ports as FIX, EDGE XPRS (HPI-API), Data, DROP, EdgeRisk. To harmonize the description of the logical ports offered with those of BZX and BYX, the Exchange proposes to no longer individually list the available ports (other than Multicast PITCH Spin Server and GRP ports described below) as all of the above are encompassed under the term logical ports. In addition, EdgeRisk ports will also no longer be separately listed within in [sic] the Fee Schedule. EdgeRisk ports enable Members, and non-Member service bureaus that act as conduits for orders entered by Members that are their customers, access to a System 10 test environment through which they can test their automated systems that integrate with the Exchange.11 Under BATS technology, Members and non-Members would no longer need a dedicated port to access the Exchange's test environment as they would be able to utilize any of their existing ports to do so. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to not individually list EdgeRisk as a separate logical port.

    10 The term “System” is defined in Rule 1.5(cc).

    11See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69670 (May 30, 2013), 78 FR 33871 (June 5, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-18); and 69669 (May 30, 2013), 78 FR 33880 (June 5, 2013) (SR-EDGA-2013-14).

    Second, other than no longer providing certain ports free of charge as described below, the Exchange does not propose to amend the monthly fee [sic] logical port fees. All logical ports will continue to be subject to a fee of $500 per month per port. In addition, logical port fees proposed above would be limited to logical ports in the Exchange's primary data center and no logical port fees would be assessed for redundant secondary data center ports. In addition, the Exchange also proposes to no longer provide the first two (2) logical ports free of charge. The Exchange, like BZX and BYX, will assess the monthly per logical port fees for all of a Member and non-Member's logical ports.

    Currently, the Exchange provides ports used to request a retransmission of data free of charge. Going forward, the Exchange would no longer offer such ports free of charge, as proposed below. There are currently two types of logical ports used to request and receive a retransmission of data from the Exchange,12 Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports and Multicast PITCH GRP Ports. The Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed is available from two primary feeds, identified as the “A feed” and the “C feed”, which contain the same information but differ only in the way such feeds are received. The Exchange also offers two redundant fees, identified as the “B feed” and the “D feed.”

    12 FIX and BOE ports are the only ports that may be used to send orders and related instructions to the Exchange. All other port types, including the Multicast PITCH Spin Server Port and GRP Port, permit Members and non-members to receive information from the Exchange.

    The Exchange proposes to offer Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports for a fee of $500 per month for a set of primary ports (A or C feed) and Multicast PITCH GRP Ports for a fee of $500 per month for a primary port (A or C feed). The Exchange will continue to offer for free the ports necessary to receive the Exchange's redundant Multicast “B feed” and “D feed”, as well as all ports made available in the Exchange's secondary data center. Accordingly, this proposal only applies to ports used to receive an Exchange primary Multicast PITCH feeds at the Exchange's primary data center. The proposed fees for Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports and GRP Ports are identical to those charged by BZX and BYX.

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to rename this section of its Fee Schedule entitled “Port Fees” as “Logical Port Fees.”

    MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier

    The Exchange proposes to amend the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier. Under the tier, a Member qualifies for a reduced fee of $0.0003 per share where that Member: (i) Adds an ADV of at least 0.25% of the TCV including non-displayed orders that add liquidity; and (ii) adds or removes an ADV of at least 1,500,000 shares yielding fee codes DM or DT. Fee code DM is applied to Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity using MidPoint Discretionary orders 13 and fee code DT is applied to Non-Displayed orders that remove liquidity using MidPoint Discretionary Orders. Orders that yield fee code DM or fee code DT that do not meet to the criteria of the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier are charged a fee of $0.00050 per share. The Exchange now proposes to decrease the ADV requirement to require that a Member add an ADV of at least 0.20%, rather than 0.25%, of the TCV including non-displayed orders that add liquidity. Easing the criteria of the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier is intended to further incentive Members to submit an increased number of MidPoint Discretionary orders to the Exchange, thereby increasing the liquidity on the Exchange at the midpoint of the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”).

    13See Exchange Rule 11.8(e) for a description of MidPoint Discretionary orders.

    Non-Substantive Changes

    The Exchange also proposes to make a series of immaterial, non-substantive changes to its Fee Schedule. None of the changes proposed are intended to amend any fee or rebate. These changes are:

    • Remove the word “the” from the description of fee code D;

    • Remove the word “the” from the description of fee code RN;

    • Amend the Market Data Section to add a colon after BATS One Feedsm; and

    • Add a colon after Licensing and Continuing Education.

    Implementation Date

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule on April 1, 2015.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,14 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),15 in particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    Logical Ports

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,16 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that its proposed changes, combined with the planned filings for EDGA, BZX and BYX,17 would allow the BGM Affiliated Exchanges to provide consistent logical port offerings across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Consistent offerings, in turn, will simplify the connectivity requirements for Members of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGA, BZX and/or BYX. The proposed rule change would result in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more efficient understanding of Exchange connectivity requirements.

    16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    17See supra note 8.

    The Exchange also believes that no longer providing the first two (2) logical ports for free as well as ports used to request a retransmission of market data also represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of members and other participants. Accordingly, fees charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for connectivity, affected members will opt to terminate their connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange through another participant or market center or taking that exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it by affected members, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity. Lastly, the Exchange believe its proposed fees are reasonable because the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) do not provide logical ports or ports used for the retransmission of market data free of charge.18

    18See Nasdaq Rule 7015 (providing no FIX or non-Trading FIX ports free of charge) and the NYSE Arca fee schedule available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf (dated February 26, 2105).

    The Exchange believes that its proposed changes to logical port fees are reasonable in light of the benefits to Exchange participants of direct market access and receipt of data. In addition, the Exchange believes that its fees are equitably allocated among Exchange constituents based upon the number of access ports that they require to receive data from the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that its fees are not unreasonably discriminatory because all market participants are charged standard fees for port usage. The Exchange notes that it believes its prior fee structure, under which two ports were provided free of charge, was reasonable, equitably allocated and not unreasonably discriminatory because it was available to all market participants and was intended to encourage Members and non-members to connect to the Exchange. However, by moving towards a more uniform approach to port descriptions and charges across the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, the Exchange believes that its fees are even more equitably allocated and nondiscriminatory. The Exchange also believes that its fees for access services will enable it to better cover its infrastructure costs and to improve its market technology and services.

    Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members. All Members that voluntarily select various service options will be charged the same amount for the same services. All Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees charged for the services offered by the Exchange.

    MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier

    The Exchange believes amending the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities because it is designed to further incentivize Members to increase their use of MidPoint Discretionary orders on EDGA. MidPoint Discretionary Orders increase displayed liquidity on the Exchange while also enhancing execution opportunities at the mid-point of the NBBO. Promotion of displayed liquidity at the NBBO enhances market quality for all Members. Members utilizing MidPoint Discretionary orders provide liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO increasing the potential for an order to receive price improvement, and easing the tier's criteria so that Members may be eligible for a decreased fee is a reasonable means by which to encourage the use of such orders. In addition, the Exchange believes that by encouraging the use of MidPoint Discretionary orders by easing the tier's criteria, Members seeking price improvement would be more motivated to direct their orders to EDGA because they would have a heightened expectation of the availability of liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange also believes that the proposed addition of the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier is non-discriminatory because it will be available to all Members.

    Non-Substantive Changes

    The Exchange believes that the non-substantive clarifying changes to its Fee Schedule are reasonable because none of the proposed changes are designed to amend any fee, nor alter the manner in which it assesses fees or calculates rebates. These non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule are intended to make the Fee Schedule clearer and less confusing for investors and eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

    Logical Ports

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that, other than no longer providing two (2) ports or ports used for the retransmission of market data for free each month, it does not proposes to alter the fees charged from their current levels. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that fees for connectivity are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity, including logical port fees, would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition. In addition, allowing the Exchange to implement substantively identical logical port fees across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide greater harmonization among Exchange, BYX, BZX, and EDGA. Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposal to no longer provide two (2) ports or ports used for the retransmission of market data for free each month would enhance intermarket competition because Nasdaq and NYSE Arca do not provide logical ports or ports used for the retransmission of market data free of charge.19 The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all Members and non-Members equally.

    19Id.

    MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to ease the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier would increase intermarket competition because it would further incentivize Members to send an increased amount MidPoint Discretionary orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the tier's decreased fee. The Exchange believes that its proposal would neither increase nor decrease intramarket competition because the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier would apply uniformly to all Members and the ability of some Members to meet the tier would only benefit other Members by contributing to increased liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO and better market quality at the Exchange.

    Non-Substantive Changes

    The Exchange believes that the non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule will not affect intermarket nor intramarket competition because none of these changes are designed to amend any fee or alter the manner in which the Exchange assesses fees or calculates rebates.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 20 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.21 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    21 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-EDGA-2015-16 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2015-16. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2015-16, and should be submitted on or before May 7, 2015

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.22

    22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08701 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74705; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-117] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Change To Remove the Exchange's Quote Mitigation Plan as Provided by Commentary .03 to Exchange Rule 6.86 April 10, 2015. I. Introduction

    On October 2, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to remove the Exchange's quote mitigation plan as provided by Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.86. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 21, 2014.3 On December 2, 2014, the Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the proposal, disapprove the proposal, or to institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal, to January 19, 2015.4 On January 16, 2015, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.5 The Commission received 2 comment letters in further support of the proposal from NYSE Arca.6

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73362 (October 15, 2014), 79 FR 62983 (“Notice”).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73720 (December 2, 2014), 79 FR 72747 (December 8, 2014).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74088 (January 16, 2015), 80 FR 3687 (January 23, 2015) (“Order Instituting Proceedings”).

    6See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Elizabeth King, Secretary & General Counsel, Exchange, dated January 8, 2015 and February 27, 2015.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 7 provides that, after initiating disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.8 The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination.9 The proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on October 21, 2014. April 19, 2015, is 180 days from that date, and June 18, 2015, is 240 days from that date.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II).

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposal, and the issues raised in NYSE Arca's comment letters.

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 designates June 18, 2015 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-117).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.11

    11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08699 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74703; File No. SR-BYX-2015-21] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. April 10, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on April 1, 2015, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members 5 and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BYX Rules 15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing.

    5 The term “Member” is defined as “any registered broker or dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.” See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees charged for and description of the logical ports 6 offered by the Exchange.

    6 A logical port is commonly referred to as a TCP/IP port, and represents a port established by the Exchange within the Exchange's system for trading and billing purposes. Each logical port established is specific to a Member or non-member and grants that Member or non-member the ability to operate a specific application, such as FIX order entry or Multicast PITCH data receipt.

    Currently, the Exchange maintains logical ports for order entry, drop copies and the receipt of market data for which it currently charges $400 per month per port with the exception of Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports and GRP Ports.7 Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports and GRP Ports are used to request and receive a retransmission of data from the Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed. The Exchange does charge $400 per month for such ports, however, the Exchange separately delineates such fees because of various details related to the use of such ports. Specifically, Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports are offered as a complete set, including one logical port for each channel of the Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed, and can be taken for either of the Exchange's primary Multicast PITCH data feeds.8 Similarly, Multicast PITCH GRP Ports can be taken for either of the Exchange's primary Multicast PITCH data feeds. The Exchange offers Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports for a fee of $400 per month for a set of primary ports (A or C feed) and Multicast PITCH GRP Ports for a fee of $400 per month per primary port (A or C feed). The Exchange offers and will continue to offer for free the ports necessary to receive the Exchange's redundant Multicast “B feed” and “D feed”, as well as all ports made available in the Exchange's secondary data center.

    7 FIX and BOE ports are the only ports that may be used to send orders and related instructions to the Exchange. All other port types, including the Multicast PITCH Spin Server Port and GRP Port, permit Members and non-members to receive information from the Exchange.

    8 The Exchange's primary Multicast PITCH data feeds are identified as the “A feed” and the “C feed” and contain the same information. The A feed and the C feed differ only in the way such feeds are received. The Exchange also offers two redundant feeds, identified as the “B feed” and the “D feed”.

    In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX and EDGA (together with the Exchange, BZX and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).9 In the context of the Merger, the BGM Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain system and regulatory functionality, retaining only intended differences between the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. This includes migrating the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, which are currently located in different data centers, into a single data center. As part of the data center migration and the integration of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, the Exchange is proposing to increase the fees charged from $400 per month to $500 per month for all categories of logical ports, including sets of Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports for the A feed and the C feed, individual GRP Ports for the A feed and the C feed, and all other logical ports. The Exchange notes that EDGA and EDGX currently charge $500 per month for most logical ports.10 The Exchange communicated to Members and non-Members regarding these changes via a trading notice issued on October 7, 2014.11

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71375 (January 23, 2014), 79 FR 4771 (January 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2013-059; SR-BYX-2013-039).

    10 The Exchange notes that BZX intends to file a proposal very similar to this proposal that will align its logical port fees across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange also notes that EDGA and EDGX also intend to file a proposal to charge $500 per month for all types of logical ports as well as to change the descriptions used for logical port fees to mirror the descriptions used by the Exchange and BZX.

    11See BATS Global Markets Access Fee Changes for 2015, available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/fee_schedule/2015/BATS-Global-Markets-Access-Services-Fee-Changes-for-2015.pdf (issued October 7, 2014).

    In addition to increasing the port fees charged by the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to add the words “Multicast PITCH” before GRP Ports to mirror the description of fees for Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports. As noted above, the separate fees for Spin Server Ports and GRP Ports both relate to the Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,12 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),13 in particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all Members.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,14 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that its proposed changes, combined with the planned filings for EDGA, EDGX and BZX,15 would allow the BGM Affiliated Exchanges to provide consistent logical port offerings across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Consistent offerings, in turn, will simplify the connectivity requirements for Members of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGA, BZX and/or BYX [sic]. The proposed rule change would result in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more efficient understanding of Exchange connectivity requirements.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    15See supra note 10.

    The Exchange believes that the increase of fees for logical ports represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of members and other participants. Accordingly, fees charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for connectivity, affected members will opt to terminate their connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange through another participant or market center or taking that exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it by affected members, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity. Lastly, the Exchange believe [sic] its proposed fees are reasonable because the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) charge comparable rates for logical ports to access such markets.16 As noted above, EDGA and EDGX also charge the same rate for access to most logical ports.

    16See Nasdaq Rule 7015 (providing no FIX or non-Trading FIX ports free of charge) and the NYSE Arca fee schedule available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf (dated February 26, 2015). The Exchange recognizes that some participants may be charged the lower rate of $200 per month to the extent such participants maintain a low number of ports with NYSE Arca. The Exchange nonetheless believes that its proposed fees are comparable despite the fact that it does not proposed [sic] a lower fee for such participants.

    The Exchange believes that its proposed changes to logical port fees are reasonable in light of the benefits to Exchange participants of direct market access and receipt of data. In addition, the Exchange believes that its fees are equitably allocated among Exchange constituents based upon the number of access ports that they require to access and receive data from the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that its fees for access services will enable it to better cover its infrastructure costs and to improve its market technology and services.

    Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members. All Members that voluntarily select various service options will be charged the same amount for the same services. All Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees charged for the services offered by the Exchange.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe its proposed amendments to its fee schedule would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to logical port fees represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 17 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.18 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    18 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-BYX-2015-21 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2015-21. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2015-21, and should be submitted on or before May 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.19

    19 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08697 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74706; File No. SR-ISE-2015-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees April 10, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 26, 2015, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the “Exchange” or the “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to introduce a Member Order Routing Program. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of Fees to introduce a Member Order Routing Program (“MORP”) that will provide enhanced rebates to order routing firms that select the Exchange as the default routing destination (as described below) for unsolicited Crossing Orders.3 The MORP is intended to compete with similar programs offered by competitor options exchanges. The Exchange designates this filing to become effective on April 1, 2015.4

    3 A “ Crossing Order” is an order executed in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”) or submitted as a Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) order. For purposes of the fee schedule, orders executed in the Block Order Mechanism are also considered Crossing Orders.

    Solicited Crossing Orders will not qualify for MORP as they are already eligible for the QCC and Solicitation Rebate. See Schedule of Fees, Section IV.A.

    4 The Exchange notes that members must opt in to MORP by March 31, 2015 to be eligible to participate in the program on April 1, 2015. See note 7 infra.

    MORP Qualifications

    To be eligible to participate in MORP, an Electronic Access Member (“EAM”) must: (1) Provide to its clients, systems that enable the electronic routing of option orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including ISE; (2) interface with ISE to access the Exchange's electronic options trading platform; (3) offer to its clients a customized interface and routing functionality such that ISE will be the default destination for all unsolicited Crossing Orders entered by the EAM,5 provided that market conditions allow the Crossing Order to be executed on ISE; (4) configure its own option order routing functionality such that ISE will be the default destination for all unsolicited Crossing Orders, provided that market conditions allow the Crossing Order to be executed on ISE, with respect to all option orders as to which the EAM has routing discretion; and (5) ensure that the default routing functionality permits users submitting option orders through such system to manually override the ISE as the default destination on an order-by-order basis.6

    5 An unsolicited Crossing Order is a Crossing Order entered by a member that has not solicited the contra side of the trade.

    6 The Exchange notes that these requirements are based, in part, on similar programs offered by other options exchanges. See notes 15 and 19 infra and accompanying text.

    EAMs that wish to participate in the program must certify that they meet the above MORP requirements, in writing, on a monthly basis and in a form to be determined by the Exchange. The relevant notice must be provided by the last business day of the month for members to be eligible to participate in the MORP effective the first business day of the following month.7

    7 Members must provide this notice by March 31, 2015 to be eligible to participate in MORP when the program becomes effective on April 1, 2015.

    Rebate for Unsolicited Crossing Orders

    An EAM that is MORP eligible will receive a rebate for all unsolicited Crossing Orders of $0.05 per originating contract side, provided that the member executes a minimum average daily volume (“ADV”) in unsolicited Crossing Orders of at least 30,000 originating contract sides. This rebate is increased to $0.07 per originating contract side, provided that the member executes a higher ADV in unsolicited Crossing Orders of 100,000 originating contract sides. The rebate for the highest tier achieved will be applied retroactively to all eligible contracts traded in a given month. As is ISE's current practice with respect to ADV calculations, any day that the Exchange is not open for the entire trading day may be excluded from such calculation; provided that the Exchange will only remove the day for members that would have a lower ADV with the day included. The Exchange will provide a notice, and post it on the Exchange's Web site, to inform members of any day that is to be excluded from its ADV calculations in connection with this proposed rule change.

    Facilitation and Solicitation Break-Up Rebate

    In addition, any EAM that qualifies for the MORP rebate by executing an ADV of 30,000 originating contract sides or more will also be eligible for increased Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebates. Currently, the Exchange provides a Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebate of $0.15 per contract for regular and complex orders in Select Symbols. This rebate applies to all Non-ISE Market Maker,8 Firm Proprietary 9 /Broker-Dealer,10 Professional Customer,11 and Priority Customer 12 orders submitted to the Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanisms that do not trade with their contra order, except when those orders trade against pre-existing orders and quotes on the Exchange's order books. For MORP eligible members that execute a qualifying ADV in unsolicited Crossing Orders of at least 30,000 originating contract sides, the Exchange now proposes to increase this Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebate to $0.35 per contract for regular and complex orders in Select Symbols. In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt a Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebate in Non-Select Symbols and FX option classes specifically for members that meet the MORP qualifications described above. The rebate in Non-Select Symbols will be $0.15 per contract for regular orders and $0.80 per contract for complex orders. For FX option classes, the rebate will be $0.15 per contract for both regular and complex orders. With this proposed change, the Exchange notes that eligible members will receive the same break-up rebates for their Facilitation and Solicitation orders as they currently do for orders submitted to the PIM.

    2. Statutory Basis

    8 A “Non-ISE Market Maker” is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, registered in the same options class on another options exchange.

    9 A “Firm Proprietary” order is an order submitted by a member for its own proprietary account.

    10 A “Broker-Dealer” order is an order submitted by a member for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.

    11 A “Professional Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.

    12 A “Priority Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s), as defined in Rule 100(a)(37A).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,13 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,14 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange proposes to provide the MORP rebate and higher break-up rebates to EAMs that connect directly to the Exchange and provide their clients with order routing functionality that includes all U.S. options exchanges, including ISE. Order routing firms are already provided enhanced rebates by some of the Exchange's competitors, including, for example, NYSE Amex Options (“Amex”), which provides volume based rebates to members that provide access and connectivity to their market.15 The Exchange believes that it is appropriate at this time to offer a similar rebate to order routing firms on ISE in order to compete with these programs on other options markets.

    15See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71532 (February 12, 2014), 79 FR 9563 (February 19, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-12).

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee program is reasonable and equitable because it is designed to encourage order routing firms to execute additional unsolicited Crossing Order volume on the ISE. The Exchange notes that it currently offers other incentive programs to promote and encourage growth in specific business areas, including, for example, rebates for Market Makers that routinely quote at the national best bid or offer,16 and volume-based Priority Customer complex order rebates.17 The proposed rule change is targeted towards Crossing Orders, and, in particular, unsolicited Crossing Orders, which is yet another segment of order flow that the Exchange seeks to encourage members to execute on ISE. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to tailor the proposed rule change to unsolicited Crossing Orders. ISE already charges fees and provides rebates for non-Crossing Orders that are effective in attracting that order flow to the Exchange. In addition, solicited Crossing Orders already benefit from the QCC and Solicitation Rebate, which applies to all QCC and/or other solicited Crossing Orders, including solicited orders executed in the Solicitation, Facilitation or Price Improvement Mechanisms. The Exchange believes that the QCC and Solicitation Rebate has proven to be an effective incentive for members to send solicited crosses to the ISE. The proposed rule change would supplement this incentive by encouraging eligible firms to send unsolicited Crossing Orders to the Exchange as well, which will benefit all market participants on ISE by creating additional liquidity and increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.

    16See Schedule of Fees, Section I, Regular Order Fees and Rebates, Market Maker Plus.

    17See Schedule of Fees, Section II, Complex Order Fees and Rebates.

    The Exchange notes that the proposed MORP rebate levels are within the range of rebates currently offered by Amex, whose market access and connectivity subsidy ranges from $0.04 per contract to $0.08 per contract based on a member's volume tier.18 In addition, the Exchange notes that the proposed Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebates are equivalent to break-up rebates already provided for PIM orders traded on ISE.

    18See supra note 15.

    As a condition for participating in MORP, an EAM must configure its option order routing functionality so that ISE will be the default destination for all unsolicited Crossing Orders, and must offer to its clients a customized interface and routing functionality that similarly defaults such orders to ISE. Defaulting to ISE will not be required if market conditions do not allow the Crossing Order to be executed on the Exchange. In addition, MORP eligible firms must allow users to manually override ISE as the default order routing destination on an order-by-order basis. The Exchange believes that these proposed requirements are reasonable and equitable as they protect investors, while allowing member firms to qualify for enhanced rebates that reduce their trading costs on ISE. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that members that set ISE as their default routing destination will not be relieved of complying with their best execution obligations. If, based on its regular best execution analysis, a MORP eligible member determines that the routing functionality described above would conflict with its duty of best execution, such member may discontinue participation in the program. The Exchange believes that the safeguards described above will ensure that client orders are appropriately protected under MORP. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the proposed protections mirror protections previously adopted by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (“Phlx”), where a similar program was introduced in 2007.19

    19See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56274 (August 16, 2007), 72 FR 48720 (August 24, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-54).

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed program is both equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying EAM that offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange will be able to participate in the program on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. While there will be two tiers of MORP rebates, the sole basis for differentiation among the tiers will be participant volume in unsolicited Crossing Orders.20 The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide higher rebates to members that execute a higher volume of order flow on ISE. With respect to break-up rebates, the Exchange notes that all members that qualify for a MORP rebate will also receive enhanced break-up rebates.

    20As explained above, the proposed rule change is targeted towards unsolicited Crossing Orders as this is the segment of order flow that the Exchange is seeking to encourage members to execute on ISE. The Exchange does not believe that this is unfairly discriminatory as all MORP eligible members can achieve the applicable rebates by executing unsolicited Crossing Orders on the ISE.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,21 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change evidences the strength of competition in the options industry. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee change will enhance the competiveness of the ISE relative to other options exchanges, such as Amex, that offer similar programs under their respective fee schedules. In doing so, eligible order routing firms will benefit from an innovative program that reduces trading costs by providing a valuable rebate for their unsolicited Crossing Orders. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.

    2115 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 22 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,23 because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE.

    22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    23 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-ISE-2015-11 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2015-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2015-11, and should be submitted on or before May 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.24

    24 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08700 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74712; File No. SR-DTC-2015-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Discontinue the Prospectus Repository System Service April 10, 2015. I. Introduction

    On February 13, 2015, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-DTC-2015-01 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.2 The Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal Registrar on March 2, 2015.3 The Commission did not receive any comments on the Proposed Rule Change. This order approves the Proposed Rule Change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74358 (February 24, 2015), 80 FR 11243 (March 2, 2015) (SR-DTC-2015-01).

    II. Description

    DTC filed the Proposed Rule Change to discontinue DTC's Prospectus Repository System (“PRS”) and its Terms of Use (“Terms of Use”), as discussed below.

    DTC launched PRS in 2003 to provide DTC participants (“Participants”) and DTC-authorized third parties (collectively, “Users”) 4 access to prospectuses and official statements relating to new issues of corporate and municipal securities (“Documents”).5 Today, however, there are few Users of PRS because many of the Documents provided through PRS are publicly available. As such, DTC states that it is not worth the cost of maintaining PRS and, thus, will discontinue it.

    4 Third-party Users of PRS include syndicate members, correspondent banks, paying agents, transfer agents, and certain legal counsel and financial advisors. Individual investors do not have access to PRS.

    5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47410 (February 26, 2003), 68 FR 10558 (March 5, 2003) (SR-DTC-2002-13).

    III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act 6 directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.7

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    The Commission finds the Proposed Rule Change consistent with the Act. More specifically, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.8 By eliminating a service that is not economically efficient to maintain or central to DTC's core clearing business, DTC can better allocate its economic resources to support the safeguarding of securities or funds in its custody or control, and promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.

    8Id.

    IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 9 and the rules and regulations thereunder.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that proposed rule change SR-DTC-2015-01 be, and hereby is, approved. 10

    10 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.11

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08704 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74709; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-036] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule April 10, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 31, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective April 1, 2015. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend its fees for the Russell 2000 Index (“RUT”). As of April 1, 2015, RUT will be listed exclusively on CBOE and C2 Options Exchange Incorporated (“C2”). As such, the Exchange proposes to make certain conforming changes to its Fees Schedule.

    By way of background, a specific set of proprietary products had been commonly listed out in the Fees Schedule as being included or excluded from a variety of programs, qualification calculations and transactions fees. In lieu of listing out these products in various sections of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange recently adopted the term “Underlying Symbol List A,” to represent these products.3 Currently, Underlying Symbol List A is defined in Footnote 34 and represents the following proprietary products: OEX, XEO, SPX (including SPXw), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VXST, VOLATILITY INDEXES and binary options The Exchange notes that the reason the products in Underlying Symbol List A are often collectively included or excluded from certain programs, qualification calculations and transactions fees is because the Exchange has expended considerable resources developing and maintaining its proprietary, exclusively-listed products. Similar to the products currently represented by “Underlying Symbol List A,” RUT will no longer be listed on any other exchange (other than C2). As such, the Exchange proposes to exclude or include RUT in the same programs as the other products in Underlying Symbol List A (except as otherwise noted below), as well as add RUT to the definition of Underlying Symbol List A in Footnote 34. Specifically, like the other products in Underlying Symbol List A, the Exchange proposes to except RUT from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the Marketing Fee, the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap (“Fee Cap”) and exemption from fees for facilitation orders, and the Order Router Subsidy (ORS) and Complex Order Router Subsidy (CORS) Programs. Like all other products in Underlying Symbol List A (with the exception of SROs), the Exchange proposes to apply to RUT the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. Unlike the products in Underlying Symbol List A, the Exchange does intend to keep RUT volume in the calculation of qualifying volume for the rebate of Floor Broker Trading Permit fees.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73832 (December 12, 2014), 79 FR 243 (December 18, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-092).

    Next, as the Exchange proposes to include RUT in Underlying Symbol List A, the reference to RUT in the “Index Options Rate Table—All Index Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A” table will be deleted and new references to RUT, where applicable, will be added to the “Specified Proprietary Index Options Rate Table—Underlying Symbol List A” table. Additionally, the Exchange will add “RUT” to the list of products excluded from the Customer section of the Index Options Rate Table. The Exchange also proposes to spell out and add a separate row for the remaining products of Underlying Symbol List A for Broker-Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/Voluntary Professionals and Joint Back Offices (“JBOs”) transaction fees.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend certain transaction fees for RUT options. Currently, Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary (“F” origin code) and Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate (“L” origin code) RUT transactions are assessed $0.35 per contract for electronic transactions and $0.20 per contract for both manual and Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”) transactions. The Exchange proposes to assess a $0.25 per contract transaction fee for all Clearing Trading Permit Holder and Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate transactions, which is the same fee amount assessed to Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary and Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate transactions for all products in Underlying Symbol List A.4 Next, the Exchange notes that currently, RUT is subject to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, which provides for reduced transaction fees for Market-Makers that reach certain volume thresholds in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A and mini-options. As mentioned above, the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale will no longer apply to RUT as RUT will now be exclusively listed on CBOE (and C2) and part of Underlying Symbol List A. As such, the Exchange proposes to assess Market-Makers $0.20 per contract for all RUT transactions, which is also the same fee amount as applies to Market-Makers for all products in Underlying Symbol List A.

    4 The $0.25 per contract fee for Clearing Trading Permit Holders and Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliates is subject to the applicability of the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the AIM transaction RUT fees for Broker-Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/Voluntary Professionals and Joint Back Offices (“JBOs”). Currently, the Exchange assesses these market participants $0.20 per contract for AIM Agency/Primary transactions and $0.05 per contract for AIM Contra transactions. The Exchange proposes to charge all RUT AIM transactions $0.25 per contract. The current fees of $0.65 per contract for Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker, and JBO electronic RUT transactions and $0.25 per contract for manual transactions are not changing. Currently, Customer transactions are assessed $0.18 per contract for all RUT orders other than AIM Contra orders. AIM Contra transactions are currently assessed $0.05 per contract. The Exchange proposes to increase the AIM Contra fee to $0.18 per contract, so that all Customer transactions will be assessed the same rate (i.e., $0.18). The Exchange notes that Customer AIM orders (both AIM Agency/Primary and Contra) for other Underlying Symbol List A products are also charged the same amount(s) as apply to Customer non-AIM transactions for each respective product.

    The Exchange also proposes to apply to RUT, like the other products in Underlying Symbol List A, the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract ($0.02 per contract for crossed orders) (the Floor Brokerage Fee applies only to Floor Brokers, and only for open outcry trading).

    Currently, the Exchange assesses an Index License Surcharge for RUT of $0.30 per contract for all non-customer orders. The Exchange now proposes to increase the RUT Surcharge from $0.30 to 0.45 per contract in order to recoup the increased costs associated with the RUT license. The Exchange will still be subsidizing the costs of the RUT license.

    Footnote 25, which governs rebates on Floor Broker Trading Permits, currently provides that any Floor Broker that executes a certain average of customer open-outcry contracts per day over the course of a calendar month in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, XSP, XSPAM, mini-options and subcabinet trades, will receive a rebate on that Floor Broker's Trading Permit Holder's Floor Broker Trading Permit Fees. The Exchange notes that although RUT is being added to “Underlying Symbol List A”, it wishes to continue to include RUT in the calculation of the qualifying volume for the rebate of Floor Broker Trading Permit fees. As such, the Exchange seeks to explicitly note in Footnote 25 that RUT will be included in the calculation, notwithstanding its inclusion in Underlying Symbol List A. The Exchange wishes to continue to encourage Floor Brokers to execute open-outcry trades in RUT options and believes that continuing to include RUT in the qualifying volume will provide such incentive. Additionally, the Exchange notes that as discussed above, Floor Brokers will now be assessed floor brokerage fees for RUT, which had not been assessed to them previously.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.5 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 6 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,7 which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    Particularly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge different fee amounts to different user types in the manner proposed because the proposed fees are consistent with the price differentiation that exists today for other proprietary products. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee amounts for RUT orders are reasonable because the proposed fee amounts are within the range of amounts assessed for the Exchange's other proprietary products.8

    8See CBOE Fees Schedule, Specified Proprietary Index Options Rate Table.

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Customers as compared to other market participants because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The fees offered to Customers are intended to attract more Customer trading volume to the Exchange. Moreover, the options industry has a long history of providing preferential pricing to Customers, and the Exchange's current Fees Schedule currently does so in many places, as do the fees structures of many other exchanges. Finally, all fee amounts listed as applying to Customers will be applied equally to all Customers (meaning that all Customers will be assessed the same amount).

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to, assess lower fees to Market-Makers as compared to other market participants other than Customers because Market-Makers, unlike other market participants, take on a number of obligations, including quoting obligations, that other market participants do not have. Further, these lower fees offered to Market-Makers are intended to incent Market-Makers to quote and trade more on the Exchange, thereby providing more trading opportunities for all market participants. Additionally, the proposed fee for Market-Makers will be applied equally to all Market-Makers (meaning that all Market-Makers will be assessed the same amount). This concept also applies to orders from all other origins. It should also be noted that all fee amounts described herein are intended to attract greater order flow to the Exchange in RUT, which should therefore serve to benefit all Exchange market participants. Similarly, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders than those of other market participants (except Customers and Market-Makers) because Clearing Trading Permit Holders also have a number of obligations (such as membership with the Options Clearing Corporation), significant regulatory burdens, and financial obligations, that other market participants do not need to take on. The Exchange also notes that the RUT fee amounts for each separate type of market participant will be assessed equally to all such market participants (i.e. all Broker-Dealer orders will be assessed the same amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed the same amount, etc.).

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to AIM transaction fees for Brokers Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/Voluntary Professionals, JBOs and Customers are reasonable because the amounts are still lower than assessed for AIM transactions in other proprietary products.9 The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees for AIM executions as compared to electronic executions because AIM is a price-improvement mechanism, which the Exchange wishes to encourage and support.

    9Id.

    Assessing the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract for non-crossed orders and $0.02 per contract for crossed orders to Floor Brokers (and not other market participants) trading RUT orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because only Floor Brokers are statutorily capable of representing orders in the trading crowd, for which they charge a commission. Moreover, this fee is already assessed, in the same amounts, to the other products in Underlying Symbol List A.

    Increasing the Index License Surcharge Fee from $0.30 to $0.45 per contract to RUT transactions is reasonable because the Exchange still pays more for the RUT license than the amount of the proposed RUT Index License Surcharge Fee (meaning that the Exchange will be subsidizing the costs of the RUT license). This increase is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the increased amount will be assessed to all market participants to whom the RUT Surcharge applies. Not applying the RUT Index License Surcharge Fee to Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this is designed to attract Customer RUT orders, which increases liquidity and provides greater trading opportunities to all market participants.

    Excepting RUT from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the Marketing Fee, the Fee Cap, and the exemption from fees for facilitation orders is reasonable because other Underlying Symbol List A products (i.e., other products that are exclusively-listed) are excepted from those same items. This is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reason; it seems equitable to except RUT from items on the Fees Schedule from which other proprietary products are also excepted.

    Applying to RUT the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale is reasonable because it also applies to other Underlying Symbol List A products. This is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reason; it seems equitable to apply to RUT the same items on the Fees Schedule that apply to Underlying Symbol List A options classes (i.e., proprietary options classes that are not listed on other exchanges).

    The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to include RUT in the calculation of the qualifying volume for the Floor Broker Trading Permit Fees rebate because the Exchange wishes to support and encourage open-outcry trading of RUT, which allows for price improvement and has a number of positive impacts on the market system.

    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed change to relocate the RUT fees from the “Index Options Rate Table- All Index Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A” to the “Specified Proprietary Index Options Rate Table- Underlying Symbol List A” and make other technical conforming changes to the Fees Schedule makes clear to market participants that RUT is now part of Underlying Symbol List A and reduces potential confusion as to which Rate Table applies. The alleviation of potential confusion will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees are assessed to different market participants in some circumstances, these different market participants have different obligations and different circumstances as discussed above. For example, Market-Makers have quoting obligations that other market participants do not have.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because RUT will now be exclusively listed on CBOE (and C2). To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 11 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2015-036 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-036. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-036 and should be submitted on or before May 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08703 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74701; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-18] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing and Trading under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 of Shares of the Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond Index Fund April 10, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that on April 6, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02, the shares of the Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond Index Fund. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond Index Fund's ETF share class (“Fund”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of Investment Company Units (“Units”) based on fixed income securities indexes.4 The Fund is a series of the Vanguard Municipal Bond Funds Trust (“Trust”).5 The Vanguard Group, Inc. will be the investment adviser to the Fund (“Adviser”).

    4 The Commission previously has approved proposed rule changes relating to listing and trading on the Exchange of Units based on municipal bond indexes. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67985 (October 4, 2012), 77 FR 61804 (October 11, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-92) (order approving proposed rule change relating to the listing and trading of iShares 2018 S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series and iShares 2019 S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02); 67729 (August 24, 2012), 77 FR 52776 (August 30, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-92) (notice of proposed rule change relating to the listing and trading of iShares 2018 S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series and iShares 2019 S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02); 71232 (January 3, 2014), 79 FR 1662 (January 9, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-118) (order approving listing and trading of shares of the Market Vectors Short High-Yield Municipal Index ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02); 72523, (July 2, 2014), 79 FR 39016 (July 9, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-37) (order approving proposed rule change relating to the listing and trading of iShares 2020 S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02); 72172 (May 15, 2014), 79 FR 29241 (May 21, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-37) (notice of proposed rule change relating to the listing and trading of iShares 2020 S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02). The Commission also has issued a notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of a proposed rule change relating to listing and trading on the Exchange of shares of the iShares Taxable Municipal Bond Fund. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63176 (October 25, 2010), 75 FR 66815 (October 29, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-94). The Commission has approved for Exchange listing and trading of shares of two actively managed funds of the PIMCO ETF Trust that principally hold municipal bonds. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60981 (November 10, 2009), 74 FR 59594 (November 18, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-79) (order approving listing and trading of shares of the PIMCO Short-Term Municipal Bond Strategy Fund and PIMCO Intermediate Municipal Bond Strategy Fund). The Commission also has approved listing and trading on the Exchange of shares of the SPDR® Nuveen S&P High Yield Municipal Bond Fund under Commentary .02 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63881 (February 9, 2011), 76 FR 9065 (February 16, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-120).

    5 On January 6, 2015, the Trust filed a registration statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) (“1933 Act”) and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) (File Nos. 2-57689 and 811-02687) (the “Registration Statement”). The description of the operation of the Trust and the Fund herein is based, in part, on the Registration Statement. In addition, the Commission has issued an order granting certain exemptive relief to the Trust under the 1940 Act. See Investment Company Act Release No. 27773 (April 2, 2007) (File No. 812-13336) (“Exemptive Order”).

    State Street Bank and Trust Company will serve as custodian for the Fund. Vanguard Marketing Corporation will be the distributor (“Distributor”) for the Fund's Shares.

    Principal Investments

    According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to track the performance of a benchmark index that measures the investment-grade segment of the U.S. municipal bond market. The Fund will invest by sampling its benchmark index, meaning that it holds a range of securities that, in the aggregate, approximates the full index in terms of key risk factors and other characteristics. All of the Fund's investments will be selected through the sampling process, and, under normal circumstances 6 , at least 80% of the Fund's assets will be invested in securities held in its benchmark index. Under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the Fund's income will be exempt from federal income taxes.

    6 The term “under normal circumstances” includes, but is not limited to, the absence of extreme volatility or trading halts in the fixed income markets or the financial markets generally; operational issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market information; or force majeure type events such as systems failure, natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism, riot or labor disruption or any similar intervening circumstance.

    The Fund has proposed to use the Standard & Poor's National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index (“Index”) as its benchmark index.7 The Index includes municipal bonds from issuers that are primarily state or local governments or agencies whose interest is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax (AMT). To be eligible for inclusion in the Index, each bond must have a rating of at least investment-grade, as determined by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (e.g., at least BBB- by Fitch Ratings, Inc.); be denominated in U.S. dollars; and have a minimum par amount of $25 million. In addition, to be included in the Index, each bond must have a minimum term to maturity and/or pre-refunded or call date greater than or equal to one calendar month. The following bond types are specifically excluded from the Index: bonds subject to the AMT; commercial paper; derivative securities (inverse floaters, forwards, swaps); housing bonds; insured conduit bonds where the obligor is a for-profit institution; non-insured conduit bonds; non-rated bonds; notes; taxable municipals; tobacco bonds; and variable rate debt. Each bond in the Index must be a constituent of a deal where the deal's original offering amount was at least $100 million. Index constituents normally undergo a review and rebalancing once a month. At each monthly rebalancing, no one issuer can represent more than 25% of the weight of the Index; and individual issuers that represent at least 5% of the weight of the Index cannot account for more than 50% of the weight of the Index in the aggregate.

    7 S&P Dow Jones Indices (“S&P”) is the “Index Provider” with respect to the Index. The Index Provider is not a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the Index.

    Non-Principal Investments

    While under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the Fund's assets will be invested in securities held in its benchmark index, as described above, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its assets in other securities and financial instruments, as described below.

    According to the Registration Statement, up to 20% of the Fund's assets may be used to purchase nonpublic, investment-grade securities, generally referred to as 144A securities, as well as smaller public issues or medium-term notes not included in its benchmark index because of the small size of the issue. The vast majority of these securities will have characteristics and risks similar to those in the benchmark index. Subject to the same 20% limit, the Fund may also purchase other investments that are outside of its benchmark index or may hold bonds that, when acquired, were included in the benchmark index but subsequently were removed.

    The Fund may invest in U.S. Treasury futures contracts, exchange-traded and over-the-counter (“OTC”) options on such futures contracts, exchange-traded and OTC fixed income options, centrally cleared and non-centrally cleared interest rate swaps, centrally cleared and non-centrally cleared total return swaps, and centrally cleared and non-centrally cleared credit default swaps.

    The Fund may invest in non-investment-grade securities, also referred to as “high-yield securities” or “junk bonds”, which are debt securities that are rated lower than the four highest rating categories by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (e.g., lower than Baa3/P-2 by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (Moody's), or below BBB-/A-2 by Standard & Poor's) or, if unrated, are determined to be of comparable quality by the Adviser.

    The Fund may invest in variable and floating rate securities, which are debt securities that provide for periodic adjustments in the interest rate paid on the security. Variable rate securities provide for a specified periodic adjustment in the interest rate, while floating rate securities have interest rates that change whenever there is a change in a designated benchmark rate or the issuer's credit quality.

    The Fund may purchase shares of exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) 8 , including ETF shares issued by other Vanguard funds.

    8 For purposes of this filing, ETFs include Investment Company Units (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)); Portfolio Depositary Receipts (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100); and Managed Fund Shares (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600). The ETFs all will be listed and traded in the U.S. on national securities exchanges. While the Fund may invest in inverse ETFs, the Fund will not invest in leveraged or inverse leveraged ETFs (e.g., 2X or 3X).

    The Fund may invest in hybrid instruments.9

    9 According to the Registration Statement, a hybrid instrument is an interest in an issuer that combines the characteristics of an equity security, a debt security, a commodity, and/or a derivative. Examples of hybrid instruments include exchange-traded or OTC convertible securities, contingent convertible securities; trust-preferred securities, and commodity-linked bonds.

    In addition to the municipal securities referenced in the “Principal Investments” section above, the Fund may invest in other municipal securities, which are debt obligations issued by states, municipalities, U.S. jurisdictions or territories, and other political subdivisions and by agencies, authorities, and instrumentalities of states and multistate agencies or authorities (collectively, municipalities). Municipal securities also include a variety of structures geared toward accommodating municipal-issuer short-term cash flow requirements. These structures include, but are not limited to, general market notes, commercial paper, put bonds, and variable-rate demand obligations (“VRDOs”).

    The Fund may invest in Build America Bonds.

    The Fund may purchase certain variable-rate demand-preferred securities (“VRDPs”) issued by closed-end municipal bond funds, which, in turn, invest primarily in portfolios of tax-exempt municipal bonds. The Fund may invest in securities issued by single-state or national closed-end municipal bond funds. VRDPs are issued by closed-end funds to leverage returns for common shareholders.

    The Fund may participate in tender option bond programs, which are a type of municipal bond derivative structure, which is taxed as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. These programs provide for tax-exempt income at a variable rate. In such programs, high-quality longer-term municipal bonds are held inside a trust and varying economic interests in the bonds are created and sold to investors.

    Investment Restrictions

    The Fund may invest in other investment companies to the extent permitted by applicable law or Commission exemption and consistent with Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act.

    The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser, in accordance with Commission guidance.10 The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities. Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.11

    10 Several factors considered in monitoring illiquidity determinations include the valuation of a security; the availability of qualified institutional buyers, brokers, and dealers that trade in the security; and the availability of information about the security's issuer.

    11 The Commission has stated that long-standing Commission guidelines have required open-end funds to hold no more than 15% of their net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets. See Investment Company Act Release No. 28193 (March 11, 2008), 73 FR 14618 (March 18, 2008), footnote 34. See also, Investment Company Act Release No. 5847 (October 21, 1969), 35 FR 19989 (December 31, 1970) (Statement Regarding “Restricted Securities”); Investment Company Act Release No. 18612 (March 12, 1992), 57 FR 9828 (March 20, 1992) (Revisions of Guidelines to Form N-1A). A fund's portfolio security is illiquid if it cannot be disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value ascribed to it by the fund. See Investment Company Act Release No. 14983 (March 12, 1986), 51 FR 9773 (March 21, 1986) (adopting amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act); Investment Company Act Release No. 17452 (April 23, 1990), 55 FR 17933 (April 30, 1990) (adopting Rule 144A under the 1933 Act).

    The Fund is classified as diversified within the meaning of the 1940 Act.12

    12 The diversification standard is set forth in Section 5(b)(1) of the 1940 Act.

    The Fund intends to maintain the required level of diversification and otherwise conduct its operations so as to qualify as a “regulated investment company” for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.13

    13 26 U.S.C. 851.

    The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Index for the Fund does not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .02(a) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) applicable to the listing of Units based on fixed income securities indexes. The Index meets all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .02(a)(2).14 Specifically, as of February 7, 2015, 33.69% of the weight of the Index components have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.

    14 Commentary .02(a)(2) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) provides that components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the weight of the index or portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.

    As of February 7, 2015, 98.72% of the weight of the Index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities of the offering. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $2.424 billion and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $60 million. Further, the most heavily weighted component represents 0.27% of the weight of the Index and the five most heavily weighted components represent 0.96% of the weight of the Index.15 In addition, the average daily notional trading volume for Index components for the period from January 2, 2014 to December 31, 2014 was $1,272,356,609 and the sum of the notional trading volumes for the same period was $318,089,152,147.

    15 Commentary .02(a)(4) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) provides that no component fixed-income security (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE Securities, as defined therein) shall represent more than 30% of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component fixed-income securities in the index or portfolio shall not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the weight of the index or portfolio.

    Therefore, the Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that the Index does not satisfy the criterion in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 (a)(2), the Index is sufficiently broad-based to deter potential manipulation, given that it is composed of approximately 10,015 issues and 969 unique issuers. In addition, the Index securities are sufficiently liquid to deter potential manipulation in that a substantial portion (98.72%) of the Index weight is composed of maturities that are part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more, and in view of the substantial total dollar amount outstanding and the average dollar amount outstanding of Index issues, as referenced above.

    Purchase and Issuance of Shares in Creation Units

    The Fund will issue and sell Shares only in “Creation Units” through the Distributor, without a sales load, at its net asset value (“NAV”) next determined after receipt of an order in proper form on any business day.

    The consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit from the Fund generally will consist of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (Deposit Securities) and an amount of cash (“Cash Component”) consisting of a purchase balancing amount and a transaction fee (both described in the following paragraphs). Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit”.

    The purchase balancing amount is an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of a Creation Unit and the market value of the Deposit Securities (Deposit Amount). It ensures that the NAV of a Fund Deposit (not including the transaction fee) is identical to the NAV of the Creation Unit it is used to purchase. If the purchase balancing amount is a positive number (i.e., the NAV per Creation Unit exceeds the market value of the Deposit Securities), then that amount will be paid by the purchaser to the Fund in cash. If the purchase balancing amount is a negative number (i.e., the NAV per Creation Unit is less than the market value of the Deposit Securities), then that amount will be paid by the Fund to the purchaser in cash (except as offset by the transaction fee).

    Vanguard, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available after the close of each business day a list of the names and the number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the next business day's Fund Deposit for the Fund (subject to possible amendment or correction). The Fund reserves the right to accept a nonconforming Fund Deposit.

    The identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities required for a Fund Deposit may change from one day to another to reflect rebalancing adjustments, corporate actions, and interest payments on underlying bonds or to respond to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the component securities of the Index.

    In addition, the Fund reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash—referred to as “cash-in-lieu”—to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security. This might occur, for example, if a Deposit Security is not available in sufficient quantity for delivery, is not eligible for transfer through the applicable clearance and settlement system, or is not eligible for trading by an “Authorized Participant” or the investor for which an Authorized Participant is acting.

    To initiate a purchase order for a Creation Unit, an Authorized Participant must submit an order in proper form to the Distributor and such order must be received by the Distributor prior to the closing time of regular trading of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (Closing Time) (ordinarily 4 p.m. Eastern time) to receive that day's NAV. Authorized Participants must transmit orders using a transmission method acceptable to the Distributor pursuant to procedures set forth in the “Participant Agreement”.

    Redemption of Shares in Creation Units

    Redemption orders must be placed by an Authorized Participant. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units.

    Unless cash redemptions are available or specified for the Fund, an investor tendering a Creation Unit generally will receive redemption proceeds consisting of (1) a basket of “Redemption Securities”; plus (2) a redemption balancing amount in cash equal to the difference between (x) the NAV of the Creation Unit being redeemed, as next determined after receipt of a request in proper form, and (y) the value of the Redemption Securities; less (3) a transaction fee. If the Redemption Securities have a value greater than the NAV of a Creation Unit, the redeeming investor will pay the redemption balancing amount in cash to the Fund rather than receive such amount from the Fund.

    Vanguard, through the NSCC, will make available after the close of each business day a list of the names and the number of shares of each Redemption Security to be included in the next business day's redemption basket for the Fund (subject to possible amendment or correction). The basket of Redemption Securities provided to an investor redeeming a Creation Unit may not be identical to the basket of Deposit Securities required of an investor purchasing a Creation Unit. If the Fund and a redeeming investor mutually agree, the Fund may provide the investor with a basket of Redemption Securities that differs from the composition of the redemption basket published through the NSCC.

    The Fund reserves the right to deliver cash in lieu of any Redemption Security for the same reason it might accept cash in lieu of a Deposit Security, or if the Fund could not lawfully deliver the security or could not do so without first registering such security under federal or state law.

    If an Authorized Participant, or a redeeming investor acting through an Authorized Participant, is subject to a legal restriction with respect to a particular security included in the basket of Redemption Securities, such investor may be paid an equivalent amount of cash in lieu of the security.

    The right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed with respect to the Fund (1) for any period during which the NYSE or the Exchange is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings), (2) for any period during which trading on the NYSE or the Exchange is suspended or restricted, (3) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the Fund's portfolio securities or determination of its NAV is not reasonably practical, or (4) in such other circumstances as the Commission permits.

    A creation and redemption transaction fee will be imposed to offset transfer and other transaction costs that may be incurred by the Fund.

    The Exchange represents that: (1) Except for Commentary .02(a)(2) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Shares of the Fund currently satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3); (2) the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to Units shall apply to the Shares; and (3) the Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act 16 for the initial and continued listing of the Shares. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares will comply with all other requirements applicable to Units including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the value of the Index and the applicable Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”),17 rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the Information Bulletin to Equity Trading Permit Holders (“ETP Holders”), as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Units and prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules applicable to the listing and trading of Units.18

    16 17 CFR 240.10A-3.

    17 The IIV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time. Currently, it is the Exchange's understanding that several major market data vendors display and/or make widely available IIVs taken from the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) or other data feeds.

    18See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55783 (May 17, 2007), 72 FR 29194 (May 24, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-36) (order approving NYSE Arca generic listing standards for Units based on a fixed income index); 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14) (order approving generic listing standards for Units and Portfolio Depositary Receipts); 41983 (October 6, 1999), 64 FR 56008 (October 15, 1999) (SR-PCX-98-29) (order approving rules for listing and trading of Units).

    The current value of the Index will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once per day, as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 (b)(ii). The IIV for Shares of the Fund will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session, as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02(c).

    The Index value, calculated and disseminated at least once daily, as well as the components of the Index and their percentage weighting, will be available from major market data vendors. In addition, as disclosed in the Registration Statement, the portfolio of securities held by the Fund will be disclosed monthly on the Fund's Web site at www.vanguard.com.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)19 that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.20 The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange. The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. FINRA also can access data obtained from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board relating to municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the Shares. The Index Provider is not a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the Index. As of February 7, 2015, there were approximately 10,015 issues in the Index. The Index meets all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .02(a)(2).21 Specifically, as of February 7, 2015, 33.69% of the weight of the Index components have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.

    20 FINRA surveils trading on the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement.

    21See note 14, supra.

    As of February 7, 2015, 98.72% of the weight of the Index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities of the offering. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $2.424 billion and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $60 million. Further, the most heavily weighted component represents 0.27% of the weight of the Index and the five most heavily weighted components represent 0.96% of the weight of the Index.22 Therefore, the Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that the Index does not satisfy the criterion in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 (a)(2), the Index is sufficiently broad-based to deter potential manipulation, given that it is composed of approximately 10,015 issues and 969 unique issuers. The Index securities are sufficiently liquid to deter potential manipulation in that a substantial portion (98.72%) of the Index weight is composed of maturities that are part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more, and in view of the substantial total dollar amount outstanding and the average dollar amount outstanding of Index issues, as referenced above. In addition, the average daily notional trading volume for Index components for the period from January 2, 2014 to December 31, 2014 was $1,272,356,609 and the sum of the notional trading volumes for the same period was $318,089,152,147.

    22See note 15, supra.

    The Index value, calculated and disseminated at least once daily, as well as the components of the Index and their respective percentage weightings, will be available from major market data vendors. In addition, as disclosed in the Registration Statement, the portfolio of securities held by the Fund will be disclosed on the Fund's Web site. The IIV for Shares of the Fund will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. The Adviser represents that, within a single municipal bond issuer, separate issues by the same issuer are also likely to trade similarly to one another. In addition, the Adviser represents that individual CUSIPs within the Index that share characteristics with other CUSIPs have a high yield to maturity correlation, and frequently have a correlation of one or close to one.

    The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. As disclosed in the Registration Statement, the Fund's portfolio holdings will be periodically disclosed on the Fund's Web site. Moreover, the IIV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. The current value of the Index will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once per day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The Web site for the Fund will include the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. If the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV is not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants. With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. If the IIV or the Index values are not being disseminated as required, the Corporation may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the applicable IIV or Index value occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the applicable IIV or Index value persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Corporation will halt trading. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34, which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, investors will have ready access to information regarding the IIV, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.

    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that invests principally in municipal securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, investors will have ready access to information regarding the IIV and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that invests principally in municipal securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-18 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-18. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange and on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-18, and should be submitted on or before May 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.23

    23 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08695 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74713; File No. SR-OCC-2014-811] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to an Advance Notice Concerning the Monthly Resizing of the Clearing Fund and the Addition of Financial Resources April 10, 2015.

    Pursuant to section 806(e)(1) of title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 1 (“Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act”) and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),2 notice is hereby given that on March 4, 2015, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) Amendment no. 2 to the advance notice (“Amendment No. 2”) as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by OCC. On December 1, 2014, OCC originally filed the advance notice with the Commission. On December 16, 2014, OCC filed Amendment No.1 to the advance notice (“Amendment No. 1”), which amended and replaced, in its entirety, the advance notice as originally filed on December 1, 2014.3 Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 26, 2015. 4 The Commission did not receive any comments on Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice. Amendment No. 2 to the advance notice amends and replaces, in its entirety, Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 2 from interested persons.

    1 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).

    3 In Amendment No. 1, OCC amended the advance notice to include the Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure and the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure as exhibits to the filing, both defined hereinafter, as Exhibit 5A and Exhibit 5B, respectively. OCC has requested confidential treatment for Exhibit 5A, Exhibit 5B, and Exhibit 5C, referred to hereinafter, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 24b-2.

    4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74091 (January 20, 2015), 80 FR 4001 (January 26, 2015) (File No. SR-OCC-2014-811). OCC also filed the proposal contained in the advance notice, and Amendment No. 1 thereto, as a proposed rule change, and subsequent amendment no. 1 thereto, under section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73853 (December 16, 2014), 79 FR 76417 (December 22, 2014) (File No. SR-OCC-2014-22). The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed rule change.

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance Notice

    This advance notice is filed by OCC in connection with OCC's proposal to establish procedures regarding the monthly resizing of its Clearing Fund and the addition of financial resources through intra-day margin calls and/or an intra-month increase of the Clearing Fund to ensure that it maintains adequate financial resources in the event of a default of a Clearing Member or group of affiliated Clearing Members presenting the largest exposure to OCC.

    This Amendment No. 2 to SR-OCC-2014-811 (SR-OCC-2014-811 is hereinafter defined as the “Filing”) amends and replaces in its entirety the Filing as originally submitted on December 1, 2014, and amended on December 16, 2014. The purpose of this Amendment No. 2 is to clarify the operation of a Margin Call Event in the period of time between the calculation of the next month's Clearing Fund Sizing and the collection of the funds pursuant to the Clearing Fund Sizing. Specifically, the amendment clarifies that: (i) Funds deposited by a clearing member pursuant to a Margin Call Event are considered in aggregate with other funds remaining on deposit with OCC by the same Clearing Member pursuant to a separate Margin Call Event within the same monthly period, as applicable; and (ii) funds deposited by a clearing member pursuant to a Margin Call Event(s) may not be withdrawn until OCC collects all funds to satisfy the next regular monthly Clearing Fund resizing. OCC is also proposing amendments that clarify the definition of “Financial Resources” within the Filing. A restated description of the purpose of the proposed rule change is below. In addition, conforming changes were made to Exhibit 5B, the Financial Resources Monitoring and Call Procedure, which is attached hereto. Further, OCC is proposing to add the Clearing Fund Intra-Month Re-Sizing Procedure, as Exhibit 5C to the Filing, through this Amendment No. 2. The Clearing Fund Intra-Month Re-Sizing Procedure would provide additional clarity regarding the resizing process discussed above.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A) and (B) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the advance notice were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the advance notice and none have been received.

    (B) Advance Notices Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act

    The proposed change would establish new procedures regarding the monthly resizing of the Clearing Fund and the addition of financial resources through intra-day margin calls and/or an intra-month increase of the Clearing Fund to ensure that OCC maintains adequate Financial Resources in the event of a default of a Clearing Member or group of affiliated Clearing Members presenting the largest exposure to OCC.

    Purpose of the Proposed Change

    The proposed change is intended to describe the situations in which OCC would exercise authority under its Rules to ensure that it maintains adequate Financial Resources 5 in the event that stress tests reveal a default of the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group 6 presenting the largest exposure would threaten the then-current Financial Resources. This proposed change would establish procedures governing: (i) OCC's resizing of the Clearing Fund on a monthly basis pursuant to Rule 1001(a) (the “Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure”); and (ii) the addition of Financial Resources through an intra-day margin call on one or more Clearing Members under Rule 609 and, if necessary, an intra-month increase of the Clearing Fund pursuant to Rule 1001(a) (the “Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure”).7 The Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure would permit OCC to determine the size of the Clearing Fund by relying on a broader range of sound risk management practices than those historically used under Rule 1001(a).8 The Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure would require OCC to collect additional Financial Resources in certain circumstances, establish how OCC calculates and collects such resources and provide the timing by which such resources would be required to be deposited by Clearing Members.

    5 “Financial Resources” means, with respect to a projected loss attributable to a particular Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group, as defined below, the sum of the margin deposits (less any excess margin a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group may have on deposit at OCC) and deposits in lieu of margin in respect of such Clearing Members' or Clearing Member Groups' accounts, and the value of OCC's Clearing Fund, including both the Base Amount, as defined below, and the prudential margin of safety, as discussed below.

    6 “Clearing Member Group” means a Clearing Member and any affiliated entities that control, are controlled by or are under common control with such Clearing Member. See OCC By-Laws, Article I, sections 1.C.(15) and 1.M(11).

    7 This advance notice filing has also been filed as a proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2014-22).

    8 The procedures described herein would be in effect until the development of a new standard Clearing Fund sizing methodology. Following such development, which will include a quantitative approach to calculating the “prudential margin of safety,” as discussed below, OCC will file a separate rule change and advance notice with the Commission that will include a description of the new methodology as well as a revised Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure.

    Background

    OCC monitors the sufficiency of the Clearing Fund on a daily basis but, prior to emergency action taken on October 15, 2014,9 OCC had no express authority to increase the size of the Clearing Fund on an intra-month basis.10 During ordinary course daily monitoring on October 15, 2014, and as a result of increased volatility in the financial markets in October 2014, OCC determined that the Financial Resources needed to cover the potential loss associated with a default of the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group presenting the largest exposure could have exceeded the Financial Resources then available to apply to such a default.

    9 On October 16, 2014, OCC filed an emergency notice with the Commission to suspend the effectiveness of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73579 (November 12, 2014), 79 FR 68747 (November 18, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-807). On November 13, 2014, OCC filed SR-OCC-2014-21 with the Commission to delete the second sentence of Rule 1001(a), preserving the suspended effectiveness of that sentence until such time as the Commission approves or disapproves SR-OCC-2014-21. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73685 (November 25, 2014), 79 FR 71479 (December 2, 2014), (SR-OCC-2014-21).

    10See OCC Rule 1001(a).

    To permit OCC to increase the size of its Clearing Fund prior to the next monthly resizing that was scheduled to take place on the first business day of November 2014, OCC's Executive Chairman, on October 15, 2014, exercised certain emergency powers as set forth in Article IX, section 14 of OCC's By-Laws 11 to waive the effectiveness of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a), which states that OCC will adjust the size of the Clearing Fund monthly and that any resizing will be based on data from the preceding month. OCC then filed an emergency notice with the Commission pursuant to section 806(e)(2) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 12 and increased the Clearing Fund size for the remainder of October 2014 as otherwise provided for in the first sentence of Rule 1001(a).13

    11 OCC also has submitted an advance notice that would provide greater detail concerning conditions under which OCC would increase the size of the Clearing Fund intra-month. The change would permit an intra-month increase in the event that the five-day rolling average of projected draws are 150% or more of the Clearing Fund's then current size. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72804 (August 11, 2014), 79 FR 48276 (August 15, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-804).

    12 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(2).

    13See supra, note 10.

    Clearing Members were informed of the action taken by the Executive Chairman 14 and the amount of their additional Clearing Fund requirements, which were met without incident. As a result of these actions, OCC's Clearing Fund for October 2014 was increased by $1.8 billion. In continued reliance on the emergency rule waiver and in accordance with the first sentence of Rule 1001(a), OCC set the November 2014 Clearing Fund size at $7.8 billion, which included an amount determined by OCC to be sufficient to protect OCC against loss under simulated default scenarios (i.e., $6 billion), plus a prudential margin of safety (the additional $1.8 billion collected in October).15 All required contributions to the November 2014 Clearing Fund were met by affected Clearing Members.

    14See Information Memorandum #35397, dated October 16, 2014, available on OCC's Web site, http://www.theocc.com/clearing/clearing-infomemos/infomemos1.jsp. Clearing members also were informed that a prudential margin of safety of $1.8 billion would be retained until a new Clearing Fund sizing formula has been approved and implemented.

    15See Information Memorandum #35507, dated October 31, 2014, available on OCC's Web site, http://www.theocc.com/clearing/clearing-infomemos/infomemos1.jsp.

    Under Article IX, section 14(c), absent the submission of a proposed rule change to the Commission seeking approval of OCC's waiver of the provisions of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a), such waiver would not be permitted to continue for more than thirty calendar days from the date thereof.16 Accordingly, on November 13, 2014, OCC submitted SR-OCC-2014-21 to delete the second sentence of Rule 1001(a) and, by the terms of Article IX, section 14(c), preserve the suspended effectiveness of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a) beyond thirty calendar days.17

    16See OCC By-Laws, Article IX, section 14(c).

    17See supra, note 10. OCC also submitted this proposed rule change to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    SR-OCC-2014-21 was submitted in part to permit OCC to determine the size of its Clearing Fund by relying on a broader range of sound risk management practices than considered in basing such size on the average daily calculations under Rule 1001(a) that are performed during the preceding calendar month. The Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure, as described below, is based on such broader risk management practices and establishes the procedures OCC would use to determine the size of the Clearing Fund on a monthly basis. Similarly, SR-OCC-2014-21 was submitted in part to permit OCC to resize the Clearing Fund more frequently than monthly when the circumstances warrant an increase of the Clearing Fund. The Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure, as described below, establishes the procedures that OCC would use to add Financial Resources through an intra-day margin call on one or more Clearing Members under Rule 609 and, if necessary, an intra-month increase of the Clearing Fund pursuant to Rule 1001(a).18

    18 As noted in SR-OCC-2014-21, OCC would use its intra-month resizing authority only to increase the size of the Clearing Fund where appropriate, not to decrease the size of the Clearing Fund.

    Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure

    Under the Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure, OCC would continue to calculate the size of the Clearing Fund based on its daily stress test exposures under simulated default scenarios as described in the first sentence of Rule 1001(a) and resize the Clearing Fund on the first business day of each month. However, instead of resizing the Clearing Fund based on the average of the daily calculations during the preceding calendar month, as stated in the suspended second sentence of Rule 1001, OCC would resize the Clearing Fund so that it is the sum of: (i) An amount equal to the peak five-day rolling average of Clearing Fund draws observed over the preceding three calendar months of daily idiosyncratic default and minor systemic default scenario calculations based on OCC's daily Monte Carlo simulations (“Base Amount”) and (ii) a prudential margin of safety determined by OCC and currently set at $1.8 billion.19

    19 On a daily basis, OCC computes its exposure under the idiosyncratic and minor systemic events. The greater of these two exposures is that day's “peak exposure.” To calculate the “rolling five day average” OCC computes the average of the peak exposure for each consecutive five-day period observed over the prior three-month period. To determine the Base Amount, OCC would use the largest five-day rolling average observed over the past three-months. This methodology was used to determine the Base Amount of the Clearing Fund for November 2014 and December 2014.

    OCC believes that the proposed Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure provides a sound and prudent approach to ensure that the Financial Resources are adequate to protect against the largest risk of loss presented by the default of a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group. By virtue of using only the peak five-day rolling average and by extending the look-back period, the proposed Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure is both more responsive to sudden increases in exposure and less susceptible to recently observed decreases in exposure that would reduce the overall sizing of the Clearing Fund, thus mitigating procyclicality.20 Furthermore, the prudential margin of safety provides an additional buffer to absorb potential future exposures not previously observed during the look-back period. The proposed Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure would be supplemented by the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure, described below, to provide further assurance that the Financial Resources are adequate to protect against such risk of loss.

    20 Considering only the peak exposures is a more conservative methodology that gives greater weighting to sudden increases in exposure experienced by Clearing Members, thus enhancing the responsiveness of the procedure to such sudden increases. By using a longer look-back period, the methodology would respond more slowly to recently observed decreases in peak exposures.

    Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure

    Under the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure, OCC would use the same daily idiosyncratic default calculation as under the Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure to monitor daily the adequacy of the Financial Resources to withstand a default by the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group presenting the largest exposure under extreme but plausible market conditions.21 If such a daily idiosyncratic default calculation projected a draw on the Clearing Fund (a “Projected Draw”) that is at least 75% of the Clearing Fund maintained by OCC, OCC would be required to issue an intra-day margin call pursuant to Rule 609 against the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group that caused such a draw (“Margin Call Event”).22 Subject to a limitation described below, the amount of the margin call would be the difference between the Projected Draw and the Base Clearing Fund (“Exceedance Above Base Amount”). In the case of a Clearing Member Group that causes the Exceedance Above Base Amount, the Exceedance Above Base Amount would be pro-rated among the individual Clearing Members that compose the Clearing Member Group based on each individual Clearing Member's proportionate share of the “total risk” for such Clearing Member Group as defined in Rule 1001(b), i.e., the margin requirement with respect to all accounts of the Clearing Member Group exclusive of the net asset value of the positions in such accounts aggregated across all such accounts. However, in the case of an individual Clearing Member or a Clearing Member Group, the margin call would be subject to a limitation under which it could not exceed the lower 23 of: (a) $500 million, or (b) 100% of a Clearing Member's net capital. Such limitation would be measured in aggregate with any funds remaining on deposit with OCC deposited by the same Clearing Member pursuant to a Margin Call Event within the same monthly period, as applicable, until collection of all funds to satisfy the next regular monthly Clearing Fund resizing (the “500/100 Limitation”).24

    21 Since the minor systemic default scenario contemplates two Clearing Members' simultaneously defaulting and OCC maintains Financial Resources sufficient to cover a default by a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group representing the greatest exposure to OCC, OCC does not use the minor systemic default scenario to determine the adequacy of the Financial Resources under the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure.

    22 Rule 609 authorizes OCC to require the deposit of additional margin in any account at any time during any business day by any Clearing Member for, inter alia, the protection of OCC, other Clearing Members or the general public. Clearing Members must meet a required deposit of intra-day margin in immediately available funds at a time prescribed by OCC or within one hour of OCC's issuance of debit settlement instructions against the bank account(s) of the applicable Clearing Member(s), thereby ensuring the prompt deposit of additional Financial Resources.

    23 “Capping” the intra-day margin call avoids placing a “liquidity squeeze” on the subject Clearing Member(s) based on exposures presented by a hypothetical stress test, which would have the potential for causing a default on the intra-day margin call. Back testing results determined that such calls would have been made against Clearing Members that are large, well-capitalized firms, with more than sufficient resources to satisfy the call for additional margin with the proposed limitations.

    24 The Risk Committee would be notified, and could take action to address potential Financial Resource deficiencies, in the event that a Projected Draw resulted in a Margin Call Event and as a result of the 500/100 Limitation the margin call was less than the Exceedance Above Base Amount, but the Projected Draw was not so large as to result in an increase in the Clearing Fund as discussed below.

    Upon satisfaction of the margin call, OCC would use its authority under Rule 608 to preclude the withdrawal of such additional margin amount until it collects all of the funds determined by the next Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure. Based on three years of back testing data, OCC determined that it would have had Margin Call Events in 10 of the months during this time period. For each of these months, the maximum call amount would have been equal to $500 million, with one exception in which the maximum call amount for the month was $7.7 million.25 After giving effect to the intra-day margin calls, i.e., by increasing the Financial Resources by $500 million, there was only one Margin Call Event where there was an observed stress test exceedance of the Financial Resources.

    25 The back testing analysis performed assumed a single Clearing Member caused the exceedance.

    To address this one observed instance, the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure also would require OCC to increase the size of the Clearing Fund (“Clearing Fund Intra-month Increase Event”) if a Projected Draw exceeds 90% of the Clearing Fund, after applying any funds then on deposit with OCC from the applicable Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group pursuant to a Margin Call Event. The amount of such increase (“Clearing Fund Increase”) would be the greater of: (a) $1 billion; or (b) 125% of the difference between (i) the Projected Draw, as reduced by the deposits resulting from the Margin Call Event and (ii) the Clearing Fund. Each Clearing Member's proportionate share of the Clearing Fund Increase would equal its proportionate share of the variable portion of the Clearing Fund for the month in question as calculated pursuant to Rule 1001(b). OCC would notify the Risk Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Risk Committee”), Clearing Members and appropriate regulatory authorities of the Clearing Fund Increase on the business day on which the Clearing Fund Intra-month Increase Event occurred. This ensures that OCC management maintains authority to address any potential Financial Resource deficiencies when compared to its Projected Draw estimates. The Risk Committee would then determine whether the Clearing Fund Increase was sufficient, and would retain authority to increase the Clearing Fund Increase or the margin call made pursuant to a Margin Call Event in its discretion. Clearing Members would be required to meet the call for additional Clearing Fund assets by 9:00 a.m. CT on the second business day following the Clearing Fund Intra-Month Increase Event. OCC believes that this collection process ensures additional Clearing Fund assets are promptly deposited by Clearing Members following notice of a Clearing Fund Increase, while also providing Clearing Members with a reasonable period of time to source such assets. Based on OCC's back testing results, after giving effect to the intra-day margin call in response to a Margin Call Event plus the prudential margin of safety, the Financial Resources would have been sufficient upon implementing the one instance of a Clearing Fund Intra-month Increase Event.

    OCC believes the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure strikes a prudent balance between mutualizing the burden of requiring additional Financial Resources and requiring the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group causing the increased exposure to bear such burden. As noted above, in the event of a Margin Call Event, OCC limits the margin call until collection of all funds to satisfy the next regular monthly resizing to an aggregate of $500 million, or 100% of a Clearing Member's net capital in order to avoid putting an undue liquidity strain on any one Clearing Member. However, where a Projected Draw exceeds 90% of OCC's Clearing Fund, OCC must act to ensure that it has sufficient Financial Resources, and determined that it should mutualize the burden of the additional Financial Resources at this threshold through a Clearing Fund Increase. OCC believes that this balance would provide OCC with sufficient Financial Resources without increasing the likelihood that its procedures would, based solely on stress testing results, cause a liquidity strain on any on Clearing Member that could result in such member's default.

    The following examples illustrate the manner in which the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure would be applied. All assume that the Clearing Fund size is $7.8 billion, $6 billion of which is the Base Amount and $1.8 billion of which is the prudential margin of safety. The 75% threshold in these examples is $5.85 billion.

    Example 1: Single CM

    Under OCC's stress testing the Projected Draw attributable to Clearing Member ABC, a Clearing Member with no affiliated Clearing Members and net capital of $500 million, is $6.4 billion, or 82% of the Clearing Fund. OCC would make a margin call for $400 million, which represents the Exceedance Above Base Amount. In this case the 500/100 Limitation would not be applicable because the Exceedance Above Base Amount is less than $500 million and 100% of the Clearing Member's net capital. The Clearing Member would be required to meet the $400 million call within one hour unless OCC prescribed a different time, and OCC would retain the $400 million until collection of all the funds to satisfy the next monthly Clearing Fund sizing calculation.

    If, on a different day within the same month, CM ABC's Projected Draw minus the $400 million already deposited with OCC results in an Exceedance above Base Amount, another Margin Call Event would be triggered, with the amount currently deposited with OCC applying toward the 500/100 Limitation.

    Example 2: Clearing Member Group

    Under OCC's stress testing the Projected Draw attributable to Clearing Member Group DEF, comprised of two Clearing Members each with net capital of $800 million, is $6.2 billion, or 79% of OCC's Clearing Fund. OCC would initiate a margin call on Clearing Member Group DEF for $200 million. The call would be allocated to the two Clearing Members that compose the Clearing Member Group based on each Clearing Member's risk margin allocation. In this case the 500/100 Limitation would not be applicable because the Exceedance Above Base Amount is less than $500 million and 100% of net capital. The margin call would be required to be met within one hour of the call unless OCC prescribed a different time. For example, in the case where one Clearing Member accounts for 75% of the risk margin for the Clearing Member Group, that Clearing Member would be allocated $150 million of the call and the other Clearing Member, accounting for 25% of the risk margin for the Clearing Member Group, would be allocated $50 million of the call. The funds would remain deposited with OCC until collection of all the funds to satisfy the next monthly Clearing Fund sizing calculation.

    Example 3: Clearing Member Group With $500 Million Cap

    Under OCC's stress testing the Projected Draw attributable to Clearing Member Group GHI, comprised of two Clearing Members each with net capital of $800 million, is $6.8 billion, or 87% of the Clearing Fund. The Exceedance Above Base Amount would be $800 million, allocated to the two Clearing Members that compose the Clearing Member Group based on each Clearing Member's risk margin allocation. Using the 75/25 risk margin allocation from Example 2, one Clearing Member would be allocated $600 million and the other Clearing Member would be allocated $200 million. The first Clearing Member would be required to deposit $500 million with OCC, which is the lowest of $500 million, that member's net capital, or that member's share of the Exceedance Above Base Amount, and the other Clearing Member would be required to deposit $200 million with OCC. After collecting the additional margin, OCC would determine whether the Projected Draw would exceed 90% of the Clearing Fund after reducing the Projected Draw by the additional margin. This calculation would divide a Projected Draw of $6.1 billion, which is the original Projected Draw of $6.8 billion reduced by the additional margin, by the Clearing Fund of $7.8 billion. The resulting percentage of 78% would be below the 90% threshold, and accordingly there would not be a Clearing Fund Intra-month Increase Event.

    Example 4: Margin Call and Increase in Size of Clearing Fund

    Under OCC's stress testing the Projected Draw attributable to Clearing Member JKL, a Clearing Member with no affiliated Clearing Members and net capital of $600 million, is $10.0 billion, or 128% of the Clearing Fund. OCC would make a margin call for $500 million, which represents the lowest of the Exceedance Above Base Amount, $500 million and 100% of net capital. The Clearing Member would be required to meet the $500 million call within one hour unless OCC prescribed a different time, and OCC would retain the $500 million until collection of all the funds to satisfy the next monthly Clearing Fund sizing calculation. After collecting the additional margin, OCC would determine whether the Projected Draw would exceed 90% of the Clearing Fund after reducing the Projected Draw by the additional margin. This calculation would divide a Projected Draw of $9.5 billion, which is the original Projected Draw of $10 billion reduced by the additional margin, by the Clearing Fund of $7.8 billion. The resulting percentage of 122%, while lower, would still exceed the 90% threshold, and accordingly OCC would declare a Clearing Fund Intra-month Increase Event. To calculate the Clearing Fund Increase, OCC would first determine the difference between the modified Projected Draw ($9.5 billion) and the Clearing Fund ($7.8 billion), which in this case would be $1.7 billion, OCC would then multiply this by 1.25, resulting in $2.125 billion. Because this amount is greater than $1 billion, the Clearing Fund Increase would be $2.125 billion and a modified Clearing Fund of OCC totaling $9.925 billion ($425 million in excess of the modified Projected Draw of $9.5 billion).

    Consistency With the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act

    OCC believes that the proposed change regarding the establishment of the Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure and Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure described above is consistent with section 805(b)(1) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act 26 because the proposed procedures will promote robust risk management by setting forth a process in order to ensure that OCC maintains adequate Financial Resources in the event of a default of a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group presenting the largest exposure to OCC. The proposed change regarding the establishment of these procedures is also consistent with section 806(e)(2) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act, upon which OCC relied in originally suspending the effectiveness of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a) and increasing the size of the Clearing Fund on October 15, 2014, because it allows OCC to continue to provide its services in a safe and sound manner.27

    26 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).

    27 12 U.S.C. 5464(e)(2); see SR-OCC-2014-807, supra, note 8.

    Anticipated Effect on and Management of Risk

    OCC believes that the proposed change will reduce OCC's overall level of risk because the proposed change makes it less likely that OCC's Clearing Fund would be insufficient should OCC need to use its Clearing Fund to manage a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group default. The Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure would permit OCC to determine the size of its Clearing Fund by relying on a broader range of sound risk management practices than those considered in the suspended second sentence of Rule 1001(a). OCC believes that using the peak five-day rolling average of Clearing Fund draws observed over a three-month period will result in a monthly resizing of the Clearing Fund that will better reflect the risks posed by sudden increases in exposure experienced by Clearing Members. OCC also believes that the proposed prudential margin of safety will provide an additional buffer to protect against exposures not reflected in the three-month look-back period. The Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure would enable OCC to minimize losses in the event of a default of a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group presenting the largest exposure to OCC, by allowing it the flexibility to obtain additional Financial Resources either through an intra-day margin call or an intra-month increase in the size of the Clearing Fund, which would ensure that the clearance and settlement of transactions in options and other contracts occurs without interruption. Accordingly, OCC believes that the proposed changes would reduce risks to OCC and its participants. Moreover, and for the same reasons, the proposed change will facilitate OCC's ability to manage risk.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

    The advance notice may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the advance notice within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the advance notice was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received. OCC shall not implement the advance notice if the Commission has any objection to the advance notice.

    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the advance notice raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing OCC with prompt written notice of the extension. An advance notice may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies OCC in writing that it does not object to the advance notice and authorizes OCC to implement the advance notice on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.

    The clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are implemented.

    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-OCC-2014-811 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2014-811. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the advance notice that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the advance notice between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web site at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_14_811.pdf. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2014-811 and should be submitted on or before May 7, 2015.

    By the Commission.

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08712 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 31549; File No. 812-14357] Dreyfus TMT Opportunities Fund, Inc., et al.; Notice of Application April 7, 2015. AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act.

    Applicants:

    Dreyfus TMT Opportunities Fund, Inc. (“TMT Fund”) and The Dreyfus Corporation (“Dreyfus” and, together with TMT Fund, the “Applicants”).

    Summary of Application:

    Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to their outstanding common stock as frequently as twelve times in any one taxable year, and as frequently as distributions are specified by or in accordance with the terms of any outstanding preferred stock that such investment companies may issue.

    DATES:

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 5, 2014 and amended on February 18, 2015.

    Hearing or Notification of Hearing:

    An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 4, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Commission: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Jeff S. Prusnofsky, Esq., The Dreyfus Corporation, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166; and David Stephens, Esq., Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 180 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anil K. Abraham, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-2614, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling (202) 551-8090.

    Applicants' Representations

    1. TMT Fund is a corporation newly organized under the laws of Maryland and is a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company registered with the Commission under the Act.1 TMT Fund's investment objective is to seek total return consisting of current income, current gains, and long-term capital appreciation. TMT Fund intends to apply for listing of its shares of common stock on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), a national securities exchange (as defined in Section 2(a)(26) of the Act). The Funds may incur leverage through the issuance of preferred stock and debt securities, by entering into a credit agreement, or otherwise as permitted by applicable law. Applicants believe that investors in closed-end funds may prefer an investment vehicle that provides regular current income through fixed distribution policies that would be available through a Distribution Policy (as defined below).

    1 The existing registered closed-end investment company that currently intends to rely on the order has been named as an applicant. Applicants request that the order also apply to each other registered closed-end investment company advised or to be advised in the future by Dreyfus or by an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control (within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act) with Dreyfus (including any successor in interest) (each such entity, including Dreyfus, the “Adviser”) that in the future seeks to rely on the order (such investment companies, together with TMT Fund, are collectively the “Funds” and, individually, a “Fund”). Any Fund that may rely on the order in the future (each, a “Future Fund”) will comply with the terms and conditions of the application. A successor in interest is limited to entities that result from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of business organization.

    2. Dreyfus, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank of New York Mellon, a global financial services company. Dreyfus is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and will serve as investment adviser to TMT Fund. Each Adviser to a Fund will be registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The portfolio of a Fund may be managed by one or more investment sub-advisers or investment managers (each, a “Future Sub-Adviser”). Any Future Sub-Adviser will be registered under the Advisers Act or not subject to registration.

    3. Applicants state that prior to a Fund's implementing a Distribution Policy in reliance on the order, the board of directors or trustees of each Fund (the “Board”), including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (the “Independent Board Members”), will request, and the Adviser will provide, such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed determination of whether the Board should adopt a proposed Distribution Policy. In particular, the Board and the Independent Board Members will review information regarding the purpose and terms of the Distribution Policy; the likely effects of the Distribution Policy on the Fund's long-term total return (in relation to market price and its net asset value per share of common stock (“NAV”)); the expected relationship between the Fund's distribution rate on its shares of common stock under the Distribution Policy and the Fund's total return (in relation to NAV); whether the rate of distribution would exceed such Fund's expected total return in relation to its NAV; and any foreseeable material effects of the Distribution Policy on the Fund's long-term total return (in relation to market price and NAV). The Independent Board Members also will consider what conflicts of interest the Adviser and the affiliated persons of the Adviser and the Fund might have with respect to the adoption or implementation of the Distribution Policy. Applicants state that, only after considering such information will the Board, including the Independent Board Members, of each Fund approve a Distribution Policy and in connection with such approval will determine that the Distribution Policy is consistent with the Fund's investment objectives and in the best interests of the holders of the Fund's common stock.

    4. Applicants state that the purpose of a Distribution Policy, generally, would be to permit a Fund to distribute periodically, over the course of each year, an amount closely approximating the total taxable income of such Fund during the year through distributions in relatively equal amounts (plus any required special distributions) that are composed of payments received from portfolio companies, supplemental amounts generally representing realized capital gains, or, possibly, returns of capital that may represent unrealized capital gains. Under the Distribution Policy of a Fund, such Fund would distribute periodically (as frequently as twelve times in any taxable year) to its respective common stockholders a fixed percentage of the market price of such Fund's common stock at a particular point in time or a fixed percentage of NAV at a particular time or a fixed amount per share of common stock, any of which may be adjusted from time to time. It is anticipated that under a Distribution Policy, the minimum annual distribution rate with respect to such Fund's common stock would be independent of the Fund's performance during any particular period but would be expected to correlate with the Fund's performance over time. Except for extraordinary distributions and potential increases or decreases in the final dividend periods in light of a Fund's performance for the entire calendar year and to enable the Fund to comply with the distribution requirements of Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) for the calendar year, each distribution on the Fund's common stock would be at the stated rate then in effect. The Board will periodically review the amount of potential distributions in light of the investment experience of the Fund, and may modify or terminate a Distribution Policy at any time.

    5. Applicants state that prior to the implementation of a Distribution Policy for any Fund in reliance on the order, the Board of such Fund will have adopted policies and procedures under rule 38a-1 under the Act that: (i) Are reasonably designed to ensure that all notices required to be sent to the Fund's stockholders pursuant to section 19(a) of the Act, rule 19a-1 thereunder and condition 4 below (each a “19(a) Notice”) include the disclosure required by rule 19a-1 under the Act and by condition 2(a) below, and that all other written communications by the Fund or its agents regarding distributions under the Distribution Policy include the disclosure required by condition 3(a) below; and (ii) require the Fund to keep records that demonstrate its compliance with all of the conditions of the order and that are necessary for such Fund to form the basis for, or demonstrate the calculation of, the amounts disclosed in its 19(a) Notices.

    Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 19(b) of the Act generally makes it unlawful for any registered investment company to make long-term capital gains distributions more than once every twelve months. Rule 19b-1 limits the number of capital gains dividends, as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code (“distributions”), that a fund may make with respect to any one taxable year to one, plus a supplemental distribution made pursuant to section 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of the total amount distributed for the year, plus one additional capital gain dividend made in whole or in part to avoid the excise tax under section 4982 of the Code.

    2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may exempt any person or transaction from any provision of the Act to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.

    3. Applicants state that one of the concerns leading to the enactment of section 19(b) and adoption of rule 19b-1 was that stockholders might be unable to distinguish between frequent distributions of capital gains and dividends from investment income. Applicants state, however, that rule 19a-1 effectively addresses this concern by requiring that distributions (or the confirmation of the reinvestment thereof) estimated to be sourced in part from capital gains or capital be accompanied by a separate statement showing the sources of the distribution (e.g., estimated net income, net short-term capital gains, net long-term capital gains and/or return of capital). Applicants state that the same information will be included in the Funds' annual reports to stockholders and on the Internal Revenue Service Form 1099 DIV, which will be sent to each common and preferred stockholder who received distributions during a particular year.

    4. Applicants further state that each Fund will make the additional disclosures required by the conditions set forth below, and each Fund will adopt compliance policies and procedures in accordance with rule 38a-1 under the Act to ensure that all required 19(a) Notices and disclosures are sent to stockholders. Applicants state that the information required by section 19(a), rule 19a-1, the Distribution Policy, the policies and procedures under rule 38a-1 noted above, and the conditions listed below will help ensure that each Fund's stockholders are provided sufficient information to understand that their periodic distributions are not tied to a Fund's net investment income (which for this purpose is the Fund's taxable income other than from capital gains) and realized capital gains to date, and may not represent yield or investment return. Accordingly, applicants assert that continuing to subject the Funds to section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 would afford stockholders no extra protection.

    5. Applicants note that section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 also were intended to prevent certain improper sales practices, including, in particular, the practice of urging an investor to purchase shares of a fund on the basis of an upcoming capital gains dividend (“selling the dividend”), where the dividend would result in an immediate corresponding reduction in NAV and would be in effect a taxable return of the investor's capital. Applicants submit that the “selling the dividend” concern should not apply to closed-end investment companies, such as the Funds, that do not continuously distribute shares. According to applicants, if the underlying concern extends to secondary market purchases of shares of closed-end funds that are subject to a large upcoming capital gains dividend, adoption of a periodic distribution plan actually helps minimize the concern by avoiding, through periodic distributions, any buildup of large end-of-the-year distributions.

    6. Applicants also note that the common stock of closed-end funds often trades in the marketplace at a discount to such funds' NAV. Applicants believe that this discount may be reduced if the Funds are permitted to pay relatively frequent dividends on their common stock at a consistent rate, whether or not those dividends contain an element of long-term capital gains.

    7. Applicants assert that the application of rule 19b-1 to a Distribution Policy actually could have an inappropriate influence on portfolio management decisions. Applicants state that, in the absence of an exemption from rule 19b-1, the adoption of a periodic distribution plan imposes pressure on management (i) not to realize any net long-term capital gains until the point in the year that the fund can pay all of its remaining distributions in accordance with rule 19b-1, and (ii) not to realize any long-term capital gains during any particular year in excess of the amount of the aggregate pay-out for the year (since as a practical matter excess gains must be distributed and accordingly would not be available to satisfy pay-out requirements in following years), notwithstanding that purely investment considerations might favor realization of long-term gains at different times or in different amounts. Applicants assert that by limiting the number of long-term capital gain dividends that a Fund may make with respect to any one year, rule 19b-1 may prevent the normal and efficient operation of a periodic distribution plan whenever that Fund's realized net long-term capital gains in any year exceed the total of the periodic distributions that may include such capital gains under the rule.

    8. Applicants also assert that rule 19b-1 may force fixed regular periodic distributions under a periodic distribution plan to be funded with returns of capital 2 (to the extent net investment income and realized short-term capital gains are insufficient to fund the distribution), even though realized net long-term capital gains otherwise would be available. To distribute all of a Fund's long-term capital gains within the limits in rule 19b-1, a Fund may be required to make total distributions in excess of the annual amount called for by its periodic distribution plan, or to retain and pay taxes on the excess amount. Applicants assert that the requested order would minimize these anomalous effects of rule 19b-1 by enabling the Funds to realize long-term capital gains as often as investment considerations dictate without fear of violating rule 19b-1.

    2 Returns of capital as used in the application means return of capital for financial accounting purposes and not for tax accounting purposes.

    9. Applicants state that Revenue Ruling 89-81 under the Code requires that a fund that seeks to qualify as a regulated investment company under the Code and that has both common stock and preferred stock outstanding designate the types of income, e.g., investment income and capital gains, in the same proportion as the total distributions distributed to each class for the tax year. To satisfy the proportionate designation requirements of Revenue Ruling 89-81, whenever a fund has realized a long-term capital gain with respect to a given tax year, the fund must designate the required proportionate share of such capital gain to be included in common and preferred stock dividends. Applicants state that although rule 19b-1 allows a fund some flexibility with respect to the frequency of capital gains distributions, a fund might use all of the exceptions available under the rule for a tax year and still need to distribute additional capital gains allocated to the preferred stock to comply with Revenue Ruling 89-81.

    10. Applicants assert that the potential abuses addressed by section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 do not arise with respect to preferred stock issued by a closed-end fund. Applicants assert that such distributions are either fixed or determined in periodic auctions by reference to short-term interest rates rather than by reference to performance of the issuer, and Revenue Ruling 89-81 determines the proportion of such distributions that are comprised of long-term capital gains.

    11. Applicants also submit that the “selling the dividend” concern is not applicable to preferred stock, which entitles a holder to no more than a specified periodic dividend at a fixed rate or the rate determined by the market, and, like a debt security, is priced based upon its liquidation preference, dividend rate, credit quality, and frequency of payment. Applicants state that investors buy preferred stock for the purpose of receiving payments at the frequency bargained for, and do not expect the liquidation value of their shares to change.

    12. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from the provisions of section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 thereunder to permit each Fund to distribute periodic capital gain dividends (as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code) as frequently as twelve times in any one taxable year in respect of its common stock and as often as specified by, or determined in accordance with the terms of, any preferred stock issued by the Fund.

    Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that, with respect to each Fund seeking to rely on the order, the order will be subject to the following conditions:

    1. Compliance Review and Reporting

    The Fund's chief compliance officer will: (a) Report to the Fund's Board, no less frequently than once every three months or at the next regularly scheduled quarterly Board meeting, whether (i) the Fund and its Adviser have complied with the conditions of the order, and (ii) a material compliance matter (as defined in rule 38a-1(e)(2) under the Act) has occurred with respect to such conditions; and (b) review the adequacy of the policies and procedures adopted by the Board no less frequently than annually.

    2. Disclosures to Fund Stockholders

    (a) Each 19(a) Notice disseminated to the holders of the Fund's common stock, in addition to the information required by section 19(a) and rule 19a-1:

    (i) Will provide, in a tabular or graphical format:

    (1) The amount of the distribution, on a per share of common stock basis, together with the amounts of such distribution amount, on a per share of common stock basis and as a percentage of such distribution amount, from estimated: (A) Net investment income; (B) net realized short-term capital gains; (C) net realized long-term capital gains; and (D) return of capital or other capital source;

    (2) the fiscal year-to-date cumulative amount of distributions, on a per share of common stock basis, together with the amounts of such cumulative amount, on a per share of common stock basis and as a percentage of such cumulative amount of distributions, from estimated: (A) Net investment income; (B) net realized short-term capital gains; (C) net realized long-term capital gains; and (D) return of capital or other capital source;

    (3) the average annual total return in relation to the change in NAV for the 5-year period (or, if the Fund's history of operations is less than five years, the time period commencing immediately following the Fund's first public offering) ending on the last day of the month ended immediately prior to the most recent distribution record date compared to the current fiscal period's annualized distribution rate expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the last day of the month prior to the most recent distribution record date; and

    (4) the cumulative total return in relation to the change in NAV from the last completed fiscal year to the last day of the month prior to the most recent distribution record date compared to the fiscal year-to-date cumulative distribution rate expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the last day of the month prior to the most recent distribution record date.

    Such disclosure shall be made in a type size at least as large and as prominent as the estimate of the sources of the current distribution; and

    (ii) Will include the following disclosure:

    (1) “You should not draw any conclusions about the Fund's investment performance from the amount of this distribution or from the terms of the Fund's Distribution Policy”;

    (2) “The Fund estimates that it has distributed more than its income and net realized capital gains; therefore, a portion of your distribution may be a return of capital. A return of capital may occur, for example, when some or all of the money that you invested in the Fund is paid back to you. A return of capital distribution does not necessarily reflect the Fund's investment performance and should not be confused with `yield' or `income' ” 3 ; and

    3 The disclosure in condition 2(a)(ii)(2) will be included only if the current distribution or the fiscal year-to-date cumulative distributions are estimated to include a return of capital.

    (3) “The amounts and sources of distributions reported in this 19(a) Notice are only estimates and are not being provided for tax reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources of the amounts for tax reporting purposes will depend upon the Fund's investment experience during the remainder of its fiscal year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. The Fund will send you a Form 1099-DIV for the calendar year that will tell you how to report these distributions for federal income tax purposes.” Such disclosure shall be made in a type size at least as large as and as prominent as any other information in the 19(a) Notice and placed on the same page in close proximity to the amount and the sources of the distribution.

    (b) On the inside front cover of each report to stockholders under rule 30e-1 under the Act, the Fund will:

    (i) Describe the terms of the Distribution Policy (including the fixed amount or fixed percentage of the distributions and the frequency of the distributions);

    (ii) include the disclosure required by condition 2(a)(ii)(1) above;

    (iii) state, if applicable, that the Distribution Policy provides that the Board may amend or terminate the Distribution Policy at any time without prior notice to Fund stockholders; and

    (iv) describe any reasonably foreseeable circumstances that might cause the Fund to terminate the Distribution Policy and any reasonably foreseeable consequences of such termination.

    (c) Each report provided to stockholders under rule 30e-1 under the Act and each prospectus filed with the Commission on Form N-2 under the Act, will provide the Fund's total return in relation to changes in NAV in the financial highlights table and in any discussion about the Fund's total return.

    3. Disclosure to Stockholders, Prospective Stockholders and Third Parties

    (a) The Fund will include the information contained in the relevant 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure required by condition 2(a)(ii) above, in any written communication (other than a communication on Form 1099) about the Distribution Policy or distributions under the Distribution Policy by the Fund, or agents that the Fund has authorized to make such communication on the Fund's behalf, to any Fund stockholder, prospective stockholder or third-party information provider;

    (b) The Fund will issue, contemporaneously with the issuance of any 19(a) Notice, a press release containing the information in the 19(a) Notice and will file with the Commission the information contained in such 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure required by condition 2(a)(ii) above, as an exhibit to its next filed Form N-CSR; and

    (c) The Fund will post prominently a statement on its (or the Adviser's) Web site containing the information in each 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure required by condition 2(a)(ii) above, and will maintain such information on such Web site for at least 24 months.

    4. Delivery of 19(a) Notices to Beneficial Owners

    If a broker, dealer, bank or other person (“financial intermediary”) holds common stock issued by the Fund in nominee name, or otherwise, on behalf of a beneficial owner, the Fund: (a) Will request that the financial intermediary, or its agent, forward the 19(a) Notice to all beneficial owners of the Fund's stock held through such financial intermediary; (b) will provide, in a timely manner, to the financial intermediary, or its agent, enough copies of the 19(a) Notice assembled in the form and at the place that the financial intermediary, or its agent, reasonably requests to facilitate the financial intermediary's sending of the 19(a) Notice to each beneficial owner of the Fund's stock; and (c) upon the request of any financial intermediary, or its agent, that receives copies of the 19(a) Notice, will pay the financial intermediary, or its agent, the reasonable expenses of sending the 19(a) Notice to such beneficial owners.

    5. Additional Board Determinations for Funds Whose Common Stock Trades at a Premium

    If:

    (a) The Fund's common stock has traded on the stock exchange that they primarily trade on at the time in question at an average premium to NAV equal to or greater than 10%, as determined on the basis of the average of the discount or premium to NAV of the Fund's shares of common stock as of the close of each trading day over a 12-week rolling period (each such 12-week rolling period ending on the last trading day of each week); and

    (b) The Fund's annualized distribution rate for such 12-week rolling period, expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the ending date of such 12-week rolling period, is greater than the Fund's average annual total return in relation to the change in NAV over the 2-year period ending on the last day of such 12-week rolling period; then:

    (i) At the earlier of the next regularly scheduled meeting or within four months of the last day of such 12-week rolling period, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members:

    (1) Will request and evaluate, and the Fund's Adviser will furnish, such information as may be reasonably necessary to make an informed determination of whether the Distribution Policy should be continued or continued after amendment;

    (2) will determine whether continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Distribution Policy is consistent with the Fund's investment objective(s) and policies and is in the best interests of the Fund and its stockholders, after considering the information in condition 5(b)(i)(1) above; including, without limitation:

    (A) Whether the Distribution Policy is accomplishing its purpose(s);

    (B) the reasonably foreseeable material effects of the Distribution Policy on the Fund's long-term total return in relation to the market price and NAV of the Fund's common stock; and

    (C) the Fund's current distribution rate, as described in condition 5(b) above, compared with the Fund's average annual taxable income or total return over the 2-year period, as described in condition 5(b), or such longer period as the Board deems appropriate; and

    (3) based upon that determination, will approve or disapprove the continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Distribution Policy; and

    (ii) The Board will record the information considered by it, including its consideration of the factors listed in condition 5(b)(i)(2) above, and the basis for its approval or disapproval of the continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Distribution Policy in its meeting minutes, which must be made and preserved for a period of not less than six years from the date of such meeting, the first two years in an easily accessible place.

    6. Public Offerings

    The Fund will not make a public offering of the Fund's common stock other than:

    (a) A rights offering below NAV to holders of the Fund's common stock;

    (b) an offering in connection with a dividend reinvestment plan, merger, consolidation, acquisition, spin-off or reorganization of the Fund; or

    (c) an offering other than an offering described in conditions 6(a) and 6(b) above, provided that, with respect to such other offering:

    (i) The Fund's annualized distribution rate for the six months ending on the last day of the month ended immediately prior to the most recent distribution record date,4 expressed as a percentage of NAV as of such date, is no more than 1 percentage point greater than the Fund's average annual total return for the 5-year period ending on such date; 5 and

    4 If the Fund has been in operation fewer than six months, the measured period will begin immediately following the Fund's first public offering.

    5 If the Fund has been in operation fewer than five years, the measured period will begin immediately following the Fund's first public offering.

    (ii) the transmittal letter accompanying any registration statement filed with the Commission in connection with such offering discloses that the Fund has received an order under section 19(b) to permit it to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to its shares of common stock as frequently as twelve times each year, and as frequently as distributions are specified by or determined in accordance with the terms of any outstanding shares of preferred stock as such Fund may issue.

    7. Amendments to Rule 19b-1

    The requested order will expire on the effective date of any amendment to rule 19b-1 that provides relief permitting certain closed-end investment companies to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to their outstanding common stock as frequently as twelve times each year.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08819 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension:

    Form 10-Q. SEC File No. 270-49, OMB Control No. 3235-0070.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    Form 10-Q (17 CFR 249.308a) is filed by issuers of securities to satisfy their quarterly reporting obligations pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (“Exchange Act”)(15 U.S.C. 78m and 78o(d)). The information provided by Form 10-Q is intended to help ensure the adequacy of information available to investors about an issuer. Form 10-Q takes approximately 187.43 hours per response to prepare. Approximately 22,907 Forms 10-Q are filed with the Commission annually. We estimate that 75% of the approximately 187.43 hours per response (140.57 hours) is prepared by the company for an annual reporting burden of 3,220,037 hours (140.57 hours per response × 22,907 responses).

    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 control number.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov . Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08694 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74702; File No. SR-BATS-2015-31] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rule 11.23, “Auctions” April 10, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on April 1, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BATS”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.23, entitled “Auctions.”

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to make several changes to Rule 11.23 in order to improve the Exchange auction process. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to make several minor changes to Rule 11.23, which include: (i) To eliminate from each of the Opening Auction, Closing Auction, IPO and Halt Auction, and Volatility Closing Auction the language stating that an auction will occur at the price of the Volume Based Tie Breaker (or “VBTB”),5 Final Last Sale Eligible Trade,6 or issuing price, as applicable, where no limit orders from one or both sides would participate in the auction; (ii) to amend the definition of Volume Based Tie Breaker; (iii) to amend the definition of Reference Price Range; 7 (iv) to amend the definition of Late-Limit-On-Close 8 (“LLOC”) and Late-Limit-On-Open 9 (“LLOO”); and (v) to make a non-substantive change to delete the definitions of ZBB,10 ZBO,11 and ZBBO.12

    5 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(23).

    6 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(9).

    7 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(20).

    8 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(11).

    9 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(12).

    10 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(24).

    11Id.

    12Id.

    Limit Order Participation

    Currently, each of Rules 11.23(b)(2)(B), (c)(2)(B), (d)(2)(C), and (e)(2)(B) contain language that provides an alternate price at which an auction will occur where no limit orders from one or both sides (the buy side, the sell side, or both the buy and sell side) would otherwise participate in an auction (an “Alternate Price”). For Opening and Closing Auctions the Alternate Price is the Volume Based Tie Breaker; for Halt and Volatility Closing Auctions the Alternate Price is the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade; and for IPO Auctions the Alternate Price is the issuing price. While the Exchange added the Alternate Price requirement in order to ensure that, for auctions with minimal liquidity, either limit orders were participating in the auction and would aid in price discovery or that the auction would occur at a pre-determined price, this protection has, based on analysis by the Exchange and feedback from issuers and market participants, resulted in orders not receiving executions in auctions that would have otherwise occurred at prices that would have been acceptable to both parties to the execution that did not occur. To illustrate this point, the Exchange presents the following example: At the time that an Opening Auction is occurring, there is no ZBBO and the NBBO is $9.90 × $10.10. In this situation, the Volume Based Tie Breaker would be the midpoint of the NBBO,13 which would be $10.00.14 Based on a Volume Based Tie Breaker of $10.00, the Collar Price Range 15 would be $9.00 to $11.00 (the range from 0.90*VBTB to 1.10*VBTB). In this example, there are only two orders on the Auction Book 16 for the security: A Limit-On-Open17 buy order for 100 shares with a limit price of $9.99 and a Market-On-Open 18 sell order for 100 shares. Without the requirement that the auction occur at the Alternate Price where a limit order from both sides does not participate in the auction, there would have been an execution of 100 shares in the Opening Auction at $9.99.19 However, because there would be no limit orders on the sell side that would participate in the Opening Auction, under current functionality the Opening Auction would be forced to occur at the Volume Based Tie Breaker, which is $10.00. However, because the limit price of the Limit-On-Open buy order is $9.99, no execution will occur, both orders will be cancelled, and trading will transition into Regular Trading Hours.20 This example is identical to how a Closing Auction would occur and is nearly identical to examples of how the Alternate Price could affect other auctions.

    13See supra note 4 [sic]. By definition, where there is no ZBBO, the Volume Based Tie Breaker will be the midpoint of the NBBO.

    14 The Exchange notes that it is proposing to amend the definition of Volume Based Tie Breaker, as further described below, but none of the proposed changes would affect the outcome of this example.

    15See BATS Rule 11.23(a)(6). By definition, for Opening Auctions where the Volume Based Tie Breaker is $25.00 or less, the Collar Price Range shall be the range from 10% below the VBTB to 10% above the VBTB, which would be $9.00 to $11.00 in the example above.

    16 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(1).

    17 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(14).

    18 As defined in BATS Rule 11.23(a)(16).

    19 Absent the existing Alternate Price language, the price of the Opening Auction in the above described example would be determined by the first two sentences of BATS Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B), which provide the following: “The Opening Auction price will be established by determining the price level within the Collar Price Range that maximizes the number of shares executed between the Continuous Book and Auction Book in the Opening Auction. In the event of a volume based tie at multiple price levels, the Opening Auction price will be the price closest to the Volume Based Tie Breaker.” In the example described above, there would be an equal number of shares that could be executed at every price level from $9.00 to $9.99, however the price of the auction would be $9.99 because that is the price level at which there is a volume based tie that is closest to the Volume Based Tie Breaker. Such language is currently the basis for determining the price of every auction that occurs on the exchange except in those instances that there is no limit interest participating in one or both sides or no auction occurs (noting that the Opening and Closing Auctions both use VBTB, while Halt and Volatility Closing Auctions use the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade and IPO Auctions use the issue price for resolving ties at multiple price levels). Further, in the event that there is no limit interest that would participate on either side of an auction (i.e. only market interest on both sides), such language would create the same auction price (the Alternate Price) as the language that the Exchange is proposing to delete because there would be a tie at every price level wit