Federal Register Vol. 80, No.74,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 74 (April 17, 2015)

Page Range21151-21638
FR Document

80_FR_74
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 21151 - Day of Remembrance for President Abraham LincolnPDF
80 FR 21153 - Submission of Credit Card Agreements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)PDF
80 FR 21242 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 21159 - The Commerce Control ListPDF
80 FR 21297 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance and Notice of Public Hearing; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 21299 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
80 FR 21268 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 21269 - UniStar Nuclear Energy; Combined License Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3PDF
80 FR 21266 - Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC; Hematite Decommissioning Project; Festus, MissouriPDF
80 FR 21274 - Guidance for Evaluation of Acute Chemical Exposures and Proposed Quantitative StandardsPDF
80 FR 21271 - Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 21293 - Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Los Angeles International Airport, O'Hare International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport for the Winter 2015 Scheduling SeasonPDF
80 FR 21237 - Establishment of a New System of Records Notice for the Superfund Enterprise Management SystemPDF
80 FR 21242 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 21262 - Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group MeetingPDF
80 FR 21257 - Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force MeetingPDF
80 FR 21279 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 21263 - Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy BoardPDF
80 FR 21244 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Continued Approval of the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities' Accreditation Program for Organizations That Provide Outpatient Physical Therapy and Speech Language Pathology ServicesPDF
80 FR 21251 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 21253 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form.PDF
80 FR 21195 - Proposed Waiver and Extension of the Project Period; Regional Interpreter Education Centers for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-BlindPDF
80 FR 21253 - Rhode Island; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 21239 - Notice of Issuance of a Federal Operating Permit for G&K Services Inc.-Green BayPDF
80 FR 21196 - Proposed Waiver and Extension of the Project Period; National Interpreter Education Center for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-BlindPDF
80 FR 21236 - Streptomycin Sulfate; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public CommentPDF
80 FR 21202 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 21209 - 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
80 FR 21203 - 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Final Negative Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
80 FR 21207 - Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
80 FR 21208 - Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 21181 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate MatterPDF
80 FR 21198 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; SO2PDF
80 FR 21183 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; SO2PDF
80 FR 21198 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; CO MonitoringPDF
80 FR 21174 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; CO MonitoringPDF
80 FR 21170 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama: Non-Interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham AreaPDF
80 FR 21176 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; ReconsiderationPDF
80 FR 21263 - Supercalendered Paper From Canada; DeterminationPDF
80 FR 21223 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
80 FR 21153 - Practices and ProceduresPDF
80 FR 21236 - Lock 14 Hydro Partners; Lock 12 Hydro Partners; Notice of Technical MeetingPDF
80 FR 21229 - Alaska Energy Authority; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Ready for Environmental Analysis, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway PrescriptionsPDF
80 FR 21230 - Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 21232 - El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 21230 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725B); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
80 FR 21235 - 2014 ESA Project Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 21235 - Convergent Energy and Power LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 21234 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 21233 - Florida Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 21225 - Meeting of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory PanelPDF
80 FR 21246 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 21224 - Meeting of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps UniversityPDF
80 FR 21225 - Notice of Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Multiple Projects in Support of Marine Barracks Washington, DCPDF
80 FR 21261 - Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work GroupPDF
80 FR 21189 - Federal Management Regulation; Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of Foreign Gifts and DecorationsPDF
80 FR 21243 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 21243 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 21294 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Ford Motor CompanyPDF
80 FR 21296 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; NarcolepsyPDF
80 FR 21169 - Guidelines for the Streamlined Process of Applying for Recognition of Section 501(c)(3) Status; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 21227 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reaffirmation AgreementPDF
80 FR 21228 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Understanding the Impact of Providing Information to Parents About the Role of Algebra II: An Opportunistic StudyPDF
80 FR 21264 - Notice of Proposed Revisions for the LSC Grant Assurances for Calendar Year 2016 FundingPDF
80 FR 21261 - American Indian Education Study GroupPDF
80 FR 21266 - Nixon Presidential Historical Materials: Opening of MaterialsPDF
80 FR 21159 - Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological DisordersPDF
80 FR 21223 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
80 FR 21222 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
80 FR 21248 - Addressing Inadequate Information on Important Health Factors in Pharmacoepidemiology Studies Relying on Healthcare Databases; Public WorkshopPDF
80 FR 21247 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RAVICTIPDF
80 FR 21264 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
80 FR 21247 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 21212 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Marine Corps Training Exercises at Brant Island Bombing Target and Piney Island Bombing Range, USMC Cherry Point Range Complex, North CarolinaPDF
80 FR 21213 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Land Survey Activities Within the Eastern Aleutian Islands Archipelago, Alaska, 2015PDF
80 FR 21245 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 21263 - Commodity Matchbooks From India; DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 21256 - Endangered Species; Issuance of PermitsPDF
80 FR 21259 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
80 FR 21254 - President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 21254 - Public Availability of DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Service Contract InventoryPDF
80 FR 21279 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 21279 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 21279 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 21200 - Electronically Stored Application and Licensing DataPDF
80 FR 21293 - Public Availability of Social Security Administration Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Service Contract InventoryPDF
80 FR 21258 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget for Approval; Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife RefugesPDF
80 FR 21240 - New York State Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Proposed DeterminationPDF
80 FR 21250 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 21249 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 21250 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 21249 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 21250 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 21288 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Change the Close of Trading Hours on the Last Day of Trading in Expiring Quarterly Index ExpirationsPDF
80 FR 21280 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Opening ProceduresPDF
80 FR 21286 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Content of the BATS One Feed Under Rule 13.8(b) To Include Consolidated Volume for All Listed Equity SecuritiesPDF
80 FR 21290 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Content of the BATS One Feed Under Rule 13.8(b) To Include Consolidated Volume for All Listed Equity SecuritiesPDF
80 FR 21283 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To Provide a Second Way To Qualify for the Cross-Asset Tier Credit of $0.0030 Per Share for Orders That Provide Liquidity to the ExchangePDF
80 FR 21286 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating To Listing and Trading of Shares of the SPDR SSgA Global Managed Volatility ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 21243 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10173 Premier American Bank, Miami, FloridaPDF
80 FR 21298 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Buy America Waiver to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the Use of Transponders and Temporary Speed Restriction Safety ServersPDF
80 FR 21187 - Carbofuran; Reinstatement of Specific Tolerances and Removal of Expired TolerancesPDF
80 FR 21299 - Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 21158 - Amendment of Authority Citation for Part 71: Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points, and Part 73: Special Use AirspacePDF
80 FR 21260 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 21278 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 21277 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 21265 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 21202 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Potential Project TopicsPDF
80 FR 21203 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Concept Papers on Potential Project TopicsPDF
80 FR 21294 - Membership in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking CommitteePDF
80 FR 21191 - Airworthiness Directives; Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” SailplanesPDF
80 FR 21193 - Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd AirplanesPDF
80 FR 21292 - Council on Underserved Communities, RenewalPDF
80 FR 21199 - Reopening of Public Comment Period for Proposed Action; Texas; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Flexible Permit ProgramPDF
80 FR 21503 - Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well ControlPDF
80 FR 21587 - Paleontological Resources PreservationPDF
80 FR 21255 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 21301 - Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric UtilitiesPDF

Issue

80 74 Friday, April 17, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21202 2015-08907
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Credit Card Agreements Under the Truth In Lending Act, 21153-21158 2015-09000 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement PROPOSED RULES Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf; Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control, 21504-21585 2015-08587 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Continued Approval of the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities' Accreditation Program for Organizations that Provide Outpatient Physical Therapy and Speech Language Pathology Services, 21244-21245 2015-08917 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21245-21247 2015-08835 2015-08842 2015-08866 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Indiana Advisory Committee, 21203 2015-08769 Michigan Advisory Committee, 21202-21203 2015-08770 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21251-21252 2015-08916 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 21222, 21223 2015-08847 2015-08848 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees, 21223-21224 2015-08881
Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Proposed Waiver and Extension of the Project Period: National Interpreter Education Center for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind, 21196-21198 2015-08909 Regional Interpreter Education Centers for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind, 21195-21196 2015-08912 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reaffirmation Agreement, 21227-21228 2015-08855 Understanding the Impact of Providing Information to Parents About the Role of Algebra II—An Opportunistic Study, 21228-21229 2015-08854 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama; Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham Area, 21170-21174 2015-08884 Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration, 21176-21181 2015-08883 Idaho; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter, 21181-21183 2015-08893 Indiana; CO Monitoring, 21174-21176 2015-08885 Michigan; SO2 Rules, 21183-21187 2015-08888 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Systems: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities, 21302-21501 2015-00257 Pesticide Tolerances: Carbofuran; Reinstatement of Specific Tolerances and Removal of Expired Tolerances, 21187-21189 2015-08784 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; CO Monitoring, 21198-21199 2015-08886 Michigan; SO2 Rules, 21198 2015-08889 Texas: Source Review State Implementation Plan; Flexible Permit Program, 21199-21200 2015-08662 NOTICES Applications for Emergency Exemptions: Streptomycin Sulfate, 21236-21237 2015-08908 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 21242 2015-08924 Operating Permits: G and K Services Inc.—Green Bay, 21239-21240 2015-08910 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 21237-21239 2015-08926 Proposed Determinations: New York State Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage, 21240-21242 2015-08807 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Technical Amendments; Designations of Class A, B, C, D and E Airspace; Air Traffic Service Routes and Reporting Points and Special Use Airspace, 21158-21159 2015-08781 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Airplanes, 21193-21195 2015-08720 Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa PZL-Bielsko Sailplanes, 21191-21193 2015-08733 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee, 21294 2015-08767 Submission Deadline for Schedule Information: Los Angeles International Airport, O'Hare International Airport, etc. for the Winter 2015 Scheduling Season, 21293-21294 2015-08927 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Meetings: Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board, 21263-21264 2015-08919 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Electronically Stored Application and Licensing Data, 21200-21201 2015-08810 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21242-21243 2015-08986 Terminations of Receivership: Premier American Bank, Miami, FL, 21243 2015-08790 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form, 21253-21254 2015-08914 Major Disaster Declarations: Rhode Island, 21253 2015-08911 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21230-21232 2015-08875 Application: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, 21234-21235 2015-08872 Applications: Alaska Energy Authority, 21229 2015-08878 El Dorado Irrigation District, 21232-21233 2015-08876 Florida Gas Transmission, LLC, 21233-21234 2015-08871 Rockies Express Pipeline LLC., 21230 2015-08877 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: 2014 ESA Project Company, LLC, 21235 2015-08874 Convergent Energy and Power LLC, 21235-21236 2015-08873 Meetings: Lock 12 and 14 Hydro Partners, 21236 2015-08879 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Exemption Applications: Ford Motor Co.; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, 21294-21296 2015-08858 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Narcolepsy, 21296-21297 2015-08857 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Buy American Waivers, 21298-21299 2015-08786 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 21299 2015-08937 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance; Corrections, 21297-21298 2015-08938 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 21243 2015-08859 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 21243-21244 2015-08860 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges, 21258-21259 2015-08808 Meetings: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 21257-21258 2015-08921 Permits: Endangered Species, 21256-21257, 21259-21260 2015-08821 2015-08822 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Public Workshops: Addressing Inadequate Information on Important Health Factors in Pharmacoepidemiology Studies Relying on Healthcare Databases, 21248-21249 2015-08846 Regulatory Review Periods for Patent Extensions: RAVICTI, 21247-21248 2015-08845 Forest Forest Service RULES Paleontological Resources Preservation, 21588-21638 2015-08483 General Services General Services Administration RULES Federal Management Regulations; Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of Foreign Gifts and Decorations, 21189-21190 2015-08861 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21260-21261 2015-08780 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

NOTICES Fiscal Year 2014 Service Contract Inventory, 21254 2015-08817 Meetings: President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, 21254-21255 2015-08818
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 21255-21256 2015-08479 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Meetings: American Indian Education Study Group, 21261 2015-08851 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Commerce Control List; CFR Correction, 21159 2015-08985 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Guidelines for the Streamlined Process of Applying for Recognition of Status; Corrections, 21169-21170 2015-08856 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From the People's Republic of China, 21209-21212 2015-08904 Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China, 21208-21209 2015-08894 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From the People's Republic of China, 21203-21207 2015-08903 Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China, 21207-21208 2015-08898 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Commodity Matchbooks from India, 21263 2015-08826 Supercalendered Paper from Canada, 21263 2015-08882 Justice Department Justice Department See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees Under CERCLA, 21264 2015-08844
Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Proposed Revisions for the LSC Grant Assurances for Calendar Year 2016 Funding, 21264-21265 2015-08853 Marine Marine Mammal Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21265-21266 2015-08771 Merit Merit Systems Protection Board RULES Practices and Procedures, 21153 2015-08880 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Opening of Nixon Presidential Historical Materials, 21266 2015-08850 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 21250 2015-08803 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 21250-21251 2015-08801 National Institute of Nursing Research, 21249-21250 2015-08802 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 21249, 21250 2015-08799 2015-08800 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Land Survey Activities Within the Eastern Aleutian Islands Archipelago, AK, 2015, 21213-21222 2015-08840 U.S. Marine Corps Training Exercises, Brant Island Bombing Target and Piney Island Bombing Range, USMC Cherry Point Range Complex, NC, 21212-21213 2015-08841 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Multiple Projects in Support of Marine Barracks Washington, DC, 21225-21227 2015-08863 Meetings: Board of Visitors of Marine Corps University, 21224-21225 2015-08865 Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, 21225 2015-08867 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined License Applications: UniStar Nuclear Energy; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, 21269-21271 2015-08934 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Southern California Edison Co., San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 21271-21274 2015-08929 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC; Hematite Decommissioning Project; Festus, MO, 21266-21268 2015-08933 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Evaluation of Acute Chemical Exposures and Proposed Quantitative Standards, 21274-21277 2015-08932 Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, 21268-21269 2015-08935 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 21277-21279 2015-08775 2015-08779 2015-08812 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 21279 2015-08816 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 21279 2015-08815 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Day of Remembrance for President Abraham Lincoln (Proc. 9256), 21151-21152 2015-09018 Presidio Presidio Trust NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 21279-21280 2015-08920 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group, 21261-21263 2015-08862 2015-08923 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 21280-21283, 21288-21290 2015-08795 2015-08796 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 21286-21288 2015-08794 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 21290-21292 2015-08793 NYSE Arca, Inc., 21283-21286 2015-08792 NYSE Arca, Inc.; Corrections, 21286 2015-08791 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: Council on Underserved Communities, 21292-21293 2015-08705 Social Social Security Administration RULES Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders, 21159-21169 2015-08849 NOTICES Service Contract Inventories; Availability: Year (FY) 2014, 21293 2015-08809 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, 21299-21300 2015-08783 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 21302-21501 2015-00257 Part III Interior Department, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 21504-21585 2015-08587 Part IV Agriculture Department, Forest Service, 21588-21638 2015-08483 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 74 Friday, April 17, 2015 Rules and Regulations MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 5 CFR Part 1201 Practices and Procedures AGENCY:

Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) hereby amends its rules of practice and procedure in order to correct a minor drafting error in the Board's regulations.

DATES:

Effective April 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; phone: (202) 653-7200; fax: (202) 653-7130; or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On October 12, 2012, the MSPB published a final rule that made numerous amendments to its regulations. 77 FR 62350. In making these amendments, the MSPB inadvertently repeated the language of 5 CFR 1201.183(c)(2) in 5 CFR 1201.183(c)(3). Accordingly, the Board now removes 5 CFR 1201.183(c)(3) as unnecessary and duplicative.

This amendment removing 5 CFR 1201.183(c)(3) corrects a minor drafting error and makes no substantive change to the MSPB's regulations. As a result, the Board finds good cause to forego notice and comment rulemaking and to make this final rule effective upon publication.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1201

Administrative practice and procedure.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 5 CFR part 1201 as follows:

PART 1201—PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for 5 CFR part 1201 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 1204, 1305, and 7701, and 38 U.S.C. 4331, unless otherwise noted.

§ 1201.183 [Amended]
2. Amend § 1201.183 by removing paragraph (c)(3).
William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-08880 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7400-01-P
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Part 1026 [Docket No. CFPB-2015-0006] RIN 3170-AA50 Submission of Credit Card Agreements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is amending Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act, and the official interpretation to that regulation, to temporarily suspend card issuers' obligations to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for a period of one year (i.e., four quarterly submissions), in order to reduce burden while the Bureau works to develop a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system. Other requirements, including card issuers' obligations to post currently-offered agreements on their own Web sites, remain unaffected.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on April 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas L. Devlin, Counsel, or Kristine M. Andreassen, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Summary of the Rule

The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), in section 122(d), requires creditors to post agreements for open-end consumer credit card plans on the creditors' Web sites and to submit those agreements to the Bureau. 15 U.S.C. 1632(d). These provisions are implemented in § 1026.58 of Regulation Z.1 12 CFR 1026.58. The Bureau is finalizing amendments that it proposed in February 2015 2 to suspend temporarily the requirement in § 1026.58(c) that card issuers submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for a period of one year (i.e., four quarterly submissions), in order to reduce burden while the Bureau works to develop a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system. Specifically, the Bureau is suspending the submissions that would otherwise have been due to the Bureau by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016. Beginning with the submission due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016, card issuers shall resume submitting credit card agreements on a quarterly basis to the Bureau. The Bureau expects to consult with interested stakeholders before that date regarding resumption of the submission requirements and technical specifications for the new system. Other requirements under § 1026.58, including card issuers' obligations to post currently-offered agreements on their own Web sites under § 1026.58(d), remain unaffected.

1 Section 1026.58 uses the terms card issuer (or issuer) and credit card agreement (or agreement) in lieu of the terms creditor and open-end consumer credit card plan, respectively, that are used in section 122(d) of TILA.

2 80 FR 10417 (Feb. 26, 2015).

II. Background A. The Statute and Regulation

In 2009, Congress enhanced protections for credit cards in the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act), which it enacted to “establish fair and transparent practices related to the extension of credit” in the credit card market.3 The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) generally implemented the CARD Act's provisions in subpart G of Regulation Z. Section 204 of the CARD Act added new TILA section 122(d) to require creditors to post agreements for open-end consumer credit card plans on the creditors' Web sites and to submit those agreements to the Board for posting on a publicly available Web site established and maintained by the Board. 15 U.S.C. 1632(d).

3 Public Law 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009).

Specifically, TILA section 122(d)(1) requires each creditor to post its credit card agreements on its own Web site, and section 122(d)(2) requires the creditor to provide its agreements to the Bureau (formerly the Board). TILA section 122(d)(3) requires the Bureau (formerly the Board) to establish and maintain on its publicly available Web site a central repository of the agreements it receives under section 122(d)(2). The Board implemented these provisions in 12 CFR 226.58. With the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), authority to implement TILA transferred to the Bureau 4 and the Bureau renumbered this provision in Regulation Z as § 1026.58.5

4 Public Law 111-203, section 1100A, 124 Stat. 2081 (2010) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 1602 et seq.).

5 76 FR 79768 (Dec. 22, 2011).

While TILA section 122(d) requires that creditors provide agreements to the Bureau, it does not specify the frequency or timing for these submissions. The implementing regulations in Regulation Z provide that submission of currently-offered agreements must be made quarterly. See § 1026.58(c)(1). These quarterly submissions must be sent to the Bureau no later than the first business day on or after January 31, April 30, July 31, and October 31 of each year. The regulation also provides that, except in certain circumstances, card issuers must post and maintain on their publicly available Web sites the credit card agreements that the issuers are required to submit to the Bureau. See § 1026.58(d).

Under the current process, which has been used by the Bureau since its inception, card issuers submit agreements and agreement information to the Bureau manually via email. The Bureau believes this process may be unnecessarily cumbersome for issuers and may make issuers' own internal tracking of previously submitted agreements difficult. In addition, the current process for Bureau staff to manually review, catalog, and upload new or revised agreements to the Bureau's Web site, and to remove outdated agreements, can extend for several months after the quarterly submission deadline.6 The Bureau is working to develop a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system which would allow issuers to upload agreements directly to the Bureau's database. The Bureau intends for its new submission system to be less burdensome and easier for issuers to use. It also intends for the new system to enable faster posting of new and revised agreements on the Bureau's Web site.

6 The Bureau's database of credit card agreements is available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards/agreements/.

In order to reduce the burden on card issuers of continuing to use manual submission methods while the Bureau works to design, test, and implement a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system, the Bureau is temporarily suspending issuers' obligations to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for a period of one year (i.e., four quarterly submissions), as described in more detail in the section-by-section analysis below. Issuers' obligations to post currently-offered agreements on their own Web sites are unaffected.

The Bureau recognizes that its temporary suspension of the requirement that card issuers submit credit card agreements to the Bureau will temporarily reduce the access consumers, other external parties, and the Bureau itself have to a single repository of the agreements that would have been submitted during this one-year period. However, the Bureau expects that this temporary reduction will not impose significant costs on consumers, other external parties, or the Bureau itself for at least two key reasons. First, the Bureau is not modifying the requirement that card issuers post currently-offered agreements on their own Web sites in a manner that is prominent and readily accessible by the public (§ 1026.58(d)) or that card issuers make all open agreements available on their Web sites or to cardholders upon request (§ 1026.58(e)).

Second, the Bureau intends to manually compile credit card agreements from certain large card issuers' Web sites as of approximately September 2015. Given the longstanding concentration in the credit card market, the Bureau believes that uploading agreements obtained from a relatively small number of issuers' Web sites to the Bureau's own Web site is sufficient to provide the agreement terms available to the overwhelming majority of credit card consumers in the U.S. as of the mid-point of the proposed suspension period.7 This will allow consumers to continue to use the Bureau's Web site to effectively compare agreements offered by various issuers.

7See, e.g., CFPB, CARD Act Report, at 13-14 (Oct. 1, 2013), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_card-act-report.pdf.

Overall, the Bureau expects that the marginal costs to consumers and other external parties from interrupted access during the suspension period are outweighed by the anticipated benefits of increased usability of the agreements and expedited availability of agreements on the Bureau's Web site after the Bureau implements a more streamlined and automated submission system. The Bureau intends to explore potential functionality for the new system that would improve external parties' ability to use the information efficiently and effectively, such as through improved reporting capabilities. In addition, by streamlining the submission process, the Bureau intends for the new system to also reduce burden on card issuers.

B. Comments on the Proposed Rule

On February 26, 2015, the Bureau proposed to amend § 1026.58, the Regulation Z provision on internet availability of credit card agreements, to temporarily suspend the requirement in § 1026.58(c) that card issuers submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for a period of one year (i.e., four quarterly submissions), in order to reduce burden while the Bureau works to develop a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system. The comment period closed on March 13, 2015. In response to the proposal, the Bureau received seven comments from financial institutions, credit union trade associations, and others. The Bureau discusses relevant comments in the section-by-section analysis below. Several commenters also urged the Bureau to take other actions beyond the scope of the proposal.

III. Legal Authority

The Bureau is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under TILA sections 105(a) and 122(d)(5). TILA section 105(a) authorizes the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of TILA. These regulations may contain such classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions, that in the Bureau's judgment are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, facilitate compliance with TILA, or prevent circumvention or evasion of TILA. TILA section 122(d)(5) authorizes the Bureau to promulgate regulations to implement section 122(d), including, among other things, establishing exceptions to TILA sections 122(d)(1) and (2) in any case where the administrative burden outweighs the benefits of increased transparency.

The Bureau is exercising its rulemaking authority pursuant to TILA sections 105(a) and 122(d)(5) to, in effect, change the period for creditors' submission of agreements to the Bureau from quarterly to annually, for a period of one year. The Bureau is also exercising its exception authority under TILA sections 105(a) and 122(d)(5) to temporarily suspend the agreement submission requirements in § 1026.58(c), as it concludes that the burden to issuers of continuing to submit agreements under the current cumbersome, manual process while the Bureau works to develop a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system outweighs the benefits of transparency to consumers and other external parties of access to those agreements via the Bureau's Web site during the suspension period. Further, the Bureau believes that a temporary suspension will effectuate the purposes of TILA and facilitate compliance therewith.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis Regulation Z Subpart G—Special Rules Applicable to Credit Card Accounts and Open-End Credit Offered to College Students Section 1026.58 Internet Posting of Credit Card Agreements 58(g) Temporary Suspension of Agreement Submission Requirement Proposed Rule

As discussed above, § 1026.58 describes how card issuers must comply with the provisions of TILA, as amended by the CARD Act, that require creditors to post agreements for open-end consumer credit card plans on the creditors' Web sites and to submit those agreements to the Bureau. Specifically, § 1026.58(c) governs submission of agreements to the Bureau, § 1026.58(d) governs the requirement that issuers post currently-offered agreements on the issuers' own Web sites, and § 1026.58(e) governs the requirement that issuers make cardholder agreements for currently open accounts available to cardholders.

In the proposed rule, the Bureau proposed to add § 1026.58(g) to § 1026.58. The Bureau proposed, in § 1026.58(g)(1), to temporarily suspend the quarterly credit card agreement submission requirement in § 1026.58(c) for submissions that would otherwise be due to the Bureau by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016. The Bureau proposed to add comments 58(g)-1 and -2 to further clarify the terms of the suspension, and to explain in more detail what issuers must include in their submissions due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016.

Section 1026.58(d) requires a card issuer to post and maintain on its publicly available Web site the credit card agreements that the issuer is required to submit to the Bureau under § 1026.58(c). The Bureau proposed § 1026.58(g)(2) to provide that the suspended submission requirement in proposed § 1026.58(g)(1) would not affect card issuers' obligations to post agreements on their own Web sites as required by § 1026.58(d) during the temporary suspension period. The Bureau proposed comment 58(g)-3 to further explain this provision and provide several examples.

Comments

The Bureau solicited comment on its proposal to temporarily suspend the obligation card issuers would otherwise have had under § 1026.58(c) to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for the four quarterly submissions that would otherwise be due to the Bureau by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016. Commenters generally supported the proposed rule, and no commenter opposed the proposed temporary suspension. All of the trade association commenters stated that they found the current manual submission system for credit card agreements to be cumbersome. Those same commenters, along with others, agreed that issuers' continuing obligation to post currently-offered credit card agreements on their Web sites would ensure that most interested consumers could access available credit card agreements.

Trade association commenters urged that the Bureau should consult with financial institutions before finalizing new technical specifications for the submission of credit card agreements, including one commenter who supported releasing those specifications through the notice-and-comment process. The Bureau did not solicit comment regarding the technical specifications that will be associated with a new submission system; nonetheless, the Bureau expects to consult with financial institutions, trade associations, or both to test and refine the system before using it with industry generally. The Bureau does not anticipate soliciting comment regarding the technical specifications that will be associated with a new submission system.

A commenter from an academic public policy center suggested that, rather than temporarily suspending the submission requirement for a period of one year, the Bureau should remove the submission requirement entirely.8

8 As noted above, the submission requirement was mandated by Congress's amendments to TILA in the CARD Act.

One commenter addressed an option that the Bureau considered but ultimately did not propose, under which credit card issuers would be required, at the end of the one-year suspension period, to submit all agreements that they would have been required to submit during the suspension period. That commenter argued that the burden imposed by such a requirement would not be justified by the limited benefit resulting from a more complete database of agreements.

Final Rule

The Bureau is adopting § 1026.58(g), and the proposed commentary to that section, as proposed. As noted above, none of the comments received opposed the one-year temporary suspension, and most supported the Bureau's efforts to develop a more streamlined and efficient electronic submission system for credit card agreements. None of the comments discussed the specific language of the proposed regulatory text or commentary. After reviewing the comments received in response to the proposal, the Bureau believes that a one-year suspension represents the best balance between fulfilling the Congressional mandate in TILA section 122(d) and easing the compliance burden on credit card issuers arising from the manual submission system inherited by the Bureau while the Bureau works to develop a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system.

V. Effective Date

The Bureau proposed to make its temporary suspension of § 1026.58(c) effective immediately after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. The Bureau sought comment on the proposed effective date, including on whether a later effective date would be more appropriate. None of the comments received by the Bureau explicitly addressed the proposed effective date.

An agency must allow 30 days before a substantive rule is made effective, unless, among other things, the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” 9 or “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 10 The Bureau believes that this rule recognizes an exemption from or relieves a restriction on issuers' obligations to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau, and does not create any new requirement. Accordingly, the 30-day delay in effective date does not apply and the Bureau finds good cause to make this rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, in order to reduce burden while the Bureau works to develop a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system for credit card agreements.

9 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

10 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

VI. Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act A. Overview

In developing this rule, the Bureau has considered potential benefits, costs, and impacts.11 The Bureau has consulted, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators, the Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Trade Commission, including regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by such agencies.

11 Specifically, section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of access by consumers to consumer financial products or services; the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and the impact on consumers in rural areas.

Pursuant to TILA section 122(d)(3), the Bureau maintains on its public Web site a repository of the consumer credit card agreements that card issuers submit pursuant to TILA section 122(d)(2), as implemented in § 1026.58(c). The electronic folders in the repository are organized by quarter, back to the third quarter of 2011, reflecting the transfer of authority to implement TILA from the Board to the Bureau pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. For each quarter, the repository contains a copy of each agreement, in PDF format, that was available to consumers as of the end of that quarter. The repository also contains, for each quarter, a spreadsheet that provides certain identifying information about each agreement and the issuer thereof.

The Bureau proposed to amend § 1026.58(g) to temporarily suspend the requirement in § 1026.58(c) for card issuers to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau. The Bureau is finalizing the amendments to § 1026.58(g) as proposed. Card issuers will not be required to make quarterly submissions to the Bureau for the submissions that would otherwise be due by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016. Consequently, the Bureau will not provide these agreements on its Web site. As discussed previously, however, the Bureau intends to manually compile credit card agreements from certain large card issuer Web sites as of approximately September 2015 and post those agreements on its Web site. Card issuers will resume submitting agreements on a quarterly basis to the Bureau beginning with the submission due by the first business day on or after April 30, 2016. The Bureau is not modifying the requirement that card issuers post currently-offered agreements on their own Web sites in a manner that is prominent and readily accessible by the public (§ 1026.58(d)) or that card issuers make all open agreements available on their Web sites or to cardholders upon request (§ 1026.58(e)).

B. Potential Benefits and Costs to Consumers and Covered Persons

The Bureau is not aware of any significant costs to consumers that might arise from the temporary suspension of the quarterly submission requirement and the absence of these agreements on the Bureau's Web site. While the Bureau's Web site can assist consumers in comparing credit card agreements when shopping for a new card, the Bureau believes that most consumers are not likely to use the repository to identify desirable credit cards, in part because they would not know if they qualified for the cards they identified. The Bureau believes that consumers are more likely to identify a number of cards for which they qualify before comparing the terms and conditions for those cards. These terms and conditions will remain readily available to consumers on the issuers' Web sites. Similarly, a consumer who wanted to replace a lost agreement would likely find it easier to contact the issuer than to search the repository because the agreement might no longer be available to new cardholders, in which case the consumer would need to search across multiple quarters to find the agreement, and even then might lack confidence that she had found the version of the agreement that applied to her.

On the other hand, the Bureau recognizes that consumers who would qualify for almost any card on the market and who want to learn about the features of a large number of products might find the repository useful. The final rule might increase the cost to these consumers of searching for desirable credit cards. The Bureau believes that this cost would be small, however, given that the Bureau is suspending the submission requirement for just four quarters. In addition, as discussed in more detail below, the Bureau will manually collect agreements from certain large issuers' Web sites at the midpoint of the suspension period, which will mitigate this cost to consumers. The Bureau requested comment on this point but did not receive any responses. Similarly, the Bureau recognizes the possibility that entities may use the information in the repository to develop more competitive products or extract information that they could sell or otherwise provide to consumers or third parties. However, the Bureau believes that this is unlikely given that the agreements, while generally in searchable PDF format, do not contain uniform data or text fields that would provide the same type of information in fixed locations across files. The Bureau requested comment on this point as well but did not receive any responses. A commenter from an academic public policy center noted that the information that these entities need would remain on the issuers' Web sites.

The Bureau believes that the final rule will provide issuers with a minor but tangible benefit. For the third quarter of 2014, 446 issuers had 1,833 agreements in the Bureau's database. While 169 issuers had just one agreement, the median number of agreements per issuer was two and the average was four. Four issuers had over 50 agreements. In the third quarter alone, 103 issuers submitted 429 agreements; the median and mean were again two and four, respectively. Three issuers submitted over 25 agreements. All issuers will be able to suspend their submissions for four quarters, which will remove some compliance burden. The Bureau believes that the burden is small on average, although it may be higher for the entities that provide a large number of agreements.12 The Bureau requested comment on this point but did not receive any responses.

12 The Bureau notes that card issuers who submit a smaller number of agreements to the Bureau, but that only submit new and amended agreements and notice of withdrawn agreements, may have higher compliance costs than issuers who resubmit each quarter all agreements that are currently available to consumers. Thus, using the number of agreements submitted each quarter does not strictly track compliance cost. However, the Bureau expects that the number of agreements submitted and compliance cost are correlated even for those who submit all available agreements each quarter because they still have to ensure they are not sending agreements that are no longer offered to new customers or are entirely defunct.

As noted above, the Bureau recognizes the possibility that entities could use the information in the repository to develop more competitive products or extract information that they could sell or otherwise provide to consumers or third parties. However, as mentioned above, the Bureau believes that this is unlikely given the difficulties in using files in PDF format for this purpose. To the extent that entities are inclined to use the files in the repository to extract information, the Bureau believes that manual collection of the credit card agreements from certain large card issuer Web sites as of approximately September 2015 and posting those agreements on the Bureau Web site will mitigate the impact of the proposed rule on these entities.

A commenter from an academic public policy center argued that the submission and record repository requirements in TILA sections 122(d)(2)-(3), implemented in § 1026.58(c), impose costs without evidence of benefits (and most likely with few benefits). This commenter recommended that the Bureau suspend the submission requirement permanently instead of temporarily. The commenter did not, however, dispute the Bureau's consideration of the benefits and costs of § 1026.58(g) relative to the baseline defined by the current statute and implementing regulation. More generally, the Bureau seeks through this rulemaking and the associated development of a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system to increase the benefits and reduce the costs of the submission and repository requirements, and is not considering other changes at this time.

As an alternative, the Bureau considered coupling the temporary suspension with a requirement to provide the Bureau, after the suspension expired, with the agreements that they would have been required to submit if not for the suspension. Compared to the final rule, this alternative would have imposed smaller costs on consumers and provided smaller benefits to issuers. Since the costs to consumers under the final rule are small to begin with, the Bureau believes that the final rule is superior to the alternative. A commenter from an academic public policy center opposed this alternative, arguing that the additional compliance costs associated with requiring issuers to collect and submit the additional agreement was not justified by the marginal benefit to consumers.

C. Impact on Covered Persons With No More Than $10 Billion in Assets

The majority of banks and credit unions that provide agreements under § 1026.58(c) have no more than $10 billion in assets. Thus, the majority of banks and credit unions that will benefit from the final rule have no more than $10 billion in assets. On the other hand, larger banks and credit unions generally provide the Bureau with more agreements each quarter. Thus, the final rule will generally provide larger banks and credit unions with a greater reduction in burden compared to that obtained by banks and credit unions with no more than $10 billion in assets.

One trade association commenter noted the discussion of these effects in the proposal and urged the Bureau to consider the implementation and ongoing costs associated with the new process. As explained in the Background section of the proposed rule, the Bureau intends for its new submission system to be less burdensome and easier for issuers to use. Thus, the Bureau intends the new system to reduce ongoing costs to covered persons relative to the baseline. The Bureau expects that any one-time transition cost will be small and quickly recovered through lower ongoing costs.

D. Impact on Access to Credit

The Bureau does not believe that there will be an adverse impact on access to credit, or any other consumer financial products or services, resulting from the final rule. The final rule imposes no direct requirements on consumer financial products or services or providers of consumer financial products or services or on the eligibility of consumers for consumer financial products or services. As discussed above, the final rule imposes at most a minor additional cost on certain consumers searching for a credit card.

As noted above, the Bureau recognizes the possibility that entities could use the information in the repository to develop more competitive products or extract information that they could sell or otherwise provide to consumers or third parties. However, the Bureau believes that this is unlikely given the difficulties in using files in PDF format for this purpose and the fact that the suspension would last for just four quarters. Thus, the final rule should not inhibit activities that would improve access to credit such as the development of more competitive credit products or products that would reduce search costs.

E. Impact on Consumers in Rural Areas

The Bureau does not believe that the final rule will have a unique impact on consumers in rural areas.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small nonprofit organizations. The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Act.

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.

Neither an IRFA nor a FRFA is required for this rule because it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau does not expect the rule to impose costs on small entities. As discussed above, the Bureau believes that the rule will cause a small reduction in costs on all issuers, including small entity issuers, who would otherwise be required to submit agreements to the Bureau.

Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), Federal agencies are generally required to seek the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for information collection requirements prior to implementation. This final rule will amend Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026. The collections of information affected by this final rule have been previously reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA and assigned OMB Control Number 3170-0052. Under the PRA, the Bureau may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The Bureau has determined that this final rule will not impose any new recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of information requiring approval under the PRA.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1026

Advertising, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends 12 CFR part 1026, as follows:

PART 1026—TRUTH IN LENDING (REGULATION Z) 1. The authority citation for part 1026 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.

Subpart G—Special Rules Applicable to Credit Card Accounts and Open-End Credit Offered to College Students 2. Section 1026.58 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 1026.58 Internet posting of credit card agreements.

(g) Temporary suspension of agreement submission requirement—(1) Quarterly submissions. The quarterly submission requirement in paragraph (c) of this section is suspended for the submissions that would otherwise be due to the Bureau by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016.

(2) Posting of agreements offered to the public. Nothing in paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall affect the agreement posting requirements in paragraph (d) of this section.

3. In Supplement I to Part 1026, under Section 1026.58—Internet Posting of Credit Card Agreements, add 58(g) Temporary Suspension of Agreement Submission Requirement to read as follows: Supplement I to Part 1026—Official Interpretations Section 1026.58—Internet Posting of Credit Card Agreements 58(g) Temporary Suspension of Agreement Submission Requirement

1. Suspended quarterly submission requirement. Pursuant to § 1026.58(g)(1), card issuers are not required to make quarterly submissions to the Bureau, as otherwise required by § 1026.58(c), for the submissions that would otherwise be due by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016. Specifically, a card issuer is not required to submit information about the issuer and its agreements pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(i), new credit card agreements pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(ii), amended agreements pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(iii) and (c)(3), or notification of withdrawn agreements pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(iv) and (c)(4) through (7) for those four quarters.

2. Resuming submission of credit card agreements to the Bureau. Beginning with the submission due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016, card issuers shall resume submitting credit card agreements on a quarterly basis to the Bureau pursuant to § 1026.58(c). A card issuer shall submit agreements for the prior calendar quarter (that is, the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016), as specified in § 1026.58(c)(1)(ii) through (iv) and (c)(3) through (7), to the Bureau no later than the first business day on or after April 30, 2016.

i. Specifically, the submission due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016 shall contain, as applicable:

A. Identifying information about the card issuer and the agreements submitted, including the issuer's name, address, and identifying number (such as an RSSD ID number or tax identification number), pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(i);

B. The credit card agreements that the card issuer offered to the public as of the last business day of the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016 that the card issuer had not previously submitted to the Bureau as of the first business day on or after January 31, 2015, pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(ii);

C. Any credit card agreement previously submitted to the Bureau that was amended since the last business day of the calendar quarter ending December 31, 2014 and that the card issuer offered to the public as of the last business day of the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016, pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(iii) and (c)(3); and

D. Notification regarding any credit card agreement previously submitted to the Bureau that the issuer is withdrawing, pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(iv) and (c)(4) through (7).

ii. In lieu of the submission described in comment 58(g)-2.i.B through D, § 1026.58(c)(1) permits a card issuer to submit to the Bureau a complete, updated set of the credit card agreements the card issuer offered to the public as of the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016. See comment 58(c)(1)-3.

3. Continuing obligation to post agreements on a card issuer's own Web site. Section 1026.58(d) requires a card issuer to post and maintain on its publicly available Web site the credit card agreements that the issuer is required to submit to the Bureau under § 1026.58(c). Pursuant to § 1026.58(g)(2), during the temporary suspension period set forth in § 1026.58(g)(1), a card issuer shall continue to post its agreements to its own publicly available Web site as required by § 1026.58(d) using the agreements it would have otherwise submitted to the Bureau under § 1026.58(c). For example, for purposes of § 1026.58(d)(4), a card issuer must continue to update the agreements posted on its own Web site at least as frequently as the quarterly schedule required for submission of agreements to the Bureau set forth in § 1026.58(c)(1), notwithstanding the temporary suspension of submission requirements in § 1026.58(g)(1). Similarly, for purposes of § 1026.58(d)(2), agreements posted by a card issuer on its own Web site must continue to conform to the form and content requirements set forth in § 1026.58(c)(8).

Dated: April 13, 2015. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2015-09000 Filed 4-15-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 71 and 73 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0924; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWA-2] Amendment of Authority Citation for Part 71: Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points, and Part 73: Special Use Airspace AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is amending the authority citation for part 71 and part 73 by adding an additional citation at the beginning of the authority citation string. This action updates and clarifies the Administrator's rulemaking authority to be consistent with other parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, April 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For 14 CFR part 71: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

For 14 CFR part 73: FAA Order 7400.8X, Special Use Airspace, can be viewed online at the FAAs Air Traffic Plans and Publications Web site at https://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591: telephone (202) 267-8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Frenzel, Manager, Rulemaking Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, (telephone: 202-267-3073).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends the authority citation for part 71; Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service routes; and Reporting Points, and also for part 73, Special Use Airspace, by adding an additional citation, 49 U.S.C. 106(f), at the beginning of the authority citation string. This action updates and clarifies the Administrator's rulemaking authority to be consistent with other parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

This is an administrative change reflecting clarification of rulemaking authority, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Also, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 553(d), this rule is being published with an effective date of less than 30 days in order to keep current airspace actions previously published in the Federal Register with later effective dates, and other airspace actions soon to be published.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it further describes the authority of the FAA Administrator for part 71 and part 73 rulemaking.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

14 CFR Part 73

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 and part 73 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 is amended to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 2. The authority citation for part 73 is amended to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2015. Mark W. Bury, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-08781 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 774 The Commerce Control List CFR Correction

In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 300 to 799, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 941, in supplement no. 1 to part 774, in ECCN 6C992, under the List of Items Controlled, correct the Items paragraph to read as follows: “Items: The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.”

[FR Doc. 2015-08985 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Part 404 [Docket No. SSA-2010-0055] RIN 0960-AF88 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders AGENCY:

Social Security Administration.

ACTION:

Final rules.

SUMMARY:

We are revising the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate cases involving hematological disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). These revisions reflect our adjudicative experience, advances in medical knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment, and public comments we received in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

DATES:

These rules are effective May 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cheryl Williams, Office of Medical Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet Web site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

We are revising and making final the rules for evaluating hematological disorders that we proposed in an NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2013 at 78 FR 69324. Even though these rules will not go into effect until 30 days after publication of this document, for clarity, we refer to them in this preamble as the “final” rules. We refer to the rules in effect prior to that time as the “prior” rules.

In the preamble to the NPRM, we discussed the revisions we proposed for the hematological disorders body system. Since we are mostly adopting those revisions as we proposed them, we are not repeating that information here. Interested readers may refer to the preamble to the NPRM for this information, available at http://www.regulations.gov.

We are making several changes in these final rules from the NPRM based upon some of the public comments we received. We explain these changes below in the “Summary of Public Comments on the NPRM” section of this preamble.

Why are we revising the listings for hematological disorders?

We developed these final rules as part of our ongoing review of the listings. When we last comprehensively revised the listings for the hematological disorders body system in final rules published on December 6, 1985, we indicated in the preamble to those rules that we would carefully monitor these listings to ensure that they continue to meet program purposes, and that we would update them if warranted.1

1 See 50 FR 50068. We published some revisions to the hematological body system on April 24, 2002, and November 15, 2004. See 67 FR 20018 and 69 FR 67017 (corrected at 70 FR 15227). These revisions were not comprehensive; they addressed only specific listings.

Summary of Public Comments on the NPRM

In the NPRM, we provided the public with a 60-day comment period that ended on January 21, 2014. We received 32 comments. The commenters included advocacy groups, a national group representing disability examiners in the State agencies that make disability determinations for us, State agencies, groups representing medical practitioners, and individual members of the public. A number of the letters provided identical comments and recommendations.

We carefully considered all of the significant comments relevant to this rulemaking. We condensed and summarized the comments below. We presented the commenters' concerns and suggestions and responded to all significant issues that were within the scope of these rules. We provide our reasons for adopting or not adopting the recommendations in our responses below.

General Comments

Comment: One commenter recommended that we review the medical criteria in the listings for evaluating hematological disorders every five years to ensure they reflect the latest advances in treatment and clinical practice. The commenter thought it especially important that we review ongoing clinical trials and published reports regarding advances in genetic testing and the clinical use of new blood derivatives and biologics.

Response: While we agree with the commenter that it is important to keep abreast of advances in treatment and clinical practice for hematological disorders, we have not made any changes to our proposed listings as a result of this comment. As mentioned above, we will monitor the final rules to ensure they still meet our program purposes. While doing this, we will consider whether we need to revise the rules to reflect advances in medical knowledge and clinical practice.2

2 We have made it a priority to ensure that we keep the listings up to date and to report our progress. For example, see SSA's Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2015, Revised Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2014, and Annual Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2013 available at http://www.ssa.gov/agency/performance/2015/FY2015-APP-APR.pdf.

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that people with hematological disorders may be disabled but their impairments do not satisfy the specific medical criteria in the listings. The commenters said these people may have periods of relative functional ability punctuated by unpredictable and episodic complications that result in an inability to work. They believed such complications do not necessarily have to be prolonged or frequent to be disabling and to result in loss of employment, failure in school, or other major disruptions in the person's life.

Response: We agree that many of these final listings have specific medical criteria. Some people with hematological disorders may have complications that do not occur with the severity or frequency that these listings require. We believe the functional criteria in our final rules address commenters' concerns by providing criteria that may permit a finding of disability at the listing step of the sequential evaluation process in people who suffer repeated complications of their impairments, but who may not be continually restricted in their functioning between complications. For example, our intent in new functional listing 7.18 for adults, and in our functional equivalence rules for children, is to evaluate impairments that are difficult to assess in strict medical terms. We can use the functional criteria in listing 7.18, as well as our functional equivalence rules in claims for childhood disability under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, to evaluate claims filed by people who become ill and improve, but become ill again, either with the same complications of their hematological disorders or with different ones.

Comment: One commenter recommended we add a criterion in these final rules requiring compliance with prescribed therapy.

Response: We did not adopt the commenter's recommendation because we believe our adjudicators can establish the relevance of a person's noncompliance under our current rules and current operating instructions regarding failure to follow prescribed treatment.3 Under our policy, we must assess a person's noncompliance on an individual basis because the person may have good cause for not following prescribed treatment. Good cause may include concern about the cost or adverse effects of treatment, lack of access to treatment, religious beliefs, or other situations. We also provide information to our adjudicators in final sections 7.00H and 107.00G on how to consider whether a person is receiving or following treatment.

3 See 20 CFR 404.1530 and 416.930; also see Social Security Ruling 82-59: Titles II and XVI: Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment available at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR82-59-di-02.html); and also see DI 23010 Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment—Procedures, Program Operations Manual System (POMS), available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0423010000.

Comment: Another commenter recommended that the final listings consider the cost of medication for treating hematological disorders before denying children's disability claims.

Response: We did not adopt the comment because, as just indicated, we will consider on an individual case basis whether a person, including a child, can afford, or has access to, medically necessary treatments.

Comment: Some commenters objected to our use of hospitalization as a criterion in several final listings for determining listing-level severity of a person's hematological disorder. These listings require hospitalization at least three times within a 12-month period, with each hospitalization occurring at least 30 days apart. The commenters believed health insurers and hospitals are actively trying to reduce hospital admissions, which may prevent some disabled people from receiving benefits. One commenter thought that discrimination and a lack of uniformity of treatment protocols among communities and hospitals could also affect decisions regarding hospitalization. The commenters recommended we delete the hospitalization requirement or require fewer than three hospitalizations in a 12-month period. Some commenters also recommended we consider the frequency of outpatient visits as a measure of listing-level severity.

Response: We decided to retain the hospitalization criterion because our intent in these final listings is to reflect criteria that result in an inability to perform any gainful activity, which can be demonstrated by a need for a level of care beyond more conventional treatments for hematological disorders. We believe the hospitalization criterion is an advantage to people who apply for disability benefits because it provides another way for us to find them disabled at the listing step.

We want to assure the commenters that we are able to evaluate hematological disorders resulting in fewer than three hospitalizations in a consecutive 12-month period under the criteria in final listing 7.18 for adults, the functional equivalence rules for children, or at other steps in our sequential evaluation process. For example, the criteria in listing 7.18 evaluate the functional impact of the person's impairment in the broad areas of activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, or pace, including the functional impact of treatment such as repeated outpatient visits for complications. We are also able to evaluate hematological disorders that are “severe” but do not meet or equal any listing under the final steps of the sequential evaluation process.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that people with hematological disorders may have complications and co-occurring conditions for years, but their impairments never result in hospitalization. This commenter was also concerned that our adjudicators may not know about many of the hematological disorders, their effects, and how to recognize them.

Response: As previously discussed, we believe the functional criteria in listing 7.18 and our childhood functional equivalence criteria under the SSI program will help us determine disability appropriately for people whose hematological disorders result in fewer than three hospitalizations in a 12-month period. These criteria also cover people who have never been hospitalized.

With regard to the commenter's concerns about adjudicators' knowledge of hematological disorders, the introductory text and listings provide common examples of hematological disorders and describe their complications. However, we do not think it is practical or necessary to list all hematological disorders and their complications. Instead, as we do with respect to other changes in our listings, we plan to provide instructions and training to our adjudicators. These instructions and the training will help our adjudicators recognize less common examples of hematological disorders and their associated complications and functional limitations.

Comment: One commenter believed the requirement that the hospitalization must last at least 48 hours seems to be “arbitrary” and not based on scientific or medical standards. The commenter thought it would be just as appropriate for us to require the hospitalization to last at least 24 hours, as listings in some other body systems require.

Response: We disagree with the commenter that we should require hospital stays of at least 24 hours. As we noted in the preamble of the NPRM, the 48-hour criterion more clearly defines our intent in prior listing 7.05B for an “extended hospitalization.” 4 This criterion is more detailed than in the prior listing, but it is not stricter. We believe the scientific and medical literature shows that many people hospitalized for serious complications of hematological disorders are included in the 48-hour criterion, and that this criterion can help identify an impairment of listing-level severity.

4 78 FR at 69328.

In sickle cell disease, for instance, a 2008 study found 63 percent of children hospitalized for pain crises had hospital stays of at least 4 days, not counting time in the emergency department.5 Similarly, a 2004 study of children hospitalized for sickle cell disease complications other than strokes reported a median hospital stay of 3 days 6 ; children with strokes had a median hospital stay of 6 days. A 2010 study of adults and children with sickle cell complications reported an average initial hospital stay of 5.6 days.7 Children in the 2008 study with long hospital stays tended to have high pain scores, pain in multiple body sites, co-occurring complications, and a need for extensive treatment.

5 Rogovik, A., et al., Admission and length of stay due to painful vasoocclusive crisis in children, The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Sep;27(7), 797-801 (2008).

6 Fullerton, H., et al., Declining stroke rates in California children with sickle cell disease, Blood, Jul;104(2), 336-339 (2004).

7 Brousseau, D., et al., Acute care utilization and rehospitalizations for sickle cell disease, Journal of the American Medical Association, Apr;303(13), 1288-1294 (2010).

In hemophilia, a study published in 2011 of Texas patients with bleeding episodes reported a median hospital stay of 4 days.8 A 2005 study of patients with potentially life-threatening bleeds in the iliopsoas muscle reported a median hospital stay of 4.8 days.9 Hospital stays may be longer for iliopsoas bleeds in hemophiliacs with “inhibitors” (replacement factor alloantibodies).10 Generally, hemophiliacs with inhibitors may require more extensive treatment than those without inhibitors because their bleeding episodes often are resistant to standard treatments.11

8 Mirchandani, G.G., et al., Surveillance of bleeding disorders, Texas, 2007, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Dec;41(6 Suppl 4), S354-359 (2011).

9 Balkan, C., et al., Iliopsoas haemorrhage in patients with haemophilia: Results of one centre, Haemophilia, Sep:11(5), 463-467 (2005).

10 Ashrani, A.A., et al., Iliopsoas haemorrhage in patients with bleeding disorders—experience from one centre, Haemophilia, Nov;9(6), 721-726 (2003).

11 Soucie, J.M., et al., Home-based factor infusion therapy and hospitalization for bleeding complications among males with haemophilia, Mar;7(2), 198-206 (2001).

The study findings described above are consistent with our adjudicative experience that many claimants with listing-level hematological disorders satisfy the 48-hour criterion because their complications are difficult to treat and recoveries are prolonged.12 On the other hand, we believe requiring the hospitalization to last at least 24 hours would not be an accurate predictor of impairment severity because this criterion would include people who recover relatively quickly and satisfactorily with standard treatments. These hospitalizations include people hospitalized only overnight, for example, to receive extra fluids after treatment in the emergency department, and those kept for observation after surgery. In this regard, a 24-hour criterion would not reflect our intent that the listing be used to evaluate impairments at the listing level, which require treatment beyond the usual course of treatment for the hematological disorder.

12 The study findings only expand on, and confirm, the data in the studies we cited in the NPRM. They do not change either the methodology in the listing or any substantive criteria in it.

Comment: One commenter questioned our use of the term “disorders of hemostasis” in the introductory text and the listings. The commenter noted that the medical community usually refers to the grouping of clotting and bleeding disorders as “disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis.”

Response: We adopted the comment and modified the listings accordingly.

Comment: Some commenters suggested minor editorial changes in the introductory text, such as a comment asking us to indicate that the examples of complications of hematological disorders in section 7.00C, section 7.00D, and other final sections are not all-inclusive.

Response: We made these minor editorial changes for clarity and consistency; none were substantive.

Sections 7.00B and 107.00B—What evidence do we need to document that you have a hematological disorder?

Comment: Some commenters expressed concern over the requirement in proposed sections 7.00B and 107.00B that laboratory reports of definitive tests establishing hematological disorders have a physician's signature. These commenters thought this requirement too difficult or burdensome for some claimants because it may require them to obtain additional medical evidence. These commenters said it is not the usual practice for the overseeing physician in a laboratory to sign laboratory reports of definitive tests. They recommended we accept reports signed by treating physicians or other physicians if these reports state that the definitive hematological evidence is present in the medical records. They also believed we should accept a physician's statement that a person has a hematological disorder, even if the definitive hematological evidence is not present in the medical records.

Response: We did not adopt the comments. Under our policy, evidence establishing a medically determinable impairment (MDI) must be appropriately developed. To develop this evidence appropriately, it must come from acceptable medical sources, that is, medical or osteopathic doctors.13 A doctor's signature on a definitive laboratory test establishing that the person has a hematological disorder confirms the evidence came from an acceptable medical source, and we do not need to develop the evidence further to establish an MDI. In situations in which a doctor did not sign the definitive laboratory test, we will continue to develop the evidence. Final sections 7.00B and 107.00B provide examples of additional evidence we may obtain from doctors to establish the MDI, and we believe these examples are comparable to what the commenters recommended. Consequently, final sections 7.00B and 107.00B clarify how we develop evidence establishing the MDI; they do not add new requirements.

13 See 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a).

Sections 7.00C and 107.00C—What are hemolytic anemias, and how do we evaluate them under 7.05 and 107.05?

Comment: One commenter pointed out that hemolytic anemias are sometimes acquired conditions.

Response: We adopted this comment and revised final sections 7.00C1 and 107.00C1 to provide examples of acquired hemolytic anemias. We made similar changes in final sections 7.00D1, 107.00D1, 7.00E1, and 107.00E1. We also provided examples of acquired disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis, as well as disorders of bone marrow failure.

Comment: A commenter recommended that we add hereditary spherocytosis to the list of common examples of hemolytic anemias in adults. The commenter also suggested that we add paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria to the list of examples.

Response: We adopted this recommendation and added hereditary spherocytosis to the list in 7.00C1. We also added hereditary spherocytosis to the list of common examples of hemolytic anemias in children in 107.00C1 to make the child listings consistent with the adult listings.

We did not adopt the commenter's recommendation that we add paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria to the list of examples. Although we evaluate paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria under the hematological disorders listings, it is a very rare disorder. We provide only examples of common hemolytic anemias in the listings because we do not believe it is practical or necessary to name all of the hematological disorders we evaluate under this body system. We plan to provide information to our adjudicators about less common examples of hematological disorders, such as paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, through training and operating instructions.

Comment: We received many comments expressing concern over our exclusion in proposed sections 7.00C4 and 107.00C4 of prophylactic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to prevent stroke in people with sickle cell disease. Some of these commenters recommended that we delete the statement in proposed section 7.00C4 that we do not consider prophylactic RBC transfusions for sickle cell disease to be of equal medical significance to transfusion-dependent thalassemia.14 They said people with sickle cell disease who require prophylactic RBC transfusions are usually chronically ill, and they cited articles in the current medical literature to support their views. Another commenter believed final sections 7.00C4 and 107.00C4 needed more information to help adjudicators determine whether the need for RBC transfusions will be life-long.

14 78 FR at 69333.

The commenters also believe people with sickle cell disease who receive prophylactic RBC transfusion to prevent stroke may be more severely impaired than people with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia major because they have a far greater burden of cerebrovascular disease and intellectual and physical impairment. Additionally, a comment from a national advocacy group for physicians in pediatric hematology and oncology said its membership now considers sickle cell disease with stroke to be a transfusion-dependent disorder like thalassemia because of the risk of recurrent strokes if prophylactic RBC transfusion stops.

Response: We do not agree that treatment with prophylactic RBC transfusions alone should reflect a listing-level impairment in sickle cell disease and have not adopted the commenters' recommendations. Under the Act, we cannot find that a person is disabled based on the risk of a complication occurring in the future, as, for example, when transfusion therapy is effective and the person has not experienced a stroke.

However, we agree that people with sickle cell disease are chronically sick. We added language to final sections 7.00C4 and 107.00C4 that directs evaluation under listings 11.00, 111.00, 12.00, and 112.00 if a claimant has had a stroke. We also added language in final sections 7.00C4 and 107.00C4 explaining that we will consider functional limitations associated with chronic RBC transfusions under final listing 7.18 for adults, the functional equivalence rules for children, as well as the listings for any affected body systems. The additional language also addresses complications resulting from chronic RBC transfusion, such as iron overload.

We also deleted the term “transfusion-dependent” in the final sections 7.00C4, 107.00C4, 7.00E3, and 107.00E3 because comments demonstrated to us that this term may confuse adjudicators. We made a corresponding change in final listings 7.05D, 107.05D, 7.10B, and 107.10B. Instead, we use the phrase, “requiring RBC transfusions at least once every 6 weeks to maintain life.” We believe this phrase is more descriptive of our intent in these final rules, which is that listing-level severity for hematological disorders requires treatment with RBC transfusions that are life-saving in nature and life-long in need. Moreover, we are confident our adjudicators will understand the requirement that the RBC transfusions must be “life-long,” as reflected in the ultimately fatal nature of beta thalassemia major and myelodysplastic syndrome if this treatment is withdrawn.

Sections 7.00D and 107.00D—What are disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis, and how do we evaluate them under 7.08 and 107.08?

Comment: A commenter noted that the future development of new treatments for hemophilia may make the term “factor infusions” less relevant.

Response: We adopted the comment and use the term “clotting-factor proteins” in final sections 7.00D2 and 107.00D2, instead of the term “factor infusions.”

Comment: A commenter stated that the language in proposed sections 7.00D2 and 107.00D2 was vague and did not make it clear that these sections included any surgery.

Response: We revised final sections 7.00D2 and 107.00D2 to state explicitly that we consider all surgeries in people with disorders of thrombosis or hemostasis to be complications of their disorders if they needed treatment with clotting-factor proteins or anticoagulant medications to control bleeding or coagulation in connection with the surgery.

Sections 7.00I and 107.00H—How do we evaluate episodic events in hematological disorders?

Comment: Some commenters thought proposed sections 7.00I and 107.00I could imply that the consecutive 12-month period required for episodic events could not include the months before a person files a disability claim, or the months before the person's alleged onset date of disability.

Response: In response to these comments, we added language to clarify the guidance in final sections 7.00I and 107.00I.

Listings 7.05 and 107.05—Hemolytic Anemias, Including Sickle Cell Disease, Thalassemia, and Their Variants

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the criterion in proposed listings 7.05A and 107.05A requiring at least six pain crises treated with parenteral narcotic medications within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. These commenters believed this criterion is too restrictive, particularly for evaluating sickle cell disease. They believed that recent scientific and medical literature points to three pain crises requiring parenteral narcotic medication within a 12-month period as a more appropriate standard.

Some commenters also noted that pain crises treated with only oral narcotic medications may be severe enough to disrupt a person's life for days or weeks. These commenters believed such pain crises greatly impair a person's mobility, self-care, and mental capacity, and they noted that there can be long-term, cumulative tissue and organ damage associated with the crises. A national advocacy group for persons with hematological disorders recommended we consider the daily use of oral opioids as a criterion for listing-level severity. The group provided a suggested revision to final listing 7.05A that considered a person disabled if he or she required daily oral opioids for chronic pain for a period of at least 30 consecutive days, at least three times within a 12-month period.

Response: We did not adopt these comments because we believe final listings 7.05A and 107.05A provide objective criteria that are more descriptive of our intent and more specific to listing-level determinations than the prior listings. In addition, as we noted previously, final listing 7.18 provides criteria to evaluate claims from individuals whose impairments do not satisfy the medical criteria in final listing 7.05A, but whose impairments result in functional limitations that meet the criteria of listing 7.18. These effects may include chronic pain and other complications, as well as a frequent need for oral narcotic medication or other treatments that may cause negative side effects. Some people with sickle cell disease or other hemolytic anemia may have impairments that are less than listing-level severity, but may still be disabling. We can evaluate these impairments through the steps of our sequential evaluation process after the listing step.

Comment: One commenter noted that a person hospitalized for pain crises may receive treatments other than parenteral narcotic medication, such as local or regional anesthetic blocks. The commenter believed pain crises requiring such treatments also result in functional impairments and are indicative of pain severity, but were not reflected in proposed listings 7.05A and 107.05A.

Response: While it is true final listings 7.05A and 107.05A do not specify these other treatments, we did not adopt this comment because we are able to evaluate hospitalizations for pain crises treated with other treatments under final listings 7.05B and 107.05B, or we can evaluate the functional impairments described by the commenter under final listing 7.18, or the functional equivalence rules for childhood disability claims under the SSI program.

Comment: One commenter agreed with the requirement in listings 7.05B and 107.05B that a hospitalization should last at least 48 hours, but recommended that this criterion not include hours spent in the hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. The commenter said hospitals may not always document patients' arrival times in their emergency departments and times of discharge to inpatient units.

Response: We did not adopt the commenter's recommendation because our adjudicative experience shows that hospitals document these times in the great majority of cases.

Comment: A commenter suggested we count the hours a person receives treatment in a comprehensive sickle cell disease center under our requirement in final listings 7.05B and 107.05B that hospitalizations for complications of hemolytic anemias last at least 48 hours. We received a similar comment regarding comprehensive hemophilia treatment centers.

Response: We adopted these comments. We explain in final sections 7.00C2 and 107.00C2 that we will count the hours the person receives treatment in a comprehensive sickle cell disease center if the treatment is comparable to the treatment provided in a hospital emergency department. We also revised final listings 7.08 and 107.08 and final sections 7.00D2 and 107.00D2 in response to the comment regarding comprehensive hemophilia treatment centers.

Comment: One commenter believed the requirement in proposed listings 7.05B and 107.05B for three hospitalizations within a 12-month period is too restrictive because it applies only to a subset of people with sickle cell disease who the commenter described as “high-risk” patients. The commenter believed we should consider a person with sickle cell disease to be disabled if he or she has any of the complications described in final sections 7.00C2 and 107.00C2 because this person needs continual follow-up and monitoring regardless of hospitalization.

Response: While we appreciate the commenter's concerns—and we agree that people with sickle cell disease have serious impairments if they have any of the complications described in final sections 7.00C2 and 107.00C2—we did not adopt the comment. We can evaluate these claimants' impairments under any appropriate listing in the affected body system, or at the steps of our sequential evaluation process after the listing step, if they do not meet or medically equal the criteria in listings 7.05B and 107.05B.

Comment: We received a comment recommending we add guidance to the listings that explains to adjudicators they can use hematocrit readings under final listings 7.05C and 107.05C if a person's case record does not include hemoglobin measurements. The commenter was concerned adjudicators might misinterpret the listings to mean they cannot use hematocrit readings under any circumstances.

Response: We did not adopt this recommendation. These final listings require hemoglobin measurements at 7.0 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or less, occurring at least three times within a 12-month period with at least 30 days between measurements. In the great majority of cases, our adjudicative experience shows a person's case record provides both hemoglobin measurements and hematocrit readings. Moreover, we are confident that our adjudicators understand they can use comparable hematocrit levels to medically equal the listings if hemoglobin measurements are not available. The final listings do not provide substantive instructions to our adjudicators for determining such equivalence because we can better provide this information through operating instructions and training.

Comment: Two commenters questioned whether we should use hemoglobin measurements at all. One commenter said the science and the medical communities have not established a critical threshold for hemoglobin for determining disability. The other commenter said disability depends on factors besides hemoglobin level, such as the duration of anemia, the bone marrow's response, and associated cardiovascular or other organ dysfunction. For children, this commenter said we should also consider amount of fatigue, inability to concentrate, problems with executive function, and memory deficiencies.

Response: We did not adopt these comments because we believe this criterion is reasonable for quickly identifying people whose hemolytic anemias are clearly disabling, and whose claims should be allowed at the listing step. Hemoglobin at 7.0 g/dL or less can result in an abnormal heartbeat, shortness of breath with mild exertion, significant fatigue, and other very serious complications. Given these complications, we believe the criteria in the final listings reflect a persistence of very low hemoglobin that can prevent an adult from working, or prevent a child from functioning independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner.

Comment: A commenter noted that people with sickle cell disease and a history of frequent pain crises or acute chest syndrome may be receiving prophylactic RBC transfusions to alleviate these complications and are not likely to have hemoglobin measurements of 7.0 g/dL. The commenter recommended that listings 7.05C and 107.05C allow for a finding of disability for people who receive prophylactic RBC transfusions for these complications.

Response: We did not adopt the comment because the intent of the hemoglobin finding in final listings 7.05C and 107.05C is to provide a faster way for us to determine listing-level disability without needing to consider a person's specific complications.

Comment: The same commenter also thought that adjudicators will have difficulty identifying hemoglobin measurements of 7.0 g/dL among potentially hundreds of measurements in a person's case record.

Response: We did not adopt this comment. We agree that a person's case record may provide many hemoglobin measurements; however, our adjudicators are accustomed to evaluating such evidence.

Listing 7.18—Repeated Complications of Hematological Disorders

Comment: One commenter suggested that we add “chronic skin ulcers” to the examples of complications in final listing 7.18.

Response: We did not adopt this comment. Both the proposed rules and these final rules include skin ulcers as a possible complication that we will evaluate under listing 7.18. However, skin ulcers and other complications we evaluate under the listing do not have to be chronic. We explain in final section 7.00G2 that a person's complications do not have to be the same each time, but can vary. A person could have skin ulcers once and may satisfy this criterion in the listing if he or she also has other complications during the period we are considering in connection with the application.

Comment: A commenter suggested we include chronic, non-vascular necrosis-related low back pain in final listing 7.18 as a complication of a hematological disorder. The commenter also suggested that listing 7.18 take into consideration pain resulting from prolonged periods of standing or physical activity in people who have chronic pain from a hematological disorder such as sickle cell disease.

Response: We did not believe it was necessary to adopt the commenter's suggestions. The pain resulting from repeated complications of hematological disorders that listing 7.18 requires can include the chronic pain the commenter describes.

Comment: One commenter believed that it is important for adjudicators to give appropriate weight to evaluations by nurses, social workers, and physical therapists when determining a person's functional limitations under final listing 7.18.

Response: We agree that such sources can provide important information to show the severity of a person's impairment and how it affects his or her ability to work, and we currently provide guidance to our adjudicators in our regulations for considering this evidence and who may provide it.15

15 See 20 CFR 404.1513(d), 20 CFR 416.913(d), and Social Security Ruling 06-03p: Titles II and XVI: Considering Opinions and Other Evidence from Sources Who Are Not “Acceptable Medical Sources” in Disability Claims, 71 FR 45593 (2006) (also available at: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2006-03-di-01.html).

Listing 107.08—Disorders of Hemostasis, Including Hemophilia and Thrombocytopenia

Comment: A commenter believed proposed listing 107.08 did not recognize the developmental and functional impact that disability has on children and should reflect a need for frequent medical intervention, not only hospitalizations. The commenter stated that repeated hospitalizations and frequent outpatient medical treatment affect children much more profoundly than adults.

Response: We did not adopt the commenter's recommendation because we can evaluate the functional and developmental impact of a child's frequent medical treatment under our functional equivalence rules. Under these rules, we evaluate how independently, appropriately, and effectively the child functions compared to children of the same age who do not have a hematological disorder. This evaluation includes assessing what activities the child cannot do, has difficulty doing, or is restricted from doing because of the interactive and cumulative effects of his or her disorder and medical care.

Listing 107.10—Disorders of Bone Marrow Failure, Including Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Aplastic Anemia, Granulocytopenia, and Myelofibrosis

Comment: A commenter stated that the requirement in 107.10A for three hospitalizations within a 12-month period may be too restrictive for children because “impairment can be severe in a child” following a single hospitalization.

Response: We did not modify the proposed listing as a result of this comment. We believe the hospitalization criterion for disorders of bone marrow failure is an advantage to children and adults who apply for disability benefits because it provides another way we may find them disabled at the listing step. Additionally, the child functional equivalence rules help us evaluate SSI claims filed by children whose hematological disorders result in fewer than three hospitalizations in a 12-month period.

What is our authority to make rules and set procedures for determining whether a person is disabled under the statutory definition?

Under the Act, we have authority to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to carry out such provisions.16

16 See sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1).

How long will these final rules be in effect?

These final rules will be in effect for 5 years after their effective date, unless we extend them. We will continue to monitor these rules to ensure that they continue to meet program purposes, and may revise them before the end of the 5-year period if warranted.

Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these final rules meet the requirements for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 and was reviewed by OMB.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

We certify that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These final rules do not impose new or affect any existing reporting or recordkeeping requirements and are not subject to OMB clearance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income). List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 404

Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.

Dated: April 10, 2015. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending 20 CFR part 404, subpart P as set forth below:

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) Subpart P—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

2. Amend appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 by revising: a. Item 8 of the introductory text before part A; b. Section 7.00 of part A; c. Section 13.00K2c(ii) of part A; d. Second sentence of section 13.00K3 of part A; and e. Section 107.00 of part B.

The revisions read as follows:

Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404—Listing of Impairments

8. Hematological Disorders (7.00 and 107.00): May 18, 2020.

Part A 7.00 HEMATOLOGICAL DISORDERS A. What hematological disorders do we evaluate under these listings?

1. We evaluate non-malignant (non-cancerous) hematological disorders, such as hemolytic anemias (7.05), disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis (7.08), and disorders of bone marrow failure (7.10). These disorders disrupt the normal development and function of white blood cells, red blood cells, platelets, and clotting-factor proteins (factors).

2. We evaluate malignant (cancerous) hematological disorders, such as lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma, under the appropriate listings in 13.00, except for lymphoma associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, which we evaluate under 14.08E.

B. What evidence do we need to document that you have a hematological disorder?

We need the following evidence to document that you have a hematological disorder:

1. A laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder, signed by a physician; or

2. A laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder that is not signed by a physician and a report from a physician that states you have the disorder; or

3. When we do not have a laboratory report of a definitive test, a persuasive report from a physician that a diagnosis of your hematological disorder was confirmed by appropriate laboratory analysis or other diagnostic method(s). To be persuasive, this report must state that you had the appropriate definitive laboratory test or tests for diagnosing your disorder and provide the results, or explain how your diagnosis was established by other diagnostic method(s) consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.

4. We will make every reasonable effort to obtain the results of appropriate laboratory testing you have had. We will not purchase complex, costly, or invasive tests, such as tests of clotting-factor proteins, and bone marrow aspirations.

C. What are hemolytic anemias, and how do we evaluate them under 7.05?

1. Hemolytic anemias, both congenital and acquired, are disorders that result in premature destruction of red blood cells (RBCs). Hemolytic disorders include abnormalities of hemoglobin structure (hemoglobinopathies), abnormal RBC enzyme content and function, and RBC membrane (envelope) defects that are congenital or acquired. The diagnosis of hemolytic anemia is based on hemoglobin electrophoresis or analysis of the contents of the RBC (enzymes) and membrane. Examples of congenital hemolytic anemias include sickle cell disease, thalassemia and their variants, and hereditary spherocytosis. Acquired hemolytic anemias may result from autoimmune disease (for example, systemic lupus erythematosus) or mechanical devices (for example, heart valves, intravascular patches).

2. The hospitalizations in 7.05B do not all have to be for the same complication of the hemolytic anemia. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications of hemolytic anemia that may result in hospitalization include osteomyelitis, painful (vaso-occlusive) crisis, pulmonary infections or infarctions, acute chest syndrome, pulmonary hypertension, chronic heart failure, gallbladder disease, hepatic (liver) failure, renal (kidney) failure, nephrotic syndrome, aplastic crisis, and stroke. We will count the hours you receive emergency treatment in a comprehensive sickle cell disease center immediately before the hospitalization if this treatment is comparable to the treatment provided in a hospital emergency department.

3. For 7.05C, we do not require hemoglobin to be measured during a period in which you are free of pain or other symptoms of your disorder. We will accept hemoglobin measurements made while you are experiencing complications of your hemolytic anemia.

4. 7.05D refers to the most serious type of beta thalassemia major in which the bone marrow cannot produce sufficient numbers of normal RBCs to maintain life. The only available treatments for beta thalassemia major are life-long RBC transfusions (sometimes called hypertransfusion) or bone marrow transplantation. For purposes of 7.05D, we do not consider prophylactic RBC transfusions to prevent strokes or other complications in sickle cell disease and its variants to be of equal significance to life-saving RBC transfusions for beta thalassemia major. However, we will consider the functional limitations associated with prophylactic RBC transfusions and any associated side effects (for example, iron overload) under 7.18 and any affected body system(s). We will also evaluate strokes and resulting complications under 11.00 and 12.00.

D. What are disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis, and how do we evaluate them under 7.08?

1. Disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis include both clotting and bleeding disorders, and may be congenital or acquired. These disorders are characterized by abnormalities in blood clotting that result in hypercoagulation (excessive blood clotting) or hypocoagulation (inadequate blood clotting). The diagnosis of a thrombosis or hemostasis disorder is based on evaluation of plasma clotting-factor proteins (factors) and platelets. Protein C or protein S deficiency and Factor V Leiden are examples of hypercoagulation disorders. Hemophilia, von Willebrand disease, and thrombocytopenia are examples of hypocoagulation disorders. Acquired excessive blood clotting may result from blood protein defects and acquired inadequate blood clotting (for example, acquired hemophilia A) may be associated with inhibitor autoantibodies.

2. The hospitalizations in 7.08 do not all have to be for the same complication of a disorder of thrombosis and hemostasis. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications that may result in hospitalization include anemias, thromboses, embolisms, and uncontrolled bleeding requiring multiple factor concentrate infusions or platelet transfusions. We will also consider any surgery that you have, even if it is not related to your hematological disorder, to be a complication of your disorder of thrombosis and hemostasis if you require treatment with clotting-factor proteins (for example, factor VIII or factor IX) or anticoagulant medication to control bleeding or coagulation in connection with your surgery. We will count the hours you receive emergency treatment in a comprehensive hemophilia treatment center immediately before the hospitalization if this treatment is comparable to the treatment provided in a hospital emergency department.

E. What are disorders of bone marrow failure, and how do we evaluate them under 7.10?

1. Disorders of bone marrow failure may be congenital or acquired, characterized by bone marrow that does not make enough healthy RBCs, platelets, or granulocytes (specialized types of white blood cells); there may also be a combined failure of these bone marrow-produced cells. The diagnosis is based on peripheral blood smears and bone marrow aspiration or bone marrow biopsy, but not peripheral blood smears alone. Examples of these disorders are myelodysplastic syndromes, aplastic anemia, granulocytopenia, and myelofibrosis. Acquired disorders of bone marrow failure may result from viral infections, chemical exposure, or immunologic disorders.

2. The hospitalizations in 7.10A do not all have to be for the same complication of bone marrow failure. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications that may result in hospitalization include uncontrolled bleeding, anemia, and systemic bacterial, viral, or fungal infections.

3. For 7.10B, the requirement of life-long RBC transfusions to maintain life in myelodysplastic syndromes or aplastic anemias has the same meaning as it does for beta thalassemia major. (See 7.00C4.)

F. How do we evaluate bone marrow or stem cell transplantation under 7.17?

We will consider you to be disabled for 12 months from the date of bone marrow or stem cell transplantation, or we may consider you to be disabled for a longer period if you are experiencing any serious post-transplantation complications, such as graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, frequent infections after immunosuppressive therapy, or significant deterioration of organ systems. We do not restrict our determination of the onset of disability to the date of the transplantation in 7.17. We may establish an earlier onset date of disability due to your transplantation if evidence in your case record supports such a finding.

G. How do we use the functional criteria in 7.18?

1. When we use the functional criteria in 7.18, we consider all relevant information in your case record to determine the impact of your hematological disorder on your ability to function independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis in a work setting. Factors we will consider when we evaluate your functioning under 7.18 include, but are not limited to: Your symptoms, the frequency and duration of complications of your hematological disorder, periods of exacerbation and remission, and the functional impact of your treatment, including the side effects of your medication.

2. Repeated complications means that the complications occur on an average of three times a year, or once every 4 months, each lasting 2 weeks or more; or the complications do not last for 2 weeks but occur substantially more frequently than three times in a year or once every 4 months; or they occur less frequently than an average of three times a year or once every 4 months but last substantially longer than 2 weeks. Your impairment will satisfy this criterion regardless of whether you have the same kind of complication repeatedly, all different complications, or any other combination of complications; for example, two of the same kind of complication and a different one. You must have the required number of complications with the frequency and duration required in this section. Additionally, the complications must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review.

3. To satisfy the functional criteria in 7.18, your hematological disorder must result in a “marked” level of limitation in one of three general areas of functioning: Activities of daily living, social functioning, or difficulties in completing tasks due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace. Functional limitations may result from the impact of the disease process itself on your mental functioning, physical functioning, or both your mental and physical functioning. This limitation could result from persistent or intermittent symptoms, such as pain, severe fatigue, or malaise, resulting in a limitation of your ability to do a task, to concentrate, to persevere at a task, or to perform the task at an acceptable rate of speed. (Severe fatigue means a frequent sense of exhaustion that results in significant reduced physical activity or mental function. Malaise means frequent feelings of illness, bodily discomfort, or lack of well-being that result in significantly reduced physical activity or mental function.) You may also have limitations because of your treatment and its side effects.

4. Marked limitation means that the symptoms and signs of your hematological disorder interfere seriously with your ability to function. Although we do not require the use of such a scale, “marked” would be the fourth point on a five-point scale consisting of no limitation, mild limitation, moderate limitation, marked limitation, and extreme limitation. We do not define “marked” by a specific number of different activities of daily living or different behaviors in which your social functioning is impaired, or a specific number of tasks that you are able to complete, but by the nature and overall degree of interference with your functioning. You may have a marked limitation when several activities or functions are impaired, or even when only one is impaired. Additionally, you need not be totally precluded from performing an activity to have a marked limitation, as long as the degree of limitation interferes seriously with your ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively. The term “marked” does not imply that you must be confined to bed, hospitalized, or in a nursing home.

5. Activities of daily living include, but are not limited to, such activities as doing household chores, grooming and hygiene, using a post office, taking public transportation, or paying bills. We will find that you have a “marked” limitation in activities of daily living if you have a serious limitation in your ability to maintain a household or take public transportation because of symptoms such as pain, severe fatigue, anxiety, or difficulty concentrating, caused by your hematological disorder (including complications of the disorder) or its treatment, even if you are able to perform some self-care activities.

6. Social functioning includes the capacity to interact with others independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis. It includes the ability to communicate effectively with others. We will find that you have a “marked” limitation in maintaining social functioning if you have a serious limitation in social interaction on a sustained basis because of symptoms such as pain, severe fatigue, anxiety, or difficulty concentrating, or a pattern of exacerbation and remission, caused by your hematological disorder (including complications of the disorder) or its treatment, even if you are able to communicate with close friends or relatives.

7. Completing tasks in a timely manner involves the ability to sustain concentration, persistence, or pace to permit timely completion of tasks commonly found in work settings. We will find that you have a “marked” limitation in completing tasks if you have a serious limitation in your ability to sustain concentration or pace adequate to complete work-related tasks because of symptoms, such as pain, severe fatigue, anxiety, or difficulty concentrating caused by your hematological disorder (including complications of the disorder) or its treatment, even if you are able to do some routine activities of daily living.

H. How do we consider your symptoms, including your pain, severe fatigue, and malaise?

Your symptoms, including pain, severe fatigue, and malaise, may be important factors in our determination whether your hematological disorder(s) meets or medically equals a listing, or in our determination whether you are otherwise able to work. We cannot consider your symptoms unless you have medical signs or laboratory findings showing the existence of a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms. If you have such an impairment(s), we will evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional effects of your symptoms using the rules throughout 7.00 and in our other regulations. (See sections 404.1528, 404.1529, 416.928, and 416.929 of this chapter.) Additionally, when we assess the credibility of your complaints about your symptoms and their functional effects, we will not draw any inferences from the fact that you do not receive treatment or that you are not following treatment without considering all of the relevant evidence in your case record, including any explanations you provide that may explain why you are not receiving or following treatment.

I. How do we evaluate episodic events in hematological disorders?

Some of the listings in this body system require a specific number of events within a consecutive 12-month period. (See 7.05, 7.08, and 7.10A.) When we use such criteria, a consecutive 12-month period means a period of 12 consecutive months, all or part of which must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review. These events must occur at least 30 days apart to ensure that we are evaluating separate events.

J. How do we evaluate hematological disorders that do not meet one of these listings?

1. These listings are only common examples of hematological disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity. If your disorder does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must consider whether you have a disorder that satisfies the criteria of a listing in another body system. For example, we will evaluate hemophilic joint deformity or bone or joint pain from myelofibrosis under 1.00; polycythemia vera under 3.00, 4.00, or 11.00; chronic iron overload resulting from repeated RBC transfusion (transfusion hemosiderosis) under 3.00, 4.00, or 5.00; and the effects of intracranial bleeding or stroke under 11.00 or 12.00.

2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. (See sections 404.1526 and 416.926 of this chapter.) Hematological disorders may be associated with disorders in other body systems, and we consider the combined effects of multiple impairments when we determine whether they medically equal a listing. If your impairment(s) does not medically equal a listing, you may or may not have the residual functional capacity to engage in substantial gainful activity. We proceed to the fourth, and, if necessary, the fifth steps of the sequential evaluation process in sections 404.1520 and 416.920. We use the rules in sections 404.1594, 416.994, and 416.994a of this chapter, as appropriate, when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.

7.01 Category of Impairments, Hematological Disorders

7.05 Hemolytic anemias, including sickle cell disease, thalassemia, and their variants (see 7.00C), with:

A. Documented painful (vaso-occlusive) crises requiring parenteral (intravenous or intramuscular) narcotic medication, occurring at least six times within a 12-month period with at least 30 days between crises.

OR

B. Complications of hemolytic anemia requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department or comprehensive sickle cell disease center immediately before the hospitalization (see 7.00C2).

OR

C. Hemoglobin measurements of 7.0 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or less, occurring at least three times within a 12-month period with at least 30 days between measurements.

OR

D. Beta thalassemia major requiring life-long RBC transfusions at least once every 6 weeks to maintain life (see 7.00C4).

7.08 Disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis, including hemophilia and thrombocytopenia (see 7.00D), with complications requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department or comprehensive hemophilia treatment center immediately before the hospitalization (see 7.00D2).

7.10 Disorders of bone marrow failure, including myelodysplastic syndromes, aplastic anemia, granulocytopenia, and myelofibrosis (see 7.00E), with:

A. Complications of bone marrow failure requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization (see 7.00E2).

OR

B. Myelodysplastic syndromes or aplastic anemias requiring life-long RBC transfusions at least once every 6 weeks to maintain life (see 7.00E3).

7.17 Hematological disorders treated by bone marrow or stem cell transplantation (see 7.00F). Consider under a disability for at least 12 consecutive months from the date of transplantation. After that, evaluate any residual impairment(s) under the criteria for the affected body system.

7.18 Repeated complications of hematological disorders (see 7.00G2), including those complications listed in 7.05, 7.08, and 7.10 but without the requisite findings for those listings, or other complications (for example, anemia, osteonecrosis, retinopathy, skin ulcers, silent central nervous system infarction, cognitive or other mental limitation, or limitation of joint movement), resulting in significant, documented symptoms or signs (for example, pain, severe fatigue, malaise, fever, night sweats, headaches, joint or muscle swelling, or shortness of breath), and one of the following at the marked level (see 7.00G4):

A. Limitation of activities of daily living (see 7.00G5).

B. Limitation in maintaining social functioning (see 7.00G6).

C. Limitation in completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 7.00G7).

13.00 MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASES K. How do we evaluate specific malignant neoplastic diseases?

2. Leukemia.

c. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

ii. We evaluate the complications and residual impairment(s) from chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) under the appropriate listings, such as 13.05A2 or an appropriate listing in 7.00.

3. Macroglobulinemia or heavy chain disease. * * * We evaluate the resulting impairment(s) under the criteria of 7.00 or any other affected body system.

Part B 107.00 HEMATOLOGICAL DISORDERS A. What hematological disorders do we evaluate under these listings?

1. We evaluate non-malignant (non-cancerous) hematological disorders, such as hemolytic anemias (107.05), disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis (107.08), and disorders of bone marrow failure (107.10). These disorders disrupt the normal development and function of white blood cells, red blood cells, platelets, and clotting-factor proteins (factors).

2. We evaluate malignant (cancerous) hematological disorders, such as lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma under the appropriate listings in 113.00, except for lymphoma associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, which we evaluate under 114.08E.

B. What evidence do we need to document that you have a hematological disorder?

We need the following evidence to document that you have a hematological disorder:

1. A laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder, signed by a physician; or

2. A laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder that is not signed by a physician and a report from a physician that states you have the disorder; or

3. When we do not have a laboratory report of a definitive test, a persuasive report from a physician that a diagnosis of your hematological disorder was confirmed by appropriate laboratory analysis or other diagnostic method(s). To be persuasive, this report must state that you had the appropriate definitive laboratory test or tests for diagnosing your disorder and provide the results, or explain how your diagnosis was established by other diagnostic method(s) consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.

4. We will make every reasonable effort to obtain the results of appropriate laboratory testing you have had. We will not purchase complex, costly, or invasive tests, such as tests of clotting-factor proteins, and bone marrow aspirations.

C. What are hemolytic anemias, and how do we evaluate them under 107.05?

1. Hemolytic anemias, both congenital and acquired, are disorders that result in premature destruction of red blood cells (RBCs). Hemolytic anemias include abnormalities of hemoglobin structure (hemoglobinopathies), abnormal RBC enzyme content and function, and RBC membrane (envelope) defects that are congenital or acquired. The diagnosis of hemolytic anemia is based on hemoglobin electrophoresis or analysis of the contents of the RBC (enzymes) and membrane. Examples of congenital hemolytic anemias include sickle cell disease, thalassemia, and their variants, and hereditary spherocytosis. Acquired hemolytic anemias may result from autoimmune disease (for example, systemic lupus erythematosus) or mechanical devices (for example, heart valves, intravascular patches).

2. The hospitalizations in 107.05B do not all have to be for the same complication of the hemolytic anemia. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications of hemolytic anemia that may result in hospitalization include dactylitis, osteomyelitis, painful (vaso-occlusive) crisis, pulmonary infections or infarctions, acute chest syndrome, pulmonary hypertension, chronic heart failure, gallbladder disease, hepatic (liver) failure, renal (kidney) failure, nephrotic syndrome, aplastic crisis, and strokes. We will count the hours you receive emergency treatment in a comprehensive sickle cell disease center immediately before the hospitalization if this treatment is comparable to the treatment provided in a hospital emergency department.

3. For 107.05C, we do not require hemoglobin to be measured during a period in which you are free of pain or other symptoms of your disorder. We will accept hemoglobin measurements made while you are experiencing complications of your hemolytic anemia.

4. 107.05D refers to the most serious type of beta thalassemia major in which the bone marrow cannot produce sufficient numbers of normal RBCs to maintain life. The only available treatments for beta thalassemia major are life-long RBC transfusions (sometimes called hypertransfusion) or bone marrow transplantation. For purposes of 107.05D, we do not consider prophylactic RBC transfusions to prevent strokes or other complications in sickle cell disease and its variants to be of equal significance to life-saving RBC transfusions for beta thalassemia major. However, we will consider the functional limitations associated with prophylactic RBC transfusions and any associated side effects (for example, iron overload) under functional equivalence and any affected body system(s). We will also evaluate strokes and resulting complications under 111.00 and 112.00.

D. What are disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis, and how do we evaluate them under 107.08?

1. Disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis include both clotting and bleeding disorders, and may be congenital or acquired. These disorders are characterized by abnormalities in blood clotting that result in hypercoagulation (excessive blood clotting) or hypocoagulation (inadequate blood clotting). The diagnosis of a thrombosis or hemostasis disorder is based on evaluation of plasma clotting-factor proteins (factors) and platelets. Protein C or protein S deficiency and Factor V Leiden are examples of hypercoagulation disorders. Hemophilia, von Willebrand disease, and thrombocytopenia are examples of hypocoagulation disorders. Acquired excessive blood clotting may result from blood protein defects and acquired inadequate blood clotting (for example, acquired hemophilia A) may be associated with inhibitor autoantibodies.

2. The hospitalizations in 107.08 do not all have to be for the same complication of a disorder of thrombosis and hemostasis. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications that may result in hospitalization include anemias, thromboses, embolisms, and uncontrolled bleeding requiring multiple factor concentrate infusions or platelet transfusions. We will also consider any surgery that you have, even if it is not related to your hematological disorder, to be a complication of your disorder of thrombosis and hemostasis if you require treatment with clotting-factor proteins (for example, factor VIII or IX) or anticoagulant medication to control bleeding or coagulation in connection with your surgery. We will count the hours you receive emergency treatment in a comprehensive hemophilia treatment center immediately before the hospitalization if this treatment is comparable to the treatment provided in a hospital emergency department.

E. What are disorders of bone marrow failure, and how do we evaluate them under 107.10?

1. Disorders of bone marrow failure may be congenital or acquired, characterized by bone marrow that does not make enough healthy RBCs, platelets, or granulocytes (specialized types of white blood cells); there may also be a combined failure of these bone marrow-producing cells. The diagnosis is based on peripheral blood smears and bone marrow aspiration or bone marrow biopsy, but not peripheral blood smears alone. Examples of these disorders are myelodysplastic syndromes, aplastic anemia, granulocytopenia, and myelofibrosis. Acquired disorders of bone marrow failure may result from viral infections, chemical exposure, or immunologic disorders.

2. The hospitalizations in 107.10A do not all have to be for the same complication of bone marrow failure. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications that may result in hospitalization include uncontrolled bleeding, anemia, and systemic bacterial, viral, or fungal infections.

3. For 107.10B, the requirement of life-long RBC transfusions to maintain life in myelodysplastic syndromes or aplastic anemias has the same meaning as it does for beta thalassemia major. (See 107.00C4.)

F. How do we evaluate bone marrow or stem cell transplantation under 107.17?

We will consider you to be disabled for 12 months from the date of bone marrow or stem cell transplantation, or we may consider you to be disabled for a longer period if you are experiencing any serious post-transplantation complications, such as graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, frequent infections after immunosuppressive therapy, or significant deterioration of organ systems. We do not restrict our determination of the onset of disability to the date of the transplantation in 107.17. We may establish an earlier onset of disability due to your transplantation if evidence in your case record supports such a finding.

G. How do we consider your symptoms, including your pain, severe fatigue, and malaise?

Your symptoms, including pain, severe fatigue, and malaise, may be important factors in our determination whether your hematological disorder meets or medically equals a listing, or in our determination whether you otherwise have marked and severe functional limitations. We cannot consider your symptoms unless you have medical signs or laboratory findings showing the existence of a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms. If you have such an impairment(s), we will evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional effects of your symptoms using the rules throughout 107.00 and in our other regulations. (See sections 416.928 and 416.929 of this chapter.) Additionally, when we assess the credibility of your complaints about your symptoms and their functional effects, we will not draw any inferences from the fact that you do not receive treatment or that you are not following treatment without considering all of the relevant evidence in your case record, including any explanations you provide on why you are not receiving or following treatment.

H. How do we evaluate episodic events in hematological disorders?

Some of the listings in this body system require a specific number of events within a consecutive 12-month period. (See 107.05, 107.08, and 107.10A.) When we use such criteria, a consecutive 12-month period means a period of 12 consecutive months, all or part of which must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review. These events must occur at least 30 days apart to ensure that we are evaluating separate events.

I. How do we evaluate hematological disorders that do not meet one of these listings?

1. These listings are only common examples of hematological disorders that we consider severe enough to result in marked and severe functional limitations. If your disorder does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must consider whether you have a disorder that satisfies the criteria of a listing in another body system. For example, we will evaluate hemophilic joint deformity under 101.00; polycythemia vera under 103.00, 104.00, or 111.00; chronic iron overload resulting from repeated RBC transfusion (transfusion hemosiderosis) under 103.00, 104.00, or 105.00; and the effects of intracranial bleeding or stroke under 111.00 or 112.00.

2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. (See section 416.926 of this chapter.) Hematological disorders may be associated with disorders in other body systems, and we consider the combined effects of multiple impairments when we determine whether they medically equal a listing. If your impairment(s) does not medically equal a listing, we will also consider whether it functionally equals the listings. (See section 416.926a of this chapter.) We use the rules in § 416.994a of this chapter when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.

107.01 Category of Impairments, Hematological Disorders

107.05 Hemolytic anemias, including sickle cell disease, thalassemia, and their variants (see 107.00C), with:

A. Documented painful (vaso-occlusive) crises requiring parenteral (intravenous or intramuscular) narcotic medication, occurring at least six times within a 12-month period with at least 30 days between crises.

OR

B. Complications of hemolytic anemia requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department or comprehensive sickle cell disease center immediately before the hospitalization (see 107.00C2).

OR

C. Hemoglobin measurements of 7.0 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or less, occurring at least three times within a 12-month period with at least 30 days between measurements.

OR

D. Beta thalassemia major requiring life-long RBC transfusions at least once every 6 weeks to maintain life (see 107.00C4).

107.08 Disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis, including hemophilia and thrombocytopenia (see 107.00D), with complications requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department or comprehensive hemophilia treatment center immediately before the hospitalization (see 107.00D2).

107.10 Disorders of bone marrow failure, including myelodysplastic syndromes, aplastic anemia, granulocytopenia, and myelofibrosis (see 107.00E), with:

A. Complications of bone marrow failure requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization (see 107.00E2).

OR

B. Myelodysplastic syndromes or aplastic anemias requiring life-long RBC transfusions at least once every 6 weeks to maintain life (see 107.00E3).

107.17 Hematological disorders treated by bone marrow or stem cell transplantation (see 107.00F). Consider under a disability for at least 12 consecutive months from the date of transplantation. After that, evaluate any residual impairment(s) under the criteria for the affected body system.

[FR Doc. 2015-08849 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9674] RIN 1545-BM07 Guidelines for the Streamlined Process of Applying for Recognition of Section 501(c)(3) Status; Correction AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document contains a correction to final and temporary regulations (TD 9674) that were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37630). The final and temporary regulations provide guidance to eligible organizations seeking recognition of tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

DATES:

This correction is effective April 17, 2015 and applicable July 2, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James R. Martin and Robin Ehrenberg, at (202) 317-5800 (not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final and temporary regulations (TD 9674) that are the subject of this correction are under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, the final and temporary regulation (TD 9674) contains an error and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

In FR Doc. 2014-15623 appearing on page 37630 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, July 2, 2014, the following correction is made:

§ 1.508-1T [Corrected]

On page 37632, the amendatory instruction reading “Par. 7. Section 1.508-1T is revised to read as follows: ” is corrected to read “Par. 7. Section 1.508-1T is added to read as follows:”.

Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2015-08856 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0867; FRL-9926-41-Region-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama: Non-Interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham Area AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State of Alabama's November 14, 2014, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), in support of the State's request that EPA change the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements for Jefferson and Shelby Counties (hereinafter referred to as the “Birmingham Area” or “Area”). Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision evaluates whether changing the Federal RVP requirements in this Area would interfere with the Area's ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Specifically, Alabama's SIP revision concludes that relaxing the Federal RVP requirement from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year in the Area would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or with any other CAA requirement. EPA has determined that Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision is consistent with the CAA.

DATES:

This rule will be effective April 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0867. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Wong of the Air Regulatory Management Section, in the 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. Mr. Wong may be reached by phone at (404) 562-8726 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What is the background for this final action?

The Birmingham Area was originally designated as a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). A 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirement was first applied to the Area during the high ozone season given its status as a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard. Subsequently, in order to comply with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, Alabama opted to implement a state RVP requirement of 7.0 psi for gasoline sold in the Birmingham Area during the high ozone season. EPA incorporated the state RVP requirement of 7.0 psi for gasoline sold in the Birmingham Area into the Alabama SIP on November 7, 2001. See 66 FR 56218. The Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone on March 12, 2004, based on 2001-2003 ambient air quality monitoring data. See 69 FR 11798. Alabama's 1-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request to remove the 7.0 psi state RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area from the SIP nor a request to relax the 7.8 psi Federal RVP standard.

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on July 18, 1997, as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. The Birmingham Area was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.087 parts per million (ppm). The Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final rulemaking on May 12, 2006. See 71 FR 27631. Alabama's 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request for the removal of the 7.8 psi Federal RVP standard, nor did it include a request to change the 7.0 psi state RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area. However, to support its request for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Alabama took a conservative approach and estimated emissions using a 9.0 psi RVP in its modeling supporting the State's maintenance demonstration.

On March 2, 2012, Alabama submitted a SIP revision requesting that EPA remove the State's 7.0 psi RVP requirement for the Area from the SIP. EPA approved Alabama's March 2, 2012, SIP revision on April 20, 2012. See 77 FR 23619. In EPA's final rulemaking to remove the State RVP requirement, EPA noted that the action did not remove the 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area. Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated the Birmingham Area as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088 (April 30, 2012). Although the Birmingham Area is designated as attainment, the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement remains in place.

Alabama is now requesting that EPA remove the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area, and it submitted a SIP revision on November 14, 2014, containing a noninterference demonstration to support its request.

II. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?

On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c) of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high ozone season).

The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658). A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be found at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) as well as on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.

As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years after redesignation. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard.

As noted above, Alabama did not request relaxation of the applicable 7.8 psi federal RVP standard when the Birmingham Area was redesignated to attainment for the either the 1-hour or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS but did take a conservative approach in estimating emissions for the maintenance plan associated with its redesignation request for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by using a level of 9.0 psi.

III. What are the Section 110(l) requirements?

To support Alabama's request to relax the federal RVP requirement in the Birmingham Area, the State must demonstrate that the requested change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision is whether the noninterference demonstration associated with the relaxation request satisfies section 110(l). Although the modeling associated with Alabama's maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and are premised upon the 9.0 psi RVP requirements, no requests for a change in the federal RVP requirement were made at the time that EPA approved these plans.1 EPA's approval of the maintenance plans was based on an evaluation of the air quality monitoring data at the time of the EPA actions, the information provided in the individual maintenance plans, and the maintenance plan requirements in the CAA.

1 The State used a planning factor of 7.8 psi in its maintenance plan associated with the redesignation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In the February 13, 2015, proposed rulemaking action, EPA incorrectly stated that the modeling associated with that maintenance plan was premised on a 9.0 psi RVP requirement. Alabama's use of a 7.8 psi planning factor in the aforementioned maintenance plan does not affect EPA's analysis of the State's November 14, 2014 noninterference demonstration because the demonstration does not rely on that maintenance plan or the modeling associated with that maintenance plan.

EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the SIP revision. The State's SIP submission included a noninterference demonstration evaluating the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards and on the maintenance of the other NAAQS. ADEM's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's 2010b Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emission modeling system to estimate the potential impacts to the NAAQS that might result from changing the high ozone season RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. The modeling results predicted minor increases in VOC and NOX emissions from RVP relaxation and larger decreases in emissions resulting from fleet turnover. The modeling also predicted continual decreases in VOC and NOX emissions from mobile sources for years 2015 through 2024 using 9.0 psi RVP fuel and the fleet turnover assumptions contained in EPA's 2010b MOVES model. Therefore, the state's modeling analysis demonstrated that a change in the summertime RVP limit to 9.0 psi would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone, PM or NO2 NAAQS. EPA presented a detailed analysis of the State's noninterference demonstration in Section V of the proposed rulemaking notice. See 80 FR 8018, 8020-23 (February 13, 2015).

EPA notes that this action only approves the State's technical demonstration that the Area can attain and maintain the NAAQS and meet other CAA requirements after switching to the sale of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi in the Birmingham Area during the high ozone season and amends the SIP to include this demonstration. Consistent with CAA section 211(h) and the Phase II volatility regulations, EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking to relax the current federal requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Birmingham Area.

IV. What is EPA's response to comments?

EPA received two sets of comments on its February 13, 2015, proposed rulemaking action. Specifically, EPA received comments from Sierra Club and from one member of the general public (these commenters are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Commenter”). Full sets of these comments are provided in the docket for this final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The Commenter does not believe that the Deputy Regional Administrator was authorized to sign the proposed approval of Alabama's SIP submission because, according to the Commenter, only the Regional Administrator is authorized under EPA's delegations manual to sign regional SIP actions.

Response 1: The Commenter is incorrect. Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA Administrator is tasked with acting on SIP submittals by approving or disapproving the submittal in whole or in part. This authority may be delegated to other EPA officials. It is the EPA's policy that, in order for other Agency management officials to act on behalf of the Administrator, the authority must be delegated officially. These official delegations are recorded in the “EPA Delegations Manual.” Under EPA Delegation 1-21. Federal Register (1200 TN 543, 4/22/2002), the EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to sign and submit proposed actions on SIPs for publication in the Federal Register to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation and to Regional Administrators. Section 2.d. This delegation allows for this authority to be redelegated to the Deputies of the authorized officials. Section 4.a. Based on the authority to redelegate provided in Delegation 1-21, EPA Region 4 redelegated the authority to sign and submit proposed actions on SIPs for publication in the Federal Register to the Deputy Regional Administrator. See EPA Region 4 Delegation 1-21. Therefore, an appropriate EPA official, the Region 4 Deputy Regional Administrator, signed and submitted the proposal to approve Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP submission. EPA notes that an earlier delegation, Delegation 7-10. Approval/Disapproval of State Implementation Plans (1200 TN 441, 5/6/97), did not allow redelegation of the authority to act on proposed SIP actions beyond the Regional Administrator. Because Delegation 1-21 post-dates Delegation 7-10 and specifically addresses the authority at issue, it is the applicable delegation for EPA's February 13, 2015, proposed rulemaking action. Delegation 1-21 does not change the limitation on redelegation beyond the Regional Administrator found in Delegation 7-10 for final actions on SIPs.

Comment 2: The Commenter “would not approve of the noninterference demonstration submitted by the SIP because there has been insufficient evidence to show that the pollution levels will continue to decrease for the next ten years.” The Commenter acknowledges that the “data shows that there has been a downtrend in the amount of pollution,” but believes that the data collected by the State was “based on RVP numbers when the requirements for RVP was to keep it under 7.8 RVP” and that “there is nothing to say that this downtrend isn't the result of the requirement itself.” According to the Commenter, EPA should require evidence that the downtrend will continue despite the “raised requirements for RVP.”

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. The criterion for determining the approvability of Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision is whether the noninterference demonstration satisfies section 110(l). Under this section of the CAA, EPA can approve a SIP relaxation if the State demonstrates that any increases allowed by the revision would not be enough to interfere with NAAQS attainment or maintenance. There is no prescriptive CAA requirement that each noninterference analysis demonstrate that pollution levels will decrease for ten years following the relaxation of a SIP requirement.

In its demonstration, Alabama used EPA's mobile source modeling software to estimate the change in mobile source emissions resulting from a switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel and to estimate total mobile source emissions over the next ten years using 9.0 psi RVP fuel. Alabama's modeling projects that mobile source emissions will continue to decrease in the Area through 2024 with the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel and that the minor increases in VOC and NOX emissions from RVP relaxation are outweighed by larger decreases in emissions resulting from fleet turnover.2 The ozone and PM design values presented in Tables 4 and 5 of the proposed rulemaking notice are far enough below the NAAQS that the minor increase in mobile source emissions associated with the RVP relaxation, ignoring reductions from fleet turnover, would not interfere with maintenance of these standards. EPA acknowledges that the downtrend in these design values was observed while 7.8 psi RVP fuel was used in the Area; however, the State's modeling predicts that this downtrend will continue with the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel.

2 Alabama estimated that relaxing the RVP standard would increase NOX and VOC emissions by 24 tpy and 80 tpy, respectively, and that fleet turnover will reduce NOX and VOC emissions by 489 tpy and 156 tpy, respectively, in the Area for 2015. See 80 FR 8021.

Comment 3: The Commenter believes that approving the State's noninterference demonstration would be “contradictory to the purpose of the CAA;” that “we should be taking steps toward limiting gasoline consumption and RVP levels, not steps backwards;” and that “unless dire need is shown to raise the levels, as has not been shown here, we should not allow an increase in pollution by a State.”

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. The Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act, and as discussed above, section 110(l) governs EPA's evaluation of Alabama's noninterference demonstration.3 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). The test for approvability under section 110(l) is not “dire need,” it is whether any emissions increases resulting from the proposed SIP relaxation would be enough to interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. EPA is therefore approving the nonattainment demonstration pursuant to section 110(l) because it has concluded that the switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS for the reasons discussed in Response 2 and in Section V of the proposed rulemaking notice.

3 EPA also notes that the requested change from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi is within the federal approved RVP limit for ozone attainment areas. See 40 CFR 80.27; CAA section 211(h)(2) (prohibiting EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an ozone attainment area that was not redesignated from nonattainment).

V. Final Action

EPA is taking final action to approve the State of Alabama's noninterference demonstration, submitted on November 14, 2014, in support of the State's request that EPA change the Federal RVP requirements for the Birmingham Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is approving that this change in the RVP requirements for the Birmingham Area will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

EPA has determined that Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision, containing the noninterference demonstration associated with the State's request for the change of the Federal RVP requirements is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA. EPA is not approving action today to remove the Birmingham Area from the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement. Any such action will occur in a separate and subsequent rulemaking.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good cause for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary because this action approves a noninterference demonstration that will serve as the basis of a subsequent action to relieve the Area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rule will serve as a basis for a subsequent action to relieve the Area from certain CAA requirements. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal 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 propose to 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, October 7, 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 16, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: April 7, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR parts 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart B—Alabama 2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding a new entry for “Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham Area” at the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.50 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham Area Jefferson and Shelby Counties 11/14/2014 4/17/2015 [Insert citation of publication].
[FR Doc. 2015-08884 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0294; FRL-9926-29-Region-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; CO Monitoring AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to Indiana's monitoring requirements as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision was submitted by Indiana to EPA on January 22, 2014. Once approved, the SIP would authorize emission units that combust sewage sludge to continuously monitor carbon monoxide emissions, consistent with Federal requirements.

DATES:

This direct final rule will be effective June 16, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 18, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0294, by one of the following methods:

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

2. Email: [email protected]

3. Fax: (312) 692-2490.

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0294. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action? II. What is EPA's analysis? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action?

On January 22, 2014, Indiana submitted a request to EPA to revise Title 326 of the Indiana Administration Code (IAC) Article 3—Monitoring Requirements, Rule 5—Continuous Monitoring of Emissions, Section 1—Applicability; Continuous Monitoring Requirements for Applicable Pollutants.

In the current SIP, 326 IAC 3-5-1(b)(6), requires sewage sludge combustion units to continuously monitor total hydrocarbons, oxygen, moisture, and temperature. The SIP revision provides the sewage sludge combustion units the option to monitor carbon monoxide emissions as an alternate to monitoring total hydrocarbons. In doing so, sources must also comply with a 100 parts-per-million (ppm) total carbon monoxide limit. The continuous carbon monoxide monitoring requirements are specified at 326 IAC 3-5-1(b)(6)(A)(i) and (ii).

The SIP revision is consistent with 40 CFR 503.40, the Federal Standards for the Incineration of Sewage Sludge. This Federal regulation, promulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act, authorizes sewage sludge combustion sources to continuously monitor carbon monoxide as an alternative to continuously monitoring total hydrocarbons emissions. The regulation requires that the carbon monoxide monitoring be corrected for zero percent moisture and to seven percent oxygen.

II. What is EPA's analysis?

In its approval of 40 CFR 503.40, EPA determined that sewage sludge incinerators are expected to meet the 100 ppm total hydrocarbon monthly limit when the monthly average carbon monoxide concentration does not exceed 100 ppm. See 59 FR 9099 (February 25, 1994). The Federal rule requires that the continuous carbon monoxide monitor must be corrected for zero percent moisture and to seven percent oxygen. The revision to 326 IAC 3-5-1 is consistent with the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 503.40. EPA finds the requested revision to be approvable.

III. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is approving a revision to 326 IAC 3-5-1 into the Indiana SIP. The SIP revision would authorize emission units that combust sewage sludge to continuously monitor carbon monoxide emissions, consistent with Federal requirements.

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 16, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by May 18, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective June 16, 2015.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 16, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 2, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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.

2. In § 52.770, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for 3-5-1 under “Article 3. Monitoring Requirements”, “Rule 5. Continuous Monitoring of Emissions” to read as follows:
§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations Indiana citation Subject Indiana effective date EPA Approval date Notes *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 3. Monitoring Requirements *         *         *         *         *         *         * Rule 5. Continuous Monitoring of Emissions 3-5-1 Applicability; continuous monitoring requirements for applicable pollutants 1/15/2014 4/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
[FR Doc. 2015-08885 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0861; FRL-9925-81-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to revise certain provisions in the Arizona Regional Haze (RH) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that apply to the Nelson Lime Plant. In response to a request for reconsideration from the plant's owner, Lhoist North America of Arizona, Inc. (LNA), we are replacing the control technology demonstration requirements for emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) applicable to Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant with revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We are not revising any of the emission limits that apply to these units, including the existing NOX emission limits, which can be met with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) control technology. We also are taking final action to correct a misprint of the regulatory requirements in a table in the Arizona RH FIP that identifies the emission limits for NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) at each kiln.

DATES:

Effective date: This rule is effective May 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0861 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may not be specifically listed in the index to the docket and may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be available at either locations (e.g., confidential business information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

For the purpose of this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. We also are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

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

• The initials ADEM mean or refer to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

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

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

• The initials BACT mean or refer to Best Available Control Technology.

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

• The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.

• The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal area.1

1 Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas that they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to “mandatory Class I Federal areas.”

• The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business Information.

• The initials CEMS mean or refer to continuous emission monitoring system or systems.

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

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

• The initials LNA mean or refer to Lhoist North America of Arizona, Inc.

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

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

• The initials RH mean or refer to regional haze.

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

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

• The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic reduction.

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

Table of Contents I. Summary of Proposed Action II. Background on Petition for Reconsideration and Stay III. Public Comments IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of Proposed Action

EPA proposed on January 13, 2015, to revise certain Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements in the FIP related to reducing NOX emissions from Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant.2 As described in the proposal, the revision consists of several components, including the removal of the control technology demonstration requirements, the addition of revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and the correction of an error in a table.3 We proposed to find that these changes are reasonable and appropriate based on information from LNA regarding the effectiveness of using SNCR to control NOX emissions at another lime plant. The proposed rule addressing the Nelson Lime Plant did not change the emission limits, compliance deadlines, or the compliance determination methods established in the final rule for the Arizona RH FIP.

2 80 FR 1608. The notice of proposed rulemaking contains background information concerning the visibility requirements of the CAA, the RHR, and the Arizona RH FIP.

3Id.

II. Background on Petition for Reconsideration and Stay

LNA submitted a petition to EPA on October 31, 2014, seeking administrative reconsideration and a partial stay of the final rule under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).4 Specifically, LNA requested that EPA eliminate the control technology demonstration requirements (also known as “optimization requirements”) for the Nelson Lime Plant. In support of its petition, LNA provided additional data regarding the performance of SNCR control technology at lime kilns located at another LNA facility, the O'Neal Lime Plant in Calera, Alabama. In the petition, LNA also requested a stay of the provisions in the FIP applicable to the Nelson Lime Plant if EPA did not propose action on its petition prior to December 31, 2014.5 EPA sent a letter to LNA on November 20, 2014, granting reconsideration of the optimization requirements pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).6

4 Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden Bischoff & Hiser, to Regina McCarthy, EPA (October 31, 2014).

5 Because the proposal was signed prior to December 31, 2014, we consider LNA's request for a stay to be moot.

6 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Eric Hiser, Jorden Bischoff & Hiser (November 20, 2014).

III. Public Comments

In the proposed rule, EPA provided 45 days for the public to submit comments on the proposed revision to the Arizona RH FIP. During the public comment period, we received one set of comments from the Mississippi Lime Company (“Mississippi Lime”).7 The comments from Mississippi Lime focused on the requirement for LNA to install SNCR controls at the Nelson Lime Plant. The comments and our responses are summarized below.

7 Letter from Kimberly S. L. Bauman, Mississippi Lime Company, to Thomas Webb, EPA (February 27, 2015).

Comment: Mississippi Lime stated that SNCR technology has not been identified as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for lime kilns in EPA's control technology clearinghouse or as an applied emission control in publicly available documents for LNA's O'Neal facility. The commenter further noted that there is no discussion of SNCR at the O'Neal facility in publicly available documents such as operating permits, quarterly excess emission reports, or emission inventory reports issued by or submitted to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

Response: EPA does not dispute Mississippi Lime's assertion that publicly available information on SNCR technology for lime kilns may be limited. However, any such lack of information is irrelevant to this action. In particular, in a final rule published on September 3, 2014, EPA determined that SNCR is technically feasible and constitutes BART for Kilns 1 and 2 at Nelson Lime Plant.8 We have not proposed to reconsider or otherwise revise those determinations.

8See 79 FR 9318, 9337-9339 for proposed BART analysis and determination (February 18, 2014); 79 FR 52420, 52424 for final BART determination (September 3, 2014).

Comment: Mississippi Lime contended that LNA, according to public documents provided to Illinois EPA, has stated that its O'Neal facility in Calera, Alabama, is controlling lime kiln emissions to meet emission limits under a permit that relies on a proprietary SNCR technology that was patented by its predecessor, Chemical Lime Company.

Response: EPA does not dispute that the SNCR technology in use at the O'Neal facility may be proprietary. EPA relied on an analysis of the effectiveness of the SNCR technology to control emissions at the O'Neal facility to confirm that the emission limit we established for the Nelson Lime Plant is reasonable and appropriate. Based on the results of our analysis described in our proposal, we proposed and are now taking final action to replace a series of prescriptive control technology demonstration requirements with new recordkeeping and reporting requirements for LNA. The fact that the SNCR technology in use at the O'Neal facility may be proprietary has no bearing on the purpose or substance of our analysis.

Comment: Mississippi Lime asserted that SNCR technology on lime kilns is an unproven control strategy. Thus, the commenter had significant concerns that this technology and the corresponding FIP will be used inappropriately for the establishment of future BACT or BART determinations.

Response: As noted above, EPA has already determined that SNCR is a feasible control technology for Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant and has set emission limits that correspond to the use of SNCR in our final rule on the Arizona RH FIP.9 Because our proposal and this final action address only the optimization requirements, and are not related to previous determinations in the FIP, this comment on our proposal is not relevant.

9Id.

Comment: Mississippi Lime is concerned that if LNA's proposed SNCR system for the Nelson Lime Plant uses LNA's proprietary and patented technology, competitors like Mississippi Lime may also be required to use the patented technology in the future. The commenter alleged that LNA could interfere with a competitor's obligation to use SNCR by refusing to license its technology or by requiring exorbitant licensing fees. This would enable LNA to use its patent to gain a competitive advantage over the entire lime industry in the United States.

Response: While not the subject of this final rule, the Arizona RH FIP only requires LNA to meet a specified emission limit. LNA may use whatever technology it wants to achieve the required limit, including proprietary technology. If LNA were to refuse to license its proprietary technology or to charge exorbitant fees at some point in the future, then Mississippi Lime could argue in any future regulatory actions that the technology is not available or is not cost-effective.

IV. Final Action

We are taking final action to revise parts of the Arizona RH FIP that apply to the Nelson Lime Plant. In particular, we are removing the control technology demonstration requirements included in the FIP for Nelson Lime Plant and replacing those with less prescriptive recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For the revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, LNA must submit a summary of the SNCR design and of the SNCR process improvement activities. In addition, we are correcting a misprint in the Federal Register in a table that lists NOX and SO2 emission limits for the kilns at the Nelson Lime Plant. The table appears with the correct labels in the regulatory text that follows this final rule. This rule constitutes EPA's final action on LNA's petition for reconsideration of the Arizona RH FIP.

EPA also is making a final determination that the revisions in this final rule do not interfere with any applicable requirements of the CAA. CAA section 110(l) requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. These final revisions do not alter the amount or timing of the emission reductions from the Nelson Lime Plant.

V. 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 and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule applies to only one facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, footnote 1, a firm is small if it is in NAICS 327410 (lime manufacturing) and the concern and its affiliates have no more than 500 employees. LNA is affiliated with the LNA Group, which has more than 5,500 employees.10 Therefore, LNA is not a small business.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

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.

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on any 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that 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, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. EPA is not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical standards in this action.

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

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. These final revisions do not alter the amount or timing of the emission reductions from the Nelson Lime Plant.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 16, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2). In addition, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: April 10, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D—Arizona 2. Amend § 52.145 by: a. Revising paragraph (i); and b. Removing Appendix B to § 52.145—Lime Kiln Control Technology Demonstration Requirements.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 52.145 Visibility protection.

(i) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze at Nelson Lime Plant— (1) Applicability. This paragraph (i) applies to the owner/operator of the lime kilns designated as Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant located in Yavapai County, Arizona.

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

Ammonia injection shall include any of the following: Anhydrous ammonia, aqueous ammonia, or urea injection.

Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent record of NOX emissions, SO2 emissions, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate.

Kiln means either of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

Kiln 1 means lime kiln 1, as identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

Kiln 2 means lime kiln 2, as identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

Kiln operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which there is operation of Kiln 1, Kiln 2, or both kilns at any time.

Kiln operation means any period when any raw materials are fed into the Kiln or any period when any combustion is occurring or fuel is being fired in the Kiln.

Lime product means the product of the lime-kiln calcination process, including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite.

NO X means oxides of nitrogen.

Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls, or supervises a kiln identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

SO 2 means sulfur dioxide.

(3) Emission limitations. (i) The owner/operator of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section shall not emit or cause to be emitted pollutants in excess of the following limitations in pounds of pollutant per ton of lime product (lb/ton), from any kiln. Each emission limit shall be based on a 12-month rolling basis.

Pollutant Emission Limit Kiln ID NOX SO2 Kiln 1 3.80 9.32 Kiln 2 2.61 9.73

(ii) The owner/operator of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section shall not emit or cause to be emitted pollutants in excess of 3.27 tons of NOX per day and 10.10 tons of SO2 per day, combined from both kilns, based on a rolling 30-kiln-operating-day basis.

(4) Compliance dates. (i) The owner/operator of each kiln shall comply with the NOX emission limitations and other NOX -related requirements of this paragraph (i) no later than September 4, 2017.

(ii) The owner/operator of each kiln shall comply with the SO2 emission limitations and other SO2 -related requirements of this paragraph (i) no later than March 3, 2016.

(5) [Reserved]

(6) Compliance determination—(i) Continuous emission monitoring system. At all times after the compliance dates specified in paragraph (i)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of kilns 1 and 2 shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR 60.13 and 40 CFR part 60, appendices B and F, to accurately measure diluent, stack gas volumetric flow rate, and concentration by volume of NOX and SO2 emissions into the atmosphere from kilns 1 and 2. The CEMS shall be used by the owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission limitations in paragraph (i)(3) of this section, in combination with data on actual lime production. The owner/operator must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at all times that an affected kiln is operating, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).

(ii) Ammonia consumption monitoring. Upon and after the completion of installation of ammonia injection on a kiln, the owner or operator shall install, and thereafter maintain and operate, instrumentation to continuously monitor and record levels of ammonia consumption for that kiln.

(iii) Compliance determination for lb per ton NO X limit. Compliance with the NOX emission limits described in paragraph (i)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 12-month basis. The 12-month rolling NOX emission rate for each kiln shall be calculated within 30 days following the end of each calendar month in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted for the month just completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the total pounds of NOX emitted over the most recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step two, sum the total lime product, in tons, produced during the month just completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the total lime product produced over the most recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step three, divide the total amount of NOX calculated from Step one by the total lime product calculated from Step two to calculate the 12-month rolling NOX emission rate for that kiln. Each 12-month rolling NOX emission rate shall include all emissions and all lime product that occur during all periods within the 12-month period, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

(iv) Compliance determination for lb per ton SO 2 limit. Compliance with the SO2 emission limits described in paragraph (i)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 12-month basis. The 12-month rolling SO2 emission rate for each kiln shall be calculated within 30 days following the end of each calendar month in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly pounds of SO2 emitted for the month just completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the total pounds of SO2 emitted over the most recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step two, sum the total lime product, in tons, produced during the month just completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the total lime product produced over the most recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step three, divide the total amount of SO2 calculated from Step one by the total lime product calculated from Step two to calculate the 12-month rolling SO2 emission rate for that kiln. Each 12-month rolling SO2 emission rate shall include all emissions and all lime product that occur during all periods within the 12-month period, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

(v) Compliance determination for ton per day NO X limit. Compliance with the NOX emission limit described in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 30-kiln-operating-day basis. The rolling 30-kiln operating day NOX emission rate for the kilns shall be calculated for each kiln operating day in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted from both kilns for the current kiln operating day and the preceding twenty-nine (29) kiln-operating-day period for both kilns; Step two, divide the total pounds of NOX calculated from Step one by two thousand (2,000) to calculate the total tons of NOX; Step three, divide the total tons of NOX calculated from Step two by thirty (30) to calculate the rolling 30-kiln operating day NOX emission rate for both kilns. Each rolling 30-kiln operating day NOX emission rate shall include all emissions that occur from both kilns during all periods within any kiln operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

(vi) Compliance determination for ton per day SO 2 limit. Compliance with the SO2 emission limit described in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 30-kiln-operating-day basis. The rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate for the kilns shall be calculated for each kiln operating day in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly pounds of SO2 emitted from both kilns for the current kiln operating day and the preceding twenty-nine (29) kiln operating days, to calculate the total pounds of SO2 emitted over the most recent thirty (30) kiln operating day period for both kilns; Step two, divide the total pounds of SO2 calculated from Step one by two thousand (2,000) to calculate the total tons of SO2; Step three, divide the total tons of SO2 calculated from Step two by thirty (30) to calculate the rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate for both kilns. Each rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate shall include all emissions that occur from both kilns during all periods within any kiln operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

(7) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following records for at least five years:

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.

(ii) All records of lime production.

(iii) Monthly rolling 12-month emission rates of NOX and SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(iii) and (iv) of this section.

(iv) Daily rolling 30-kiln operating day emission rates of NOX and SO2 calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and (vi) of this section.

(v) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records specified by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1, as well as the following:

(A) The occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction, performance testing, evaluations, calibrations, checks, adjustments maintenance, duration of any periods during which a CEMS or COMS is inoperative, and corresponding emission measurements.

(B) Date, place, and time of measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance activity;

(C) Operating conditions at the time of measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance activity;

(D) Date, place, name of company or entity that performed the measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance activity and the methods used; and

(E) Results of the measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance.

(vi) Records of ammonia consumption, as recorded by the instrumentation required in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section.

(vii) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS, and lime production measurement devices.

(viii) All other records specified by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1.

(8) Reporting. All reports required under this section shall be submitted by the owner/operator to the Director, Enforcement Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, electronically via email to [email protected] Any data that are required under this section shall be submitted in Excel format. Reports required under paragraphs (i)(8)(iii) through (v) of this section shall be submitted within 30 days after the applicable compliance date(s) in paragraph (i)(4) of this section and at least semiannually thereafter, within 30 days after the end of a semiannual period. The owner/operator may submit reports more frequently than semiannually for the purposes of synchronizing reports required under this section with other reporting requirements, such as the title V monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), but at no point shall the duration of a semiannual period exceed six months.

(i) Prior to commencing construction of the ammonia injection system, the owner/operator shall submit to EPA a summary report of the design of the SNCR system. Elements of this summary report shall include: Reagent type, description of the locations selected for reagent injection, reagent injection rate (expressed as a molar ratio of reagent to NOX), equipment list, equipment arrangement, and a summary of kiln characteristics that were relied upon as the design basis for the SNCR system.

(ii) By October 3, 2017, the owner/operator shall submit to EPA a summary of any process improvement or debugging activities that were performed on the SNCR system. Elements of this summary report shall include: a description of each process adjustment performed on the SNCR system, a discussion of whether the adjustment affected NOX emission rate (including CEMS data that may have been recorded while the adjustment was in progress), a description of the range (if applicable) over which the adjustment was examined, and a discussion of how the adjustment will be reflected or accounted for in kiln operating practices. In addition, to the extent that the owner/operator evaluates the impact of varying reagent injection rate on NOX emissions, the owner/operator shall include the following information: the range of reagent injection rates evaluated (expressed as a molar ratio of reagent to average NOX concentration), reagent injection rate, average NOX concentration, lime production rate, kiln flue gas temperature, and the presence of any detached plumes from the kiln exhaust.

(iii) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the daily rolling 30-kiln operating day emission rates for NOX and SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(iii) and (iv) of this section.

(iv) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the monthly rolling 12-month emission rates for NOX and SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and (vi) of this section.

(v) The owner/operator shall submit excess emissions reports for NOX and SO2 limits. Excess emissions means emissions that exceed any of the emissions limits specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section. The reports shall include the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excess emissions; specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the kiln; the nature and cause of any malfunction (if known); and the corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted.

(vi) The owner/operator shall submit a summary of CEMS operation, to include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or adjustments.

(vii) The owner/operator shall submit results of all CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas Audits).

(viiii) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, the owner/operator shall state such information in the semiannual report.

(9) Notifications. All notifications required under this section shall be submitted by the owner/operator to the Director, Enforcement Division (Mail Code ENF-2-1), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.

(i) The owner/operator shall submit notification of commencement of construction of any equipment which is being constructed to comply with the NOX emission limits in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.

(ii) The owner/operator shall submit semiannual progress reports on construction of any such equipment.

(iii) The owner/operator shall submit notification of initial startup of any such equipment.

(10) Equipment operations. (i) At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner/operator shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate the kilns, including associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Pollution control equipment shall be designed and capable of operating properly to minimize emissions during all expected operating conditions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator, which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the kilns.

(ii) After completion of installation of ammonia injection on a kiln, the owner/operator shall inject sufficient ammonia to achieve compliance with the NOX emission limits from paragraph (i)(3) of this section for that kiln while preventing excessive ammonia emissions.

(11) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as to whether the kiln would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed can be used to establish whether or not the owner/operator has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable emission limit in the plan.

[FR Doc. 2015-08883 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0581; FRL-9926-52-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On June 28, 2010, the State of Idaho submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA finds that the Idaho SIP meets the CAA interstate transport requirements that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on May 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0581. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure of which 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that 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:

Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, [email protected], or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents I. Background II. Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on February 23, 2015 (80 FR 9423), the EPA proposed to find that the Idaho SIP adequately addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Please see our February 23, 2015, proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on March 25, 2015. No comments were received on the proposal.

II. Final Action

The EPA finds that the Idaho SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and

• does not provide the 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 the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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. The 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 16, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: April 6, 2015. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

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 N—Idaho 2. In § 52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table for “Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS” to read as follows:
§ 52.670 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or
  • non-attainment area
  • State
  • submittal date
  • EPA Approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS State-wide 6/28/2010 4/17/2015
  • [Insert Federal Register citation]
  • This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    [FR Doc. 2015-08893 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0188; FRL-9926-31-Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; SO2 Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a request by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted on February 14, 2014, and supplemented on October 27, 2014, to revise the Michigan state implementation plan (SIP) to incorporate sulfur dioxide (SO2) limits found in Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules at Chapter 336, Part 4, “Emissions Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur Bearing Compounds.” EPA will take no action on the provisions pertaining to the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SO2 trading program because CAIR is no longer in effect.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective June 16, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 18, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0188, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0188. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, (312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What is the background for this action? II. What did Michigan submit? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews I. What is the background for this action?

    On February 14, 2014, and October 27, 2014, MDEQ submitted a request to incorporate revisions to the Part 4 rule in Michigan's SO2 SIP. Specifically, the revisions to the Part 4 rule includes the removal of obsolete rule language, added definitions, and the consolidation of certain provisions for sources located in Wayne County.

    MDEQ published a Notice of Public Information in several newspapers and provided a 30-day public comment period on September 30, 2012, October 1, 2012, and December 2, 2013, respectively. No public comments were received.

    On May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10873), EPA approved the Part 4 sulfur limits into the Michigan SIP. The sulfur limits apply statewide, and reduce emissions of SO2 from the following sources: (1) Fuel burning equipment at power plants, (2) fuel burning equipment at a stationary source other than power plants, (3) oil and natural gas producing or transportation facilities and natural gas processing facilities, and (4) sulfuric acid plants. In the same action, EPA approved the Wayne County Air Quality Management Division (WCAQMD) Ordinance—Air Pollution Control (APC) regulation for SO2, “Article VI, Section 6.3, Emissions Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur Bearing Compounds” rule, thereby incorporating additional sulfur limits for Wayne County sources into the Michigan SIP. The WCAQMD APC regulation is more stringent than the state's Part 4 rule because it includes requirements to control sulfur bearing compound emissions from sulfuric acid plants, sulfur recovery plants, and hydrogen sulfide facilities. This rule became effective in Wayne County on July 23, 1965.

    On May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29790), EPA approved specific portions of the state of Michigan's April 25, 1979, SIP submittal, to satisfy the requirements of part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for SO2. In the same action, EPA approved minor revisions to the SO2 regulations in the WCAQMD Ordinance (1969) to adjust sulfur limits for burning fuel oil.

    In September 2001, the Wayne County Department of Public Health closed the WCAQMD and ended its air pollution program. As a result of this action, Wayne County's air pollution control ordinance was repealed. Although WCAQMD no longer operates as the air pollution control agency for Wayne County, the SO2 regulations established for sources located in Wayne County remained part of the Federally-approved SIP for Michigan.

    II. What did Michigan submit?

    MDEQ made revisions to the Part 4 rule with the intent to improve rule clarity. MDEQ has requested that we act on the following revisions to Part 4:

    R336.1401a (Rule 401a), Definitions

    MDEQ determined that adding definitions for three terms would clarify the language in Part 4. Rule 401a includes definitions for the following terms: (a) Power plant, (b) sulfur recovery plant, and (c) used oil.

    The term “power plant” means a single structure devoted to steam or electric generation, or both, and may contain multiple boilers.

    A “sulfur recovery plant” is any plant that recovers elemental sulfur from any gas stream.

    The term “used oil” means any fuel that is produced from used oil, as defined in R 299.9109(p). To allow incorporation by reference of the definition contained in R 299.9109(p) into the new definition of “used oil,” MDEQ requested in an October 27, 2014, supplement to its submission that EPA approve R 299.9109(p) into the Michigan SIP. Rule R 299.9109(p), in the Hazardous Waste Management regulations of Michigan's Administrative Code, states, “used oil means any oil which has been refined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil, which has been used and which as a result of the use, is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities.” EPA finds that inclusion of the definition of used oil at R 299.9109(p) is consistent with the Federal used oil regulation in 40 CFR part 279 (subpart A, Definitions). Rule 299.9109(p) became effective in Michigan on September 11, 2000.

    EPA finds these revisions acceptable for approval into the Michigan SIP.

    R336.1401 (Rule 401); “Emission Sulfur Dioxide From Power Plants”

    The existing rule 401 addressed SO2 emissions from power plants. Table 41 and Table 42, respectively, contain percent sulfur-in-fuel and equivalent SO2 concentration limits. To streamline the structure of rule 401, MDEQ combined the equivalent SO2 concentration limits in Table 42 with the percent sulfur-in-fuel limits in Table 41, and thus, developed a “new” Table 41—“Fuel and SO2 Emission Limitations for Power Plants.” This change did not revise the existing emission limits for SO2.

    Subsections (1a) and (2) through (7) of the existing rule 401 included interim requirements which allowed existing sources an extension of time, until January 1, 1980, for compliance. The state has requested removal of the obsolete rule language.

    To improve clarity, MDEQ added a “new” Table 42 into rule 401 applicable to power plants located in Wayne County. MDEQ did not revise any of the sulfur limits applicable to sources in Wayne County in this SIP revision. Lastly, the revisions to rule 401 add requirements for power plants in Wayne County that burn used oil. The requirements for burning used oil at power plants provide a percent sulfur-in-fuel and equivalent SO2 concentration limits. Rule 401 limits the maximum sulfur content for burning used oil to one percent, and the equivalent SO2 concentration limit is 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The SO2 concentration limit of 300 ppmv, by comparison, is more stringent than the existing SIP limit of 400 ppmv for power plants in Wayne County burning crude and heavy fuel oils.

    EPA finds the revisions acceptable for approval into Michigan's SIP.

    R336.1402 (Rule 402), Emissions Limitation of SO2 From Fuel-burning Equipment at Stationary Sources Other Than Power Plants

    The existing SIP contains emission limitations and prohibitions on emitting SO2 from fuel-burning equipment at stationary sources other than power plants. MDEQ's submission will move the fuel and SO2 concentration limitations applicable only to fuel-burning equipment at stationary sources located in Wayne County, other than power plants, into rule 402. MDEQ also amended rule 402, adding sub-rules 402(3)—402(5). These sub-rules address the applicability determination, sulfur-in-fuel content and equivalent SO2 concentration limitations, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for fuel-burning equipment at Wayne County stationary sources other than power plants.

    MDEQ did not revise any of the requirements that apply to fuel-burning equipment at stationary sources located in Wayne County, other than power plants, in this SIP revision. EPA finds these revisions acceptable for approval into Michigan's SIP.

    R336.1404 (rule 404), Emission Limitation of SO2 and Sulfuric Acid Mist From Sulfuric Acid Plants

    The existing SIP addresses emission of sulfur bearing compounds from sulfuric acid plants.

    Similar to rules 401 and 402, MDEQ amended rule 404 by incorporating the sulfur limit applicable to sulfuric acid plants located in Wayne County into rule 404. Thus, any sulfuric acid plants located in Wayne County must continue to comply with the SO2 concentration emission limitation of 6.5 pounds of acid produced.

    MDEQ did not revise any of the requirements that apply to sulfuric acid plants located in Wayne County in this SIP revision. EPA finds these revisions acceptable for approval into Michigan's SIP.

    R336.1405 (Rule 405), R336.1406 (Rule 406), and R336.1407 (Rule 407)

    MDEQ amended Part 4 by adding rules 405, 406, and 407 to address emission of sulfur compounds from certain types of facilities or operations at a stationary source located within Wayne County. Rule 405 specifies various sulfur compound emission limits applicable sulfur recovery plants. Rule 406 contains prohibitions on hydrogen sulfide emissions from sources located in Wayne County. Rule 407 contains sulfur compound limits that apply to any process and fuel burning equipment at Wayne County stationary sources not otherwise addressed in Part 4.

    MDEQ did not revise any of the sulfur limits that apply to plants located in Wayne County. The revisions to Part 4 centrally locates all the sulfur limits approved in the Michigan SIP in one place. The revisions also expand the applicability of the rule to restrict the emission of SO2 from fuel-burning equipment.

    EPA is approving Michigan's Part 4 SIP revision as it relates to Rule 401a, Rule 401, Rule 402, Rule 404, Rule 405, Rule 406, and Rule 407. However, EPA is taking no action, at this time, on MDEQ's revision to R 336.1420 (Rule 420), pertaining to the Federal CAIR SO2 trading program which is no longer in effect. The portion of the SIP revision submission that relates to CAIR is severable, and does not affect the stringency of the remainder of the SIP submission which EPA is approving into the Michigan SIP.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Michigan's February 14, 2014, and October 27, 2014, requests to revise Michigan's SIP revision to incorporate SO2 limits found in Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules at Chapter 336, Part 4, “Emissions Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur Bearing Compounds.” EPA is approving this rule for administrative and SIP strengthening purposes. EPA will take no action on the provisions pertaining to the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SO2 trading program because CAIR is no longer in effect. EPA is also approving Michigan rule 299.9109, which defines the term “used oil” into Michigan's SIP.

    The revision provides clarity to the Part 4 rule by adding definitions, removing obsolete language, and streamlining the structure of the rule by consolidating into Part 4 provisions relating to sources located in Wayne County. EPA also is approving MDEQ's SIP revision that removes obsolete language referring to the WCAQMD Ordinance (1969) from the Michigan SIP.

    It should be noted that EPA is not taking action in this document to address compliance with the 2010 national ambient air quality standard for SO2. SIPs addressing current nonattainment areas in the state for the 2010 SO2 standard are due April 4, 2015, and will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan in part if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 16, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by May 18, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. We then will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective June 16, 2015.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 16, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    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.

    2. In § 52.1170, in the table in paragraph (c): a. Add at the beginning of the table the heading “Hazardous Waste Management”, and under the new heading add an entry for “R 299.9109(p)”. b. Revise the entries under the heading “Part 4. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur-Bearing Compounds”. c. Revise the entry for “Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulations”. d. Remove the entry for “Wayne County variance”.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 52.1170 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations Michigan citation Title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Comments
    Hazardous Waste Management R 299.9109(p) Used oil 9/11/00 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part 4. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur-Bearing Compounds R 336.1401 Emissions of sulfur dioxide from power plants 3/11/13 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] R 336.1401a Definitions 3/11/13 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] R 336.1402 Emission of SO2 from fuel-burning sources other than power plants 3/11/13 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] R 336.1403 Oil- and natural gas-producing or transporting facilities and natural gas-processing facilities; emissions; operation 3/19/02 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] R 336.1404 Emissions of SO2 and sulfuric acid mist from sulfuric acid plants 3/11/13 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] R 336.1405 Emissions from sulfur recovery plants located within Wayne county 3/11/13 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] R 336.1406 Hydrogen sulfide emissions from facilities located within Wayne county 3/11/13 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] R 336.1407 Sulfur compound emissions from sources located within Wayne county and not previously specified 3/11/13 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Local Regulations *         *         *         *         *         *         * Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulations Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulations 3/20/69 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register citation] All except for Section 6.3 (A-H) *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-08888 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0162; FRL-9925-70] Carbofuran; Reinstatement of Specific Tolerances and Removal of Expired Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; Order reestablishing and amending tolerances.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is amending its regulations to reinstate four import tolerances for carbofuran, in order to comply with a DC Circuit decision and order vacating the Agency's revocation of those tolerances. EPA is also removing several carbofuran time-limited tolerances that have already expired. Because this action is being taken to conform the regulations to the court's order and to accurately reflect the current legal status of these tolerances, EPA is issuing this as a final order that is effective upon publication.

    DATES:

    Effective April 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0162, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; email address: [email protected]

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    II. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is taking this action pursuant to the authority in section 408(g)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)(C).

    III. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is revising the tolerance regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 180 to reflect the reinstatement of four import tolerances for carbofuran, in compliance with a decision and order from the D.C. Circuit in National Corn Growers Association v. EPA, 613 F.3d 266 (D.C. Cir. 2010). EPA is also amending 40 CFR part 180 to delete the listings of other carbofuran tolerances that have expired, and thus are no longer valid.

    IV. Why is EPA taking this action?

    In the Federal Register of July 31, 2008 (73 FR 44864) (FRL-8373-8), EPA proposed to revoke all carbofuran tolerances and provided a 60-day public comment period. The revocations were based on an Agency determination that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of carbofuran did not meet the safety standard of FFDCA section 408(b)(2). In the Federal Register of May 15, 2009 (74 FR 23046) (FRL-8413-3), EPA finalized the revocation of all of the carbofuran tolerances, effective December 31, 2009. During the objection period, the carbofuran registrant, FMC Corporation, and three grower associations (National Corn Growers Association, National Sunflower Association, and National Potato Council) submitted objections to EPA's tolerance revocations and requested an administrative hearing. EPA concluded that the regulatory standard for holding an evidentiary hearing had not been met and issued an order in the Federal Register of November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59608) (FRL-8797-6), which denied the objections and requests for hearing and included the Agency's reasons.

    FMC Corporation, in conjunction with the three grower associations, challenged EPA's decision in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court upheld EPA's revocation of all carbofuran domestic tolerances and denial of the hearing requests, but vacated EPA's revocation of the four import tolerances (bananas, coffee, rice, and sugarcane). The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also denied the subsequent petition filed by FMC and the three grower associations for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. On May 31, 2011, the Supreme Court declined to hear the request by FMC and the three grower associations to review EPA's 2009 decision to revoke all domestic tolerances for carbofuran, ending these legal challenges. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/carbofuran/carbofuran_noic.htm.

    Because the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's revocation of the four import tolerances for carbofuran, they are in fact, currently in effect. EPA is revising the CFR to accurately reflect the current legal status of the four import tolerances by removing the expiration dates in their listings in 40 CFR 180.254(a). Specifically, EPA is removing the expiration date of December 31, 2009 associated with the carbofuran tolerances in 40 CFR 180.254(a) on banana; coffee, bean, green; rice, grain; and sugarcane, cane.

    Also, to eliminate potential confusion, EPA is removing other carbofuran tolerances that expired on December 31, 2009. Because these tolerances have expired, they are no longer legally valid. Consequently, EPA is deleting the following tolerances: (1) In 40 CFR 180. 254(a) on alfalfa, forage (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates); alfalfa, hay (of which no more than 20 ppm are carbamates); barley, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); barley, straw (of which no more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates); beet, sugar, roots; beet, sugar, tops (of which no more than 1 ppm is carbamates); corn, field, forage (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates); corn, field, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); corn, field, stover (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates); corn, pop, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); corn, pop, stover (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates); corn, sweet, forage (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates); corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); corn, sweet, stover (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates); cotton, undelinted seed (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); cranberry (of which no more than 0.3 ppm is carbamates); cucumber (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); grape (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); grape, raisin (of which no more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates); grape, raisin, waste (of which no more than 3.0 ppm are carbamates); melon (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); milk (of which no more than 0.02 ppm is carbamates); oat, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); oat, straw (of which no more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates); pepper (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); potato (of which no more than 1 ppm is carbamates); pumpkin (of which no more than 0.6 ppm is carbamates); rice, straw (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); sorghum, forage (of which no more than 0.5 ppm is carbamates); sorghum, grain, grain; sorghum, grain, stover (of which no more than 0.5 ppm is carbamates); strawberry (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); soybean (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); soybean, forage (of which no more than 20.0 ppm are carbamates); soybean, hay (of which no more than 20.0 ppm are carbamates); squash (of which no more than 0.6 ppm is carbamates); sunflower, seed (of which no more than 0.5 ppm is carbamates); wheat, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); and wheat, straw (of which no more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates); and (2) in 40 CFR 180.254(c) on artichoke, globe (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates).

    V. Why is this a final order?

    EPA is issuing a final order without providing either notice and an opportunity to comment, or an opportunity to raise objections. For a number of reasons, EPA has concluded that the issuance of a final order pursuant to FFDCA section 408(g)(2)(C) best reflects the current stage of the proceedings in this case, and is most appropriate to the circumstances under the applicable procedures of FFDCA section 408.

    With respect to the import tolerances, the court vacated only the portion of EPA's final order that related to the revocation of the four carbofuran import tolerances, not the entire underlying action rulemaking and objections process that preceded the order. EPA has already conducted the procedures required under FFDCA sections 408(e) and (g); the public has previously had an opportunity to comment on and raise objections to the EPA decisions reflected in the amendments to the CFR described in this document. The only revisions to the CFR relating to the import tolerances are those that are being taken merely to be consistent with the court's order, which left EPA with no discretion as to the actions necessary to implement the order. Finally, this action does not therefore affect the legal status or otherwise effect any substantive change to these tolerances, but merely amends the CFR to accurately reflect the present legal status of these tolerances. Because the D.C. Circuit's vacatur rendered EPA's 2009 revocation action without effect, these tolerances are currently in effect.

    The deletion from the CFR of the carbofuran tolerances that have already expired presents essentially the same procedural and substantive case. EPA's action does not affect the legal status of these tolerances in any way. The deletion from the CFR of the currently expired carbofuran tolerances merely reflects the present legal status of these tolerances. In addition, EPA has already conducted the procedures required under FFDCA sections 408(e) and (g) to effectuate these revisions; the public has previously had an opportunity to comment on and raise objections to the EPA decision to establish the expiration dates for these particular tolerances (73 FR 44864, July 31, 2008 (FRL-8373-8); 74 FR 23046, May 15, 2009 (FRL-8413-3); and 74 FR 59608, November 18, 2009 (FRL-8797-6).

    VI. When do these actions become effective?

    As stated in the DATES section of this document, this order and the corresponding changes to 40 CFR part 180 are effective April 17, 2015.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this action, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 180 to accurately reflect the current legal status of a number of carbofuran tolerances by means of an order and not a rule (21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(1)(C)). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), orders are expressly excluded from the definition of a rule (5 U.S.C. 551(4)). Accordingly, the regulatory assessment requirements imposed on a rulemaking do not apply to this order, as explained further in the following discussion.

    Because this order is not a “regulatory action” as that term is defined in Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, entitled Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As a result, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and Executive Order 13211 entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, since this order is not a rule under the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)), and does not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

    This action does not contain any information collections or impose additional burdens that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Nor does this order require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    This order directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes; nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the State or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this order. In addition, this order does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538).

    VIII. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    The CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) does not apply to this action because this order n is not a rule as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA will, however, submit a courtesy copy of this document to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Jack E. Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.254, revise the table in paragraph (a) and revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 180.254 Carbofuran; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Banana 1 0.1 Coffee, bean, green 1 0.1 Rice, grain 1 0.2 Sugarcane, cane 1 0.1 1 There are no U.S. registrations for use of carbofuran on these commodities.

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2015-08784 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 41 CFR Part 102-42 [FMR Change 2015-02; FMR Case 2014-102-3; Docket No. 2014-0019; Sequence No. 1] RIN 3090-AJ49 Federal Management Regulation; Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of Foreign Gifts and Decorations AGENCY:

    Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the Federal Management Regulation (FMR). This amendment changes the means by which GSA publishes the redefined foreign gift minimal value rates and adds the term and definition of “spouse”.

    DATES:

    Effective: April 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Robert Holcombe, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management (MA), at 202-501-3828 or by email at [email protected] for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FMR Case 2014-102-3.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

    Every three years, GSA is required to redefine the “minimal value” of foreign gifts under 5 U.S.C. 7342. In order for GSA to consult with the Secretary of State and publish this revised figure as closely to the effective date (January 1st) as possible, the redefined values will be published in a Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Bulletin at www.gsa.gov/personalpropertypolicy.

    In addition, the definition of minimal value is being amended to state that an employing agency may, by regulation, define “minimal value” for its agency employees to be less than the GSA definition, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 7342(a)(5)(B).

    Finally, the term and definition of “spouse” is added to FMR part 102-42. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7, provided that, when used in a Federal law, the term “spouse” referred only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Because of DOMA, the Federal Government has been heretofore prohibited from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for all Federal purposes, including asset management policies. On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013), 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. As a result, GSA is adding the definition of the term “spouse” to this part for clarity. This case is included in GSA's retrospective review of existing regulations under Executive Order 13563. Additional information is located in GSA's retrospective review (2014) available at: www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations.

    B. Changes

    This final rule:

    (1) Changes the means by which GSA publishes updates to the definition of “minimal value” and makes the information available to the public;

    (2) Adds the term and a definition for the term “spouse” to 41 CFR part 102-42; and

    (3) Changes the citations in the authority section to reflect the codification of Title 40, United States Code, into positive law.

    C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FMR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

    F. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This final rule is exempt from Congressional review under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

    List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 102-42

    Conflict of interests, Decorations, medals, awards, Foreign relations, Government property, Government property management.

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

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA is amending 41 CFR part 102-42 as set forth below:

    PART 102-42—UTILIZATION, DONATION, AND DISPOSAL OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND DECORATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 102-42 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); sec. 515, 5 U.S.C. 7342 (91 Stat. 862).

    2. Amend § 102-42.10 by revising the definition “Minimal value”; and alphabetically adding the definition “Spouse” to read as follows:
    § 102-42.10 What definitions apply to this part?

    Minimal value means a retail value in the United States at the time of acceptance that is at or below the dollar value established by GSA and published in a Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Bulletin at www.gsa.gov/personalpropertypolicy.

    (1) GSA will adjust the definition of minimal value every three years, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for the immediately preceding 3-year period.

    (2) An employing agency may, by regulation, specify a lower value than this Government-wide value for its agency employees.

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

    [FR Doc. 2015-08861 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    80 74 Friday, April 17, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0951; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-007-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” Sailplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” sailplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as detachment of the rudder cable fitting block from the fuselage. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Allstar PZL Glider, Sp. z o. o., ul. Cieszynska 325, 43-300 Bielsko-Biala, Poland; telephone: +48 33 812 50 26; fax: +48 33 812 37 39; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://szd.com.pl/en/products/szd-50-3-puchacz. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0951.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0951; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0951; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-007-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0046, dated March 16, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported involving a SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” sailplane, where a rudder cable fitting block, located in the forward part of the fuselage, detached after application of a high load on the steering pedal during spin recovery operation. Subsequent investigations determined that the failure was either caused by a manufacturing deficiency or originated by a crack.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to further cases of rudder cable fitting block detachment, resulting in reduced control of the sailplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, Allstar PZL issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. BE-063/SZD-50-3/2014, to provide inspection and reinforcement instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this AD requires accomplishment of a one-time inspection of both (right hand (RH) and left hand (LH)) rudder cable fitting blocks to verify proper attachment to the fuselage shell and, depending on finding(s), a repair. This AD also requires reinforcement of the affected structural area.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0951.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    Allstar PZL Glider has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-063/SZD-50-3/2014 “Puchacz”, dated December 14, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the area around the left-hand and right-hand rudder cable fitting blocks for cracks and detachment and making all necessary repairs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 5 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the inspection requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed inspection requirement of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $425, or $85 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the modification requirement of this proposed AD and would require parts costing $100.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko”: Docket No. FAA-2015-0951; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-007-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 1, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” sailplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as detachment of the rudder cable fitting block from the fuselage. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of the rudder cable fitting block from the fuselage, which if not detected and corrected, could result in reduced control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the area around both the left-hand (LH) and the right-hand (RH) rudder cable fitting blocks following paragraph 3.1. of the INSTRUCTIONS section in Allstar PZL Glider Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-063/SZD-50-3/2014 “Puchacz”, dated December 14, 2014.

    (2) If, during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, any crack or fitting block detachment is found, before further flight, repair and reinforce the attachment of both the LH and RH rudder cable fitting blocks. Do this repair and reinforcement following paragraph 3.2. of the INSTRUCTIONS section in Allstar PZL Glider Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-063/SZD-50-3/2014 “Puchacz”, dated December 14, 2014.

    (3) Unless already done following the requirement in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, reinforce the attachment of both the LH and RH rudder cable fitting blocks. Do this reinforcement following paragraph 3.2. of the INSTRUCTIONS section in Allstar PZL Glider Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-063/SZD-50-3/2014 “Puchacz”, dated December 14, 2014.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any sailplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0046, dated March 16, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0951. For service information related to this AD, contact Allstar PZL Glider, Sp. z o. o., ul. Cieszynska 325, 43-300 Bielsko-Biala, Poland; telephone: +48 33 812 50 26; fax: +48 33 812 37 39; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://szd.com.pl/en/products/szd-50-3-puchacz. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 8, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08733 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-037-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8-TC320 airplanes that would revise AD 2015-06-02. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as missing required engine mount fire seal washers, which could reduce the engine retention capability in the event of a fire. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: + 61 03 5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.gippsaero.com/customer-support/technical-publications.aspx. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-037-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On March 12, 2015, we issued AD 2015-06-02, Amendment 39-18120 (80 FR 14810; March 20, 2015). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8-TC320 airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.

    Since we issued AD 2015-06-02, a specific serial number range has been identified for applicability.

    The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is the aviation authority for Australia, has issued AD/GA8/8, Amdt 1, dated March 26, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    A recent review of the engine mount installation on the GA8-TC 320 aircraft has highlighted the omission of engine mount fire seal washers during the assembly process.

    The current engine mount configuration does not meet the certification basis for the aircraft, specifically regulation 23.865 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the United States of America, where engine mounts located in designated fire zones are required to be suitably shielded so that they are capable of withstanding the effects of a fire.

    The Gippsland Aeronautics GA8-TC 320 aircraft require the installation of an approved steel washer at each of the engine mount locations to address a potential risk of reduced engine retention capability in the event of a fire.

    This AD, AD/GA8/8 Amdt 1, amends the applicability statement to be inclusive of the affected aircraft serial number range.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1123. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR 51

    GippsAero has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the orientation of the engine isolator mounts to verify proper installation, re-installing if necessary, and installing steel washers on the forward side of each side of the engine isolator mounts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,655, or $435 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-18120 (80 FR 14810, March 20, 2015), and adding the following new AD: GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd: Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-037-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 1, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2015-06-02, Amendment 39-18120 (80 FR 14810; March 20, 2015).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd GA8-TC320 airplanes, all serial numbers up to and including GA8-TC 320-14-205, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power Plant.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as missing required engine mount fire seal washers, which could reduce the engine retention capability in the event of a fire. We are issuing this proposed AD to revise the applicable airplane serial numbers and to detect and correct the omission of steel washers at each isolator mount location, which, if not corrected, could result in reduced engine retention capability in the event of a fire.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:

    (1) Within the next 300 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the orientation of the engine isolator mounts to verify that the mounts have been installed properly following the Accomplishment Instructions in GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014.

    (2) Before reinstalling the engine isolator mounts following the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, install a part number J-2218-61 steel washer on the forward side of each of the four engine isolator mounts, following the Accomplishment Instructions in GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014.

    (3) If during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, any of the engine isolator mounts are found to not comply with the specifications found in the Accomplishment Instructions of GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014, before further flight, re-install the isolators to the correct orientation, or if damage is found, replace with airworthy parts.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) AD No. AD/GA8/8, Amdt 1, dated March 26, 2015. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1123. For service information related to this AD, contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: + 61 03 5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.gippsaero.com/customer-support/technical-publications.aspx. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 8, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08720 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 396 [Docket ID ED-2015-OSERS-0024] Proposed Waiver and Extension of the Project Period; Regional Interpreter Education Centers for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind AGENCY:

    Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Proposed waiver and extension of the project period.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.160A. SUMMARY:

    The Secretary proposes to waive the requirements that generally prohibit project periods exceeding five years and extensions of project periods involving the obligation of additional Federal funds for five 60-month projects initially funded in fiscal year (FY) 2010. The Secretary also proposes to extend the project period for these projects for one year. The proposed waiver and extension would enable the currently funded Regional Interpreter Education Centers for the training of interpreters for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind to receive funding through September 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    We must receive your comments on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “Are you new to the site?”

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period, address them to Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5027, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez. Telephone: (202) 245-6103 or by email: [email protected]

    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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect all public comments in Room 5027, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will supply an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this proposed waiver and extension of the project period. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Background

    On June 7, 2010, the Department published a notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2010 (75 FR 32164) for Regional Interpreter Education Centers (Regional Centers) to be funded under the Rehabilitation Training Program, authorized under section 302 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act). The purpose of the Regional Centers is to establish regional interpreter training programs that will train a sufficient number of qualified interpreters to meet the communications needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. The Department awarded grants to five Regional Centers in FY 2010 for a period of 60 months. All five projects are scheduled to end on September 30, 2015.

    We have determined that it would not be in the public interest to run a competition under this program in FY 2015 for new Regional Centers. RSA has funded interpreter training programs since 1964 to meet the needs of its vocational rehabilitation (VR) consumers who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind. At each critical juncture RSA has re-evaluated its interpreter training program to determine how to best meet the evolving needs of consumers of interpreting services. In the course of this ongoing re-evaluation, we have concluded that, since 2005, when the current priorities were established for the Regional Centers, the training needs of interpreters have changed as a result of new and emerging issues facing VR consumers who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind.

    Conducting a competition before the Department has had an opportunity to engage in strategic planning activities for the current program could result in (1) an ineffective or poorly targeted investment that would not meet the training needs of qualified interpreters and (2) the inability to sufficiently meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. We intend to use the remainder of FY 2015 and part of FY 2016 to consider how Regional Centers can employ promising practices in their pedagogy and skill development training in order to meet the current and future needs of VR consumers who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind so that they can obtain competitive integrated employment. We also plan to use online forums to collect input and feedback from local and national partner networks, including consumer and professional organizations for interpreting and interpreter training. These activities will inform our development of new funding priorities for publication in FY 2016.

    We have also concluded that it would be contrary to the public interest to have a lapse in the provision of the training currently provided by the Regional Centers. Allowing funding to lapse before a new interpreter education delivery system can be implemented would leave individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind without necessary supports in the event that critical needs arise.

    For these reasons, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), which limits the extension of a project period if the extension involves the obligation of additional Federal funds, and to issue continuation awards to the five current grantees. Under this proposal, the five current grantees with project periods ending on September 30, 2015, would receive funding to operate for an additional 12 months. Consequently, the expiration date for all five grants would be September 30, 2016. With this proposed waiver and extension of the project period, each Regional Center will be required to develop a plan to demonstrate how it will continue to carry out activities during the year of the continuation award consistent with the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the 2010 competition. Such plans should be submitted to RSA for review and approval by September 1, 2015.

    If the proposed waiver and extension of the project period are announced in a final notice in the Federal Register, the requirements applicable to continuation awards for this competition set forth in the 2010 notice inviting applications and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 would apply to any continuation awards sought by the current grantees. If we announce the waiver and extension as final, we will base our decisions regarding continuation awards on the program narratives, budgets, budget narratives, and program performance reports submitted by the current grantees, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this proposed waiver and extension of the project period would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that would be affected are the five current grantees receiving Federal funds to serve as the Regional Centers and any other potential applicants.

    The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of an existing project period imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice of proposed waiver and extension of the project period does not contain any information collection requirements.

    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    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 13, 2015. Sue Swenson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08912 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 396 [Docket ID ED-2015-OSERS-0022] Proposed Waiver and Extension of the Project Period; National Interpreter Education Center for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind AGENCY:

    Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Proposed waiver and extension of the project period.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.160B SUMMARY:

    The Secretary proposes to waive the requirements that generally prohibit project periods exceeding five years and extensions of project periods involving the obligation of additional Federal funds for a 60-month project initially funded in fiscal year (FY) 2010. The Secretary also proposes to extend the project period for one year. The proposed waiver and extension would enable the currently funded National Interpreter Education Center to receive funding through September 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    We must receive your comments on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “Are you new to the site?”

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period, address them to Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5027, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez. Telephone: (202) 245-6103 or by email: [email protected]

    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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect all public comments about this proposal in Room 5027, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will supply an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this proposed waiver and extension of the project period. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Background

    On May 17, 2010, the Department published a notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2010 (75 FR 27539) for a National Interpreter Education Center (National Center) to be funded under the Rehabilitation Training Program, authorized under section 302 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act). The purpose of the National Center is to assist Regional Interpreter Education Centers (Regional Centers) to train a sufficient number of qualified interpreters to meet the communications needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. The Department awarded a grant to one National Center in FY 2010 for a period of 60 months. This project is scheduled to end on September 30, 2015.

    We have determined that it would not be in the public interest to run a competition under this program in FY 2015 for a new National Center. RSA has funded interpreter training programs since 1964 to meet the needs of its vocational rehabilitation (VR) consumers who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind. At each critical juncture RSA has re-evaluated its interpreter training program to determine how to best meet the evolving needs of consumers of interpreting services. In the course of this ongoing re-evaluation, we have concluded that, since 2005, when the current priority was established for the National Center, the training needs of interpreters have changed as a result of new and emerging issues facing VR consumers who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind.

    Conducting a competition before the Department has had an opportunity to engage in strategic planning activities for the current program could result in (1) an ineffective or poorly targeted investment that would not meet the training needs of qualified interpreters and (2) the inability to sufficiently meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. We intend to use the remainder of FY 2015 and part of FY 2016 to consider how a National Center can best support the work of the Regional Centers; influence the field of interpreter education; and ultimately meet the current and future needs of VR consumers who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind so that they can obtain competitive integrated employment. We also plan to engage consumers, consumer organizations, community resources, service providers (especially VR agencies), VR State coordinators for the deaf, rehabilitation counselors for the deaf, and other appropriate individuals and entities about their ongoing and projected needs for a National Center, as well as gather examples of how they might utilize a National Center in the future. These activities will inform new funding priorities planned in FY 2016 for this program.

    We have also concluded that it would be contrary to the public interest to have a lapse in the provision of the training currently provided by the National Center. Allowing funding to lapse before a new interpreter education delivery system can be implemented would leave individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind without necessary supports in the event that critical needs arise.

    For these reasons, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), which limit the extension of a project period if the extension involves the obligation of additional Federal funds, and to issue a continuation award to the current National Center. Under this proposal, the current grantee with a project period ending on September 30, 2015, would receive funding to operate for an additional 12 months. Consequently, the expiration date for this grant would be September 30, 2016. With this proposed waiver and extension of the project period, the National Center will be required to develop a plan to demonstrate how it will continue to carry out activities during the year of the continuation award consistent with the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the 2010 competition. Such a plan should be submitted to RSA for review and approval by September 1, 2015.

    If the proposed waiver and extension of the project period are announced in a final notice in the Federal Register, the requirements applicable to continuation awards for this competition set forth in the 2010 notice inviting applications and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 would apply to any continuation award sought by the current grantee. If we announce the waiver and extension as final, we will base our decision regarding a continuation award on the program narrative, budget, budget narrative, and program performance reports submitted by the current grantee, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this proposed waiver and extension of the project period would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that would be affected are the current grantee receiving Federal funds to serve as the National Center and any other potential applicants.

    The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of an existing project imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice of proposed waiver and extension of the project period does not contain any information collection requirements.

    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    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 13, 2015. Sue Swenson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08909 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0188; FRL-9926-30-Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; SO2 Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted on February 14, 2014, and supplemented on October 27, 2014, to revise the Michigan state implementation plan (SIP) to incorporate sulfur dioxide (SO2) limits found in “Part 4: Emissions Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur Bearing Compounds” of Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules. EPA is proposing to take no action on the provisions pertaining to the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SO2 trading program because CAIR is no longer in effect.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0188 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving a portion of the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If EPA does not receive adverse comments in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and will address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rulemaking, and if that provision can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08889 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0294; FRL-9926-28-Region-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; CO Monitoring AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to Indiana's monitoring requirements as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision was submitted by Indiana to EPA on January 22, 2014. Once approved, the SIP would authorize emission units that combust sewage sludge to continuously monitor carbon monoxide emissions, consistent with Federal requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0294, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2490.

    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rulemaking, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rulemaking and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08886 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0542; FRL-9926-40-Region 6] Reopening of Public Comment Period for Proposed Action; Texas; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Flexible Permit Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 31, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to fully approve the Texas New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for establishing the Flexible Permit Program and requested comment by January 30, 2015. The EPA is reopening the original public comment period of 30 days for the proposed rule for an additional 30 days from the date of publication. The reopening is necessary because we neglected to include certain supporting materials in the electronic docket. All previously submitted comments will be responded to as appropriate, and members of the public who have submitted comments during the prior comment period need not resubmit them at this time.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published December 31, 2014 (79 FR 78752), is reopened. Written comments must be received on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0542, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Ms. Stephanie Kordzi at [email protected]

    Mail or delivery: Ms. Stephanie Kordzi, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0542. 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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means that 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 EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If we cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about our public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Stephanie Kordzi, (214) 665-7520, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials please contact Ms. Kordzi or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    On December 31, 2014, we published in the Federal Register a proposed rule on the flexible permit program in Texas. See 79 FR 78752, December 31, 2014. In the original proposal, we requested comment by January 30, 2015. We are reopening the public comment period because we neglected to include certain supporting materials in Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0542 at http://www.regulations.gov.

    This reopening will provide an opportunity for the review and comment of all the relevant materials now posted in the public docket for 30 days from the date of today's publication.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 7, 2015. William L. Luthans, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Acting Director, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08662 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 0 [WT Docket No. 15-81; FCC 15-40] Electronically Stored Application and Licensing Data AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document proposes to amend the Commission's Rules to specify that historical amateur radio licensee address information will not be routinely available for public inspection.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 16, 2015 and reply comments are due July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 15-81; FCC 15-40, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scot Stone, at [email protected], Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0638, TTY (202) 418-7233.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), WT Docket No. 15-81; FCC 15-40, adopted March 31, 2015, and released March 31, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's Web site at www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Summary

    1. The Commission initiated this proceeding to amend its rules of organization that apply to amateur radio licensee address information that is routinely available for public inspection. Specifically, the Commission proposes in this NPRM to amend its rules to revise its rules to specify that historical amateur radio licensee address information (that is, address information not associated with a current license or pending application) will not be routinely available for public inspection. The Commission found that amending these rules will enhance amateur radio operators' privacy without undermining the public interest in knowing who is authorized to operate on amateur spectrum. The Commission also seeks comment on whether this approach should be extended to individual licensees in any other Wireless Radio Services, such as the General Mobile Radio Service, commercial radio operator licensees, and individuals who hold ship station and/or aircraft station licenses.

    I. Procedural Matters A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-but-Disclose Proceeding

    2. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.

    B. Comment Dates

    3. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before June 16, 2015, and reply comments are due July 16, 2015.

    4. Commenters may file comments electronically using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or by filing paper copies. Commenters filing through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Commenters may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to [email protected], and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” Commenters will receive a sample form and directions in reply. Commenters filing through the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov, should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

    5. Commenters who chose to file paper comments must file an original and four copies of each comment. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

    6. Commenters may send filings by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Commenters must bind all hand deliveries together with rubber bands or fasteners and must dispose of any envelopes before entering the building. This facility is the only location where the Commission's Secretary will accept hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings. Commenters must send commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Commenters should address U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    7. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    8. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to be prepared for notice and comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    9. In the NPRM, we propose to amend the Commission's rules of organization. In this NPRM, we propose to amend the Commission's inspection of records rules to provide that only amateur radio licensee address information connected with current licenses and pending applications is routinely available for public inspection in ULS or in paper files. Because “small entities,” as defined in the RFA, do not include a “person” as the term is used in this proceeding or an individual, the proposed rules do not apply to “small entities.” Rather, they apply exclusively to individuals who are licensees of certain stations or who hold certain Commission authorizations. Therefore, we certify that the proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    III. Ordering Clauses

    11. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 403, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.

    12. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 0

    Organization and functions.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 0 as follows:

    PART 0—COMMISSION ORGANIZATION 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 0.453 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(4) to read as follows:
    § 0.453 Public reference rooms.

    (d) Wireless Telecommunications Services and Auction related data as follows, except to the extent they are excluded from routine public inspection under another section of this chapter:

    (4) Electronically stored application and licensing data (including data filed manually and entered into ULS by Commission staff) for commercial radio operators and for all authorizations in the Wireless Radio Services are available for public inspection via the Commission's Web site, http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. Wireless Radio services include Commercial and Private Mobile Radio, Common Carrier and Private Operational Fixed point-to-point Microwave, Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), Aviation Ground and Marine Coast applications; and

    3. Section 0.457 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 0.457 Records not routinely available for public inspection.

    (f) Personnel, medical and other files whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6). (1) Under E.O. 10561, the Commission maintains an Official Personnel Folder for each of its employees. Such folders are under the jurisdiction and control, and are a part of the records, of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Except as provided in the rules of the Office of Personnel Management (5 CFR 293.311), such folders will not be made available for public inspection by the Commission. In addition, other records of the Commission containing private, personal or financial information concerning particular employees and Commission contractors will be withheld from public inspection.

    (2) With respect to the Amateur Radio Service as that term is defined in § 97.3(a) of this chapter, address information on expired, canceled, or terminated licenses; archived versions of active licenses; and processed applications will not be made available for public inspection by the Commission. For such licensees, disclosure of an individual's historical address information is considered clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08810 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 74 Friday, April 17, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 14, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the 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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of 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.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by May 18, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: Noninsured Disaster Assistance Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0175.

    Summary of Collection: The Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP) is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 7333 and implemented under regulations issued at 7 CFR part 1437. NAP is administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and is carried out by FSA State and County committees. The purpose of NAP is to help manage and reduce production risks faced by producers of eligible commercial crops or other agricultural commodities during a coverage period. NAP is intended to reduce financial losses that occur when natural disasters (damaging weather or adverse natural occurrence that is an eligible cause of loss) cause a loss of expected production or actual value for value loss crops, or where producers are prevented from planting an eligible crop because of an eligible cause of loss in a coverage period. NAP provides assistance for losses of floriculture, ornamental nursery, Christmas tree crops, turfgrass sod, seed crops, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), sea oats and sea grass. FSA will collect information using several forms.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is necessary to determine whether a producer and crop or commodity meet applicable conditions for assistance and to determine compliance with existing regulations. Producers must annually: (1) Request NAP coverage by completing an application for coverage and paying a service fee by the CCC-established application closing date; (2) file a current crop-year report of acreage for the covered crop or commodity; and (3) certify harvest production of each covered crop or commodity. The information collected allows CCC to provide assistance under NAP for losses of commercial crops or other agricultural commodities (except livestock) for which catastrophic risk protection under 7 U.S.C. Section 1508 is not available, and that are produced for food or fiber.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 72,294.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Weekly; Monthly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 847,425.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08907 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Potential Project Topics AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, May 11, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing civil rights topics in the state and begin consideration of future projects.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-572-7025, conference ID: 1183630. 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 11, 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, Michigan 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 Donna Budnick, Chair Discussion of civil rights issues in Michigan Michigan Advisory Committee Members Future plans and actions Adjournment DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, May 11, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. EST.

    Public Call Information Dial: 888-572-7025 Conference ID: 1183630. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Allen at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08770 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Concept Papers on Potential Project Topics AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, June 30, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing concepts papers on civil rights topics in the state that Committee members drafted. The Committee may decide to vote on a future project of study at this meeting.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-430-8709, conference ID: 7603733. 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 July 30, 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, Indiana 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 Diane Clements-Boyd, Chair Discussion of concept papers Indiana Advisory Committee Members Future plans and actions Adjournment DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 30, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. EST.

    Public Call Information Dial: 888-430-8709 Conference ID: 7603733. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Allen at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08769 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-014] 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of 53-foot domestic dry containers (domestic dry containers) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins for the investigation on domestic dry containers from the PRC are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective: April 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Davis (Singamas), John Drury (CIMC), or Angelica Townshend, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7924, (202) 482-0195 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On November 26, 2014, the Department published the preliminary determination of the LTFV investigation of domestic dry containers from the PRC in the Federal Register.1 The following events occurred since then. On December 9, 2014, we received scope comments from interested parties Crowley Maritime Corporation and Crowley Liner Services, Inc., and Sea Star Lines LLC (collectively, “Crowley”). On December 1, 2014, respondent Singamas 2 submitted timely ministerial error allegations with respect to the Department's calculation the weighted-average dumping margin for Singamas.3 Also on December 1, 2014, Petitioner 4 submitted ministerial error allegations 5 with respect to respondent CIMC.6 We received no rebuttal comments regarding these allegations. On December 31, 2014, we published the amended preliminary determination in the Federal Register.7 Between January 12, 2015, and January 23, 2015, the Department conducted verification of the mandatory respondents CIMC and Singamas. The Department issued the sales and factors-of-production verification reports for both CIMC and Singamas on February 26, 2015.8 On March 10, 2015, Petitioner, Crowley, CIMC, and Singamas filed case briefs (which included scope comments). On March 16, 2015, Petitioner, Crowley, CIMC, and Singamas filed rebuttal briefs (which included scope comments). The Department did not hold a hearing as all requests for a hearing were withdrawn.

    1See 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances; and Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 79 FR 70501 (November 26, 2014) (Preliminary Determination).

    2 Singamas consists of Hui Zhou Pacific Container Co., Ltd., Qingdao Pacific Container Co., Ltd., Qidong Singamas Energy Equipment Co., Ltd., and their holding company Singamas Container Holding Limited.

    3See Singamas' Letter to the Department, “53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China: Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Determination,” dated December 1, 2014.

    4 Petitioner is Stoughton Trailers, LLC.

    5 Petitioner's Letter to the Department, “53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China,” dated December 1, 2014.

    6 CIMC consists of China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd., China International Marine Containers (HK) Ltd., Xinhui CIMC Special Transportation Equipment Co., Ltd., Nantong CIMC-Special Transportation Equipment Manufacture Co., Ltd., and Qingdao CIMC Container Manufacture Co., Ltd.

    7 See 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-than-Fair-Value, 79 FR 78800 (December 31, 2014) (Amended Preliminary Determination).

    8See Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production Response of CIMC International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd. (“CIMC Group”); China International Marine Containers (HK) Ltd. (“CIMC HK”); Guangdong Xinhui CIMC Special Transportation Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Xinhui Special”); Qingdao CIMC Containers Manufacture Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao”); Nantong CIMC-Special Transportation Equipment Manufacture Co., Ltd. (“Nantong”); and Xinhui CIMC Container Co., Ltd. (“Xinhui Container”) (collectively “CIMC”) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers (“domestic dry containers”) from the People's Republic of China (the “PRC”), dated February 26, 2015 (CIMC Verification Report); and Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production (FOPs) Response of Hui Zhou Pacific Container Co., Ltd. (HPCL); Qingdao Pacific Container Co., Ltd. (QPCL); Qidong Singamas Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. (QSCL); Singamas Container Holdings Limited (SCHL); and Singamas Management Services Limited (SMSL) (collectively, Singamas) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers (domestic dry containers) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC), dated February 26, 2015 (Singamas Verification Report).

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014.

    Scope Comments

    The Department received comments regarding the scope of this investigation from interested parties. As detailed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum,9 we have not made any changes to the scope.10

    9See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, regarding “53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    10See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at section, “Scope of the Investigation.”

    Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to investigation is closed (i.e., not open top) van containers exceeding 14.63 meters (48 feet) but generally measuring 16.154 meters (53 feet) in exterior length, which are designed for the intermodal transport 11 of goods other than bulk liquids within North America primarily by rail or by road vehicle, or by a combination of rail and road vehicle (domestic containers). Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under subheading 8609.00.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Imports of the subject merchandise which meet the definition of and requirements for “instruments of international traffic” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1322 and 19 CFR 10.41a may be classified under subheading 9803.00.50, HTSUS. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix II to this notice.

    11 “Intermodal transport” refers to a movement of freight using more than one mode of transportation, most commonly on a container chassis for on-the-road transportation and on a rail car for rail transportation.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which the parties raised and to which the Department responded in the memorandum appears in Appendix I of this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Amended Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to CIMC's and Singamas's margin calculations since the Amended Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Final Analysis Memoranda, all dated concurrently with this notice.12

    12See Final Analysis Memorandum for the PRC-Wide Entity, and Final Analysis Memorandum for Hui Zhou Pacific Container Co., Ltd. (HPCL), Qingdao Pacific Container Co., Ltd. (QPCL), Qidong Singamas Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. (QSCL), and Singamas Management Services Limited (SMSL) and their holding company Singamas Container Holdings Limited (collectively, Singamas), dated April 10, 2015.

    Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.13 Policy Bulletin 05.1 sets forth this practice.14

    13See 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 79 FR 28674, 28683 (May 19, 2014) (Initiation Notice).

    14See Enforcement and Compliance Policy Bulletin No. 05.1 “Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,” (April 5, 2005) (Policy Bulletin 05.1), available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

    Final Determination

    The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014:

    15 As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we continue to find that CIMC did not demonstrate that it is entitled to a separate rate, and we consider CIMC to be the PRC-Wide Entity.

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Hui Zhou Pacific Container Co., Ltd./Qingdao Pacific Container Co., Ltd./Qidong Singamas Energy Equipment Co., Ltd./Singamas Management Services Limited Hui Zhou Pacific Container Co., Ltd./Qingdao Pacific Container Co., Ltd./Qidong Singamas Energy Equipment Co., Ltd 111.22 PRC-Wide Entity 15 107.19
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    No parties made any comments on our critical circumstances analysis announced in the Preliminary Determination, which is hereby adopted by this notice. In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it did not preliminarily find critical circumstances because Petitioner did not allege that there has been a history of dumping and material injury pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and did not provide any evidence that importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales in a situation where the U.S. industry has not been established.16 Thus, pursuant to 735(a)(3) of the Act, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of domestic dry containers from the PRC from Singamas and the company covered by the PRC-wide rate.

    16 See Preliminary Determination, Preliminary Determination Memorandum at 27-28.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of domestic dry containers from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section of this notice and which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 26, 2014, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 17 for all suspended entries at an ad valorum rate equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through,18 as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combination listed in the table above will be the rate identified for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the PRC-wide entity, 107.19 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of the merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension of liquidation and cash deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    17See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    18See sections 772(c)(1)(C) and 777A(f) of the Act, respectively. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for export subsidies in investigations not in the margin-calculation program, but in the cash-deposit instructions issued to CBP. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at Comment 1.

    Furthermore, as stated above and consistent with our practice, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds export price or constructed export price, less the amount of any countervailing duty (CVD) determined to constitute an export subsidy. With respect to the PRC-wide entity (which is based on CIMC's data), export subsidies constitute 11.67 percent of CIMC's final calculated CVD rate in the companion CVD investigation. Therefore, we will offset the PRC-wide rate of 107.19 percent by the CVD rate attributable to export subsidies (i.e., 11.67 percent) to calculate the final PRC-wide entity cash deposit rate for this LTFV investigation.19 With respect to Singamas, export subsidies constitute 10.54 percent of Singamas's final calculated CVD rate in the companion CVD investigation. Therefore, we will offset Singamas's rate of 111.22 percent by the CVD rate attributable to export subsidies (i.e., 10.54 percent) to calculate the final Singamas cash deposit rate for this LTFV investigation.20

    19See 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The final determination in this companion CVD proceeding is being concurrently released on the same day as this final determination.

    20Id.

    We are also adjusting the preliminary cash deposit rate for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through for Singamas (i.e., 5.87 percent). However, we are not adjusting the PRC-wide entity final determination rate for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through because we have no basis upon which to make such an adjustment.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded by reason of imports of domestic dry containers from the PRC no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury or material retardation does exist, then the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. We are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This determination and notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Period of Investigation VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VII. Changes Since the Amended Preliminary Determination VIII. Discussion of Interested Party Comments A. General Issues Comment 1: Scope Exclusion Request Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Ocean Freight Comment 3: Surrogate Value for “Wood Flooring—Other” Comment 4: Whether to Deduct Return Transportation Costs for Wide-Top Pick (WTP) Lift-Off Bars from U.S. Net Price B. CIMC-Specific Issues Comment 5: Proper Valuation of Ocean Freight and Brokerage and Handling Expenses Comment 6: Alleged Unreported U.S. Brokerage and Handling Expenses Comment 7: Capping of Ocean Freight Revenue by Ocean Freight Expense Comment 8: Surrogate Value for Corner Castings Comment 9: Incorrect Calculation of CIMC's “Wood Flooring—Other” Surrogate Value Comment 10: Separate Rate Determination C. Singamas-Specific Issues Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Hinges Comment 12: Steel Coil Factor-of-Production (FOP) Should Be Increased to Account for Yield Loss VII. Conclusion Appendix II Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to investigation is closed (i.e., not open top) van containers exceeding 14.63 meters (48 feet) but generally measuring 16.154 meters (53 feet) in exterior length, which are designed for the intermodal transport 21 of goods other than bulk liquids within North America primarily by rail or by road vehicle, or by a combination of rail and road vehicle (domestic containers). The merchandise is known in the industry by varying terms including “53-foot containers,” “53-foot dry containers,” “53-foot domestic dry containers,” “domestic dry containers” and “domestic containers.” These terms all describe the same article with the same design and performance characteristics. Notwithstanding the particular terminology used to describe the merchandise, all merchandise that meets the definition set forth herein is included within the scope of this investigation.

    21 “Intermodal transport” refers to a movement of freight using more than one mode of transportation, most commonly on a container chassis for on-the-road transportation and on a rail car for rail transportation.

    Domestic containers generally meet the characteristic for closed van containers for domestic intermodal service as described in the American Association of Railroads (AAR) Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices Intermodal Equipment Manual Closed Van Containers for Domestic Intermodal Service Specification M 930 Adopted: 1972; Last Revised 2013 (AAR Specifications) for 53-foot and 53-foot high cube containers. The AAR Specifications generally define design, performance and testing requirements for closed van containers, but are not dispositive for purposes of defining subject merchandise within this scope definition. Containers which may not fall precisely within the AAR Specifications or any successor equivalent specifications are included within the scope definition of the subject merchandise if they have the exterior dimensions referenced below, are suitable for use in intermodal transportation, are capable of and suitable for double-stacking 22 in intermodal transportation, and otherwise meet the scope definition for the subject merchandise.

    22 “Double-stacking” refers to two levels of intermodal containers on a rail car, one on top of the other.

    Domestic containers have the following actual exterior dimensions: An exterior length exceeding 14.63 meters (48 feet) but not exceeding 16.154 meters (53 feet); an exterior width of between 2.438 meters and 2.60 meters (between 8 feet and 8 feet 63/8 inches); and an exterior height of between 2.438 meters and 2.908 meters (between 8 feet and 9 feet 61/2 inches), all subject to tolerances as allowed by the AAR Specifications. In addition to two frames (one at either end of the container), the domestic containers within the scope definition have two stacking frames located equidistant from each end of the container, as required by the AAR Specifications. The stacking frames have four upper handling fittings and four bottom dual aperture handling fittings, placed at the respective corners of the stacking frames. Domestic containers also have two forward facing fittings at the front lower corners and two downward facing fittings at the rear lower corners of the container to facilitate chassis interface.

    All domestic containers as described herein are included within this scope definition, regardless of whether the merchandise enters the United States in a final, assembled condition, or as an unassembled kit or substantially complete domestic container which requires additional manipulation or processing after entry into the United States to be made ready for use as a domestic container.

    The scope of this investigation excludes the following items: (1) Refrigerated containers; (2) trailers, where the cargo box and rear wheeled chassis are of integrated construction, and the cargo box of the unit may not be separated from the chassis for further intermodal transport; (3) container chassis, whether or not imported with domestic containers, but the domestic containers remain subject merchandise, to the extent they meet the written description of the scope. Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under subheading 8609.00.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Imports of the subject merchandise which meet the definition of and requirements for “instruments of international traffic” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1322 and 19 CFR10.41a may be classified under subheading 9803.00.50, HTSUS. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise as set forth herein is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08903 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Adminstration [A-570-018] Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 1, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the Preliminary Determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the antidumping duty investigation of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale (“boltless steel shelving”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).1 We are amending our Preliminary Determination to correct a ministerial error with respect to the identification of companies receiving a separate rate. Specifically, we are amending the Preliminary Determination to grant a separate rate to HoiFat (NingBo) Office Facilities Co., Ltd. (“Hoifat”).

    1See Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 80 FR 17409 (April 1, 2015) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    DATES:

    Effective: April 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As noted above, on April 1, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination that boltless steel shelving from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”).2 On March 30, 2015, Hoifat filed timely allegations of ministerial errors contained in the Department's Preliminary Determination.3

    2See Preliminary Determination.

    3See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Hoifat “Ministerial Error Comment” (March 30, 2015) (“Hoifat Ministerial Comment”).

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014.4

    4See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

    Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, with or without decks (“boltless steel shelving”). The term “prepackaged for sale” means that, at a minimum, the steel vertical supports (i.e., uprights and posts) and steel horizontal supports (i.e., beams, braces) necessary to assemble a completed shelving unit (with or without decks) are packaged together for ultimate purchase by the end-user. Subject boltless steel shelving enters the United States through Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical subheadings 9403.20.0018 and 9403.20.0020, but may also enter through HTSUS 9403.10.0040. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.5

    5 For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Memorandum from Kabir Archuletta, Senior International Trade Analyst, Office V, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegation,” which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Significant Ministerial Error

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (g)(1), the Department is amending the Preliminary Determination to reflect the correction of a significant ministerial error it made in the margin assigned to Hoifat, a separate rate applicant. A ministerial error is defined as errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.6 A significant ministerial error is defined as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in (1) a change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination, or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or de minimis and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than de minimis or vice versa.7 As a result of this amended preliminary determination, we have added Hoifat to the list of exporters that received a separate rate.8

    6See section 735(e) of the Act.

    7See 19 CFR 351.224(g).

    8See the “Amended Preliminary Determination” section below.

    Ministerial Error Allegations

    On March 30, 2015, Hoifat, a separate rate applicant,9 submitted a ministerial error allegation claiming that although Hoifat filed a quantity and value response and a separate rate application in this investigation, its separate rate status was not analyzed and it was not named in the Preliminary Determination as one of the exporters receiving a separate rate.10 The Department reviewed the record and agrees that this constitutes a significant ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(g). In its SRA, Hoifat submitted information supporting a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure and de facto government control.11 Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that Hoifat is eligible for a separate rate, because the failure to conduct a separate rate analysis was an unintentional error. Further, this error was significant because Hoifat's margin increased from the separate rate of 52.23 to the PRC-wide rate of 112.68 as a result of this error, thus exceeding the significant error threshold because a correction of this error results in a change of at least five absolute percentage points.

    9See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Hoifat “Separate Rate Application” (November 21, 2014) (“SRA”).

    10See Hoifat Ministerial Comment.

    11See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Hoifat “Separate Rate Application” (November 21, 2014) at 5-15 and Exhibits 3-14.

    The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised accordingly in accordance with section 733(d) and (f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224. Because the amended rate for Hoifat results in a reduced cash deposit rate, the rate for Hoifat will be effective retroactively to April 1, 2015, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.

    Amended Preliminary Determination

    As a result of this amended preliminary determination, we have revised the preliminary estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Hoifat as follows:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-average margin
  • (percent)
  • Zhongda United Holding Group Co., Ltd Jiaxing Zhongda Metalwork Co., Ltd 22.64 Jiaxing Zhongda Import & Export Co., Ltd Jiaxing Zhongda Metalwork Co., Ltd 22.64 Nanjing Topsun Racking Manufacturing Co., Ltd Nanjing Topsun Racking Manufacturing Co., Ltd 85.26 Ningbo ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd Haifa (Ningbo) Office Equipment Co., Ltd 50.23 Ningbo ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd Ningbo Decko Metal Products Trade Co., Ltd 50.23 Ningbo ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd Lianfa Metal Product Co., Ltd 50.23 Meridian International Co., Ltd Zhejiang Limai Metal Products Co. Ltd 50.23 Zhejiang Limai Metal Products Co., Ltd Zhejiang Limai Metal Products Co., Ltd 50.23 HoiFat (NingBo) Office Facilities Co., Ltd HoiFat (NingBo) Office Facilities Co., Ltd 50.23 PRC-Wide Entity 112.68
    Postponement of the Final Determination

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it would make its final determination for this antidumping duty investigation no later than 75 days after the preliminary determination.

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by petitioner. In addition, section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four month period to not more than six months.

    On April 7, 2015, Zhongda United Holding Group Co., Ltd., one of the two mandatory respondents in this investigation, requested a 60-day extension of the final determination and extension of the provisional measures. Thus, because our amended preliminary determination is affirmative, and the respondent requesting a postponement of the final determination and an extension of the provisional measures accounts for a significant proportion of exports of boltless steel shelving, and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the deadline for the final determination by 60 days until August 14, 2015, based on the publication date of the

    Preliminary Determination International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.

    This amended preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08898 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-822] Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain helical spring lock washers (HSLW) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 1 to correct a ministerial error. The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013.

    1See Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 13833 (March 17, 2015) (Final Results) and accompanying “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China; 2012-2013” (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sergio Balbontin, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-6478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 9, 2015, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results. 2 On March 16, 2015 we received a ministerial error allegation from Jiangsu RC Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu RC).3

    2See Memorandum, “Final Results of the Eighteenth Administrative Review of Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Jiangsu RC Import & Export Co., Ltd.” dated March 9, 2015 (Calculation Memorandum).

    3See letter from Jiangsu RC, “RC Final Results Ministerial Error Comments: Antidumping Duty Order on Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China” dated March 16, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order are HSLWs. The product is currently classified under subheading 7318.21.0000, 7318.21.0030, and 7318.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4

    4See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Ministerial Error

    Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” We have analyzed Jiangsu RC's ministerial error comments and have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors in our calculations for the Final Results. For the Final Results, the Department identified and valued five labor inputs to use in calculating the surrogate value for Jiangsu RC.5 In calculating the surrogate value, the Department inadvertently double-counted two of these five labor inputs.6

    5See Calculation Memorandum at Attachment I.

    6Id.

    In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results. The revised weighted-average dumping margins are detailed below.

    Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR: 7

    7See memoranda, “Decision Memorandum for the Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013” and “Calculation Memorandum for the Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013” dated concurrently with this Notice.

    Exporter Weighted-average dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Jiangsu RC Import & Export Co., Ltd 189.81 PRC-wide Rate 189.81
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For customers or importers of Jiangsu RC for which we do not have entered value, we calculated customer-/importer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales. For customers or importers of Jiangsu RC for which we received entered-value information, we have calculated customer/importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates based on customer/importer-specific ad valorem rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, including, in this case, Suzhou Guoxin Group Wang Shun Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. (Guoxin) and Winnsen Industry Co., Ltd. (Winnsen), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the revised PRC-wide rate of 189.81 percent.8 In addition, for companies for which the Department determined that the exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review.

    8 The Department determined that Guoxin is not eligible for a separate rate and that Winnsen, whose request for a review was timely withdrawn, had not been assigned a separate rate.

    Notification

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

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    These amended final results of review are issued and published in accordance with section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930 Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08894 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-015] 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of 53-foot domestic dry containers (domestic dry containers) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective: April 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yasmin Nair, David Cordell (Singamas), or Ilissa Shefferman (CIMC), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813, (202) 482-0408 or (202) 482-4684, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 29, 2014, the Department published the preliminary determination of the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of domestic dry containers from the PRC in the Federal Register.1 On September 30, 2014, China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd., Guangdong Xinhui CIMC Special Transportation Equipment Co., Ltd., Nantong CIMC-Special Transportation Equipment Manufacture Co., Ltd., Qingdao CIMC Container Manufacture Co., Ltd., Xinhui CIMC Wood Co., Ltd., and Xinhui CIMC Container Co., Ltd. (collectively “CIMC”) submitted ministerial error comments regarding the Preliminary Determination. On October 9, 2014, the Department responded to these comments, stating that the issues raised by CIMC were methodological in nature and did not constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of the Department's regulations.2

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 79 FR 58320 (September 29, 2014) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China: Allegation of a Ministerial Error in the Preliminary Determination,” dated October 9, 2014, at 3.

    On November 6, 2014, the Department issued a post-preliminary analysis with respect to CIMC, as well as Hui Zhou Pacific Container Co., Ltd., Qingdao Pacific Container Co., Ltd., and Qidong Singamas Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Singamas”).3

    3See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Countervailing Duty (CVD) Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,” dated November 6, 2014.

    Between November 12, 2014 and November 19, 2014, the Department conducted onsite verification of CIMC's, Singamas's and the Government of the People's Republic of China's (GOC) questionnaire responses.4

    4See Memoranda to Richard Weible, Director, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Countervailing Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Verification Report of China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd. (CIMC Group) and its cross-owned affiliates CIMC Containers Holding Co., Ltd. (CIMC Holding); CIMC Wood Development Co., Ltd. (CIMC Wood); Guangdong Xinhui CIMC Special Transportation Equipment Co., Ltd. (Xinhui Special); Qingdao CIMC Containers Manufacture Co., Ltd. (Qingdao CIMC); Nantong CIMC-Special Transportation Equipment Manufacture Co., Ltd. (Nantong CIMC); Xinhui CIMC Container Co., Ltd. (Xinhui Container); and Xinhui CIMC Wood Co., Ltd. (Xinhui Wood) (collectively, CIMC),” dated January 14, 2015; “Countervailing Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Verification Report of Hui Zhou Pacific Container Co., Ltd. (HPCL), Qingdao Pacific Container Co., Ltd., (QPCL) and Qidong Singamas Energy Equipment Co., Ltd., (QSCL) and their holding company, Singamas Container Holdings Limited (SCHL) (collectively, “Singamas”),” dated December 22, 2014; and “Countervailing Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Verification Report of the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC),” dated December 22, 2014.

    On February 6, 2015, CIMC, Singamas and its holding company, Singamas Container Holdings Limited (Singamas Holding); the GOC; Petitioner; and Crowley Maritime Corporation and Crowley Liner Services, Inc. and Sea Star Line, LLC (hereafter, collectively, “Crowley”) filed case briefs. On February 12, 2015, CIMC, Singamas, Singamas Holding, the GOC, Petitioner, Crowley, and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (J.B. Hunt) timely filed rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to the Department's request, Crowley and Petitioner filed additional scope comments to the record of this proceeding.5

    5 On April 2, 2015, the Department instructed all interested parties to this investigation that filed scope comments on the record of the companion AD investigation to file those comments and rebuttals on the record of this instant investigation.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.

    Scope Comments

    The Department received comments regarding the scope of this investigation from interested parties. As detailed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum,6 we have not made any changes to the scope.

    6See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from the People's Republic of China: Issues & Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to investigation is closed (i.e., not open top) van containers exceeding 14.63 meters (48 feet) but generally measuring 16.154 meters (53 feet) in exterior length, which are designed for the intermodal transport 7 of goods other than bulk liquids within North America primarily by rail or by road vehicle, or by a combination of rail and road vehicle (domestic containers). Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under subheading 8609.00.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Imports of the subject merchandise which meet the definition of and requirements for “instruments of international traffic” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1322 and 19 CFR 10.41a may be classified under subheading 9803.00.50, HTSUS. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix II to this notice.

    7 “Intermodal transport” refers to a movement of freight using more than one mode of transportation, most commonly on a container chassis for on-the-road transportation and on a rail car for rail transportation.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby incorporated in, and adopted by, this notice.8 This memorandum also details the changes we made since the Preliminary Determination to the subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondents and all other producers/exporters. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:\\access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http:\\enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

    8See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Use of Facts Otherwise Available, Including Adverse Inferences

    For purposes of this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability in responding to the Department's requests for information, drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.9 For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences,” in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    9See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to CIMC's and Singamas's subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Final Analysis Memoranda, all dated concurrently with this notice.10

    10See Memorandum to Angelica Townshend, Program Manager, from Ilissa Kabak Shefferman, International Trade Compliance Analyst, entitled “Countervailing Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers (Domestic Dry Containers) from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination Calculations for CIMC,” dated April 10, 2015; and Memorandum to Angelica Townshend, Program Manager, from David Cordell, International Trade Compliance Analyst, entitled ” Countervailing Duty Investigation of 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers (Domestic Dry Containers) from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination Calculations for Singamas,” dated April 10, 2015.

    Final Determination

    For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution and benefit within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act, and that the subsidy is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. For further analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

    Exporter/producer Subsidy rate
  • (%)
  • CIMC 28.00 Singamas 17.13 All-Others 22.57
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of the public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of domestic dry containers from the PRC that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 29, 2014, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.11 In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after January 27, 2015, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from September 29, 2014, through January 26, 2015.

    11See Preliminary Determination, 79 FR at 58321.

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for the individually-investigated producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, CIMC and Singamas. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an “all-others” rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. As described above, neither of the mandatory respondents' subsidy rates was zero or de minimis or was calculated entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the “all-others” rate by weight averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, for the “all-others” rate, we calculated a simple average of the rates of CIMC and Singamas.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final affirmative CVD determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination, in accordance with section 705(b)(2)(B) of the Act, as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or whether the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of domestic dry containers from the PRC no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for appropriate entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of the establishment of an industry does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. We are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APOs of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This determination and notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Importers From the PRC VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VII. Analysis of Comments CIMC Issues Comment 1: The Department should correct the Ad Valorem subsidy rate with respect to loans that CIMC received during the POI from the China Export-Import Bank Comment 2: Whether CIMC is a State owned enterprise (SOE) such that it could benefit from the loans to SOEs program Comment 3: Whether the CIMC Preferential Lending to SOEs loan program is specific Comment 4: Whether the Department should apply adverse facts available in calculating the benefit CIMC received under the preferential lending to SOEs program Singamas Issues Comment 5: The sales e value to be used as denominators to calculate subsidy rates with respect to Singamas Overlapping Issues Comment 6: Hot-Rolled Steel Sheet and Plate Less than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) and whether the Department should reverse its findings regarding the hot-rolled LTAR benchmark. (A) Whether the Department should use domestic Chinese steel prices on the record to determine whether the GOC provided hot-rolled steel for LTAR. (B) Whether the Department properly found that “authorities” provided a benefit in the form of the provision of a good for LTAR (C) Whether the Department properly found “Specificity” (D) Benchmarks and calculation of benefit Comment 7: Export Buyer's Credits Program Comment 8: Scope Exclusion Request VIII. Recommendation Appendix II Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to investigation is closed (i.e., not open top) van containers exceeding 14.63 meters (48 feet) but generally measuring 16.154 meters (53 feet) in exterior length, which are designed for the intermodal transport 12 of goods other than bulk liquids within North America primarily by rail or by road vehicle, or by a combination of rail and road vehicle (domestic containers). The merchandise is known in the industry by varying terms including “53-foot containers,” “53-foot dry containers,” “53-foot domestic dry containers,” “domestic dry containers” and “domestic containers.” These terms all describe the same article with the same design and performance characteristics. Notwithstanding the particular terminology used to describe the merchandise, all merchandise that meets the definition set forth herein is included within the scope of this investigation.

    12 “Intermodal transport” refers to a movement of freight using more than one mode of transportation, most commonly on a container chassis for on-the-road transportation and on a rail car for rail transportation.

    Domestic containers generally meet the characteristic for closed van containers for domestic intermodal service as described in the American Association of Railroads (AAR) Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices Intermodal Equipment Manual Closed Van Containers for Domestic Intermodal Service Specification M 930 Adopted: 1972; Last Revised 2013 (AAR Specifications) for 53-foot and 53-foot high cube containers. The AAR Specifications generally define design, performance and testing requirements for closed van containers, but are not dispositive for purposes of defining subject merchandise within this scope definition. Containers which may not fall precisely within the AAR Specifications or any successor equivalent specifications are included within the scope definition of the subject merchandise if they have the exterior dimensions referenced below, are suitable for use in intermodal transportation, are capable of and suitable for double-stacking 13 in intermodal transportation, and otherwise meet the scope definition for the subject merchandise.

    13 “Double-stacking” refers to two levels of intermodal containers on a rail car, one on top of the other.

    Domestic containers have the following actual exterior dimensions: An exterior length exceeding 14.63 meters (48 feet) but not exceeding 16.154 meters (53 feet); an exterior width of between 2.438 meters and 2.60 meters (between 8 feet and 8 feet 63/8 inches); and an exterior height of between 2.438 meters and 2.908 meters (between 8 feet and 9 feet 61/2 inches), all subject to tolerances as allowed by the AAR Specifications. In addition to two frames (one at either end of the container), the domestic containers within the scope definition have two stacking frames located equidistant from each end of the container, as required by the AAR Specifications. The stacking frames have four upper handling fittings and four bottom dual aperture handling fittings, placed at the respective corners of the stacking frames. Domestic containers also have two forward facing fittings at the front lower corners and two downward facing fittings at the rear lower corners of the container to facilitate chassis interface.

    All domestic containers as described herein are included within this scope definition, regardless of whether the merchandise enters the United States in a final, assembled condition, or as an unassembled kit or substantially complete domestic container which requires additional manipulation or processing after entry into the United States to be made ready for use as a domestic container.

    The scope of this investigation excludes the following items: (1) Refrigerated containers; (2) trailers, where the cargo box and rear wheeled chassis are of integrated construction, and the cargo box of the unit may not be separated from the chassis for further intermodal transport; (3) container chassis, whether or not imported with domestic containers, but the domestic containers remain subject merchandise, to the extent they meet the written description of the scope. Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under subheading 8609.00.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Imports of the subject merchandise which meet the definition of and requirements for “instruments of international traffic” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1322 and 19 CFR 10.41a may be classified under subheading 9803.00.50, HTSUS. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise as set forth herein is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08904 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD789 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Marine Corps Training Exercises at Brant Island Bombing Target and Piney Island Bombing Range, USMC Cherry Point Range Complex, North Carolina AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of a Letter of Authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the U.S. Marine Corps (Marine Corps) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to training operations at the Brant Island Bombing Target (BT-9) and Piney Island Bombing Range (BT-11) located within the Marine Corps' Cherry Point Range Complex in Pamlico Sound, NC.

    DATES:

    Effective from March 13, 2015, through March 12, 2020.

    ADDRESSES:

    The LOA and supporting documentation may be obtained by writing to Jolie Harrison, Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East West-Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, calling the contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm.Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

    Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].” Because the Marine Corps' activities constitute military readiness activities, they are not subject to the small numbers or specified geographic region limitations.

    NMFS issued regulations governing the take of one species of marine mammal, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to training activities on March 13, 2015. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during the specified activities.

    This LOA is effective from March 13, 2015, through March 12, 2020, and authorizes the incidental take of bottlenose dolphins that may result from the training exercises occurring at the BT-9 and BT-11 bombing targets located within the Marine Corps' Cherry Point Range Complex in Pamlico Sound, NC.

    The Marine Corps would conduct weapons delivery training exercises (air-to-surface and surface-to-surface) at the two water-based bombing targets located within the Cherry Point Range Complex in North Carolina. The military readiness activities would occur between March 2015 and March 2020, year-round, day or night. The Marine Corps proposes to use small arms, large arms, bombs, rockets, grenades, and pyrotechnics for the air-to-surface and surface-to-surface training exercises, which qualify as military readiness activities. NMFS anticipates that take, by Level B (behavioral) and Level A harassment of individuals of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) would result from the training exercises. The noise generated by the Marine Corps' activities would result in the incidental harassment of bottlenose dolphins, both behaviorally and in terms of physiological (auditory) impacts.

    Take of marine mammals will be minimized through the implementation of the following mitigation and monitoring measures:

    • Required pre- and post-exercise monitoring of the training areas to detect the presence of marine mammals during training exercises.

    • Required monitoring of the training areas during active training exercises with required suspensions/delays of training activities if a marine mammal enters within any of the designated mitigation zones.

    • Required reporting of stranded or injured marine mammals in the vicinity of the BT-9 and BT-11 bombing targets located within the Marine Corps' Cherry Point Range Complex in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina to the NMFS Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

    • Required research on a real-time acoustic monitoring system to automate detection of bottlenose dolphins in the training areas.

    Through this LOA, the Marine Corps is required to monitor for marine mammals and submit an annual report to NMFS by June 1, annually. The report will include data collected from the monitoring program. Additional information on the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements can be found in the final rule (80 FR 13264, March 13, 2015). The Marine Corps is also required to submit a comprehensive report, which shall provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation of all monitoring during the period of effectiveness of this LOA.

    This Authorization remains valid through March 12, 2020 provided the Marine Corps remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOA, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR 218.240 through 218.249 and the LOA are implemented.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08841 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD814 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Land Survey Activities Within the Eastern Aleutian Islands Archipelago, Alaska, 2015 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received an application from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to take marine mammals, by harassment incidental to conducting a one-day field-based land survey of cultural sites located on a small island within the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago for a land claim made by an Alaska Regional Native Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The proposed date for this action would be on one day between the periods of June 1 through July 31, 2015. Per the Marine Mammal Protection Act, NMFS is requesting comments on the proposal to issue an Authorization to BLM to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal during the specified activity.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive comments and information on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address comments on the application to Jolie Harrison, Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is [email protected] Please include 0648-XD818 in the subject line. Comments sent via email to [email protected], including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here.

    Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public record and NMFS will post them to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    To obtain an electronic copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document, write to the previously mentioned address, telephone the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visit the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm.

    NMFS will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate the environmental effects related to the scope of our Federal action, which is the proposed issuance of an Authorization to BLM for their proposed land survey activities. This notice presents detailed information on the scope of NMFS' Federal action under NEPA (i.e., the proposed Authorization including mitigation measures and monitoring) and NMFS will consider comments submitted in response to this notice for the preparation the EA. Information in BLM's application and this notice collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed issuance of the Authorization for public review and comment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after NMFS provides a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for review and comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) the taking is limited to harassment.

    An Authorization shall be granted for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The Authorization must also set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat; and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

    Summary of Request

    On September 8, 2014, NMFS received an application from BLM requesting that we issue an Authorization for the take of marine mammals, incidental to conducting one field-based land survey for a land claim of cultural sites located on a small island in the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago. BLM must conduct the land survey under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as amended (ANCSA; 43 U.S.C. 1601-1624). NMFS determined the application complete and adequate on February 17, 2015.

    BLM proposes to conduct one field-based land survey of a land claim made pursuant to section 14(h)(1) of the ANCSA by an Alaska Native Regional Corporation. The land survey may temporarily disturb Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) hauled out at the selected cultural site. BLM proposes to complete the land survey within one day between June 1 and July 31, 2015.

    BLM would conduct the proposed activity within the vicinity of a major Steller sea lion haulout site identified in the regulations at 50 CFR 226.202 and the following aspects of the proposed activity would likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Noise generated by vessel approaches and departures; noise generated by personnel while conducting the land survey; and human presence during the proposed activity. Thus, NMFS anticipates that take, by Level B harassment only of one species of marine mammal could result from the specified activity. NMFS anticipates that take by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of Steller sea lions only would result from the specified activity.

    Description of the Specified Activity Overview

    BLM must conduct the land survey to support conveyance of existing cemetery sites and historical places to an Alaska Native Regional Corporation as required under the ANCSA. Once BLM concludes the survey no additional visits would be necessary for the proposed action.

    Dates and Duration

    BLM would complete the survey within one day (approximately 6-10 hours) between June 1 and July 31, 2015. Thus, the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be effective from June 1, 2015 through July 31, 2015. NMFS refers the reader to the Detailed Description of Activities section later in this notice for more information on the scope of the proposed activities.

    Specified Geographic Region

    BLM's application contains information on sensitive archaeological site locations prohibited from disclosure to the public under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The island is small (less than 5 acres), extremely rugged, and uninhabited by people. This notice will describe the specified geographic region as cultural sites located on a small island in the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago.

    Detailed Description of Activities

    BLM proposes to conduct the land survey with a small group of no more than four people who would use a global position system (GPS) unit to determine the locational accuracy of the selected cultural site. After selecting the placement location for the survey marker, BLM surveyors would use shovels, digging bars, and mallets to set a group of official U.S. survey markers into the ground. BLM does not plan to use any power tools to conduct the land survey.

    BLM personnel would access the selected cultural sites using two types of boats: A mid-sized marine vessel (approximately 15 meters (m); 50 feet (ft) in length) and a small skiff. The main vessel would approach the remote island at a speed of approximately 8 knots (kt) (9.2 miles per hour) and would launch the skiff to cross the shallower waters immediately surrounding the small island in the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago.

    Once on land, surveyors would walk to the survey sites to conduct their activities. BLM does not propose to use any type of motorized vehicles on the small island.

    There is a possibility that BLM would need to access the island by helicopter or sea plane, if they determine that accessing the island by sea would not be feasible due to weather or scheduling constraints. However, the likelihood of BLM using this mode of transit is extremely low given the high expense involved with chartering aircraft.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Table 1 in this notice provides the following information: All marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the proposed survey areas on land; information on those species' regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); abundance; occurrence and seasonality in the activity area. NMFS refers the public the 2014 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm for further information on the biology and distribution of these species. Based on recent survey reports, there are no other species of marine mammals present in the action area (BLM, Pers. Comm.)

    Table 1—General Information on Marine Mammals That Could Potentially Haul Out in the Proposed Cultural Site on a Small Island Within the Eastern Aleutian Islands Archipelago, June Through July, 2015 Species Stock name Regulatory
  • status 1 2
  • Stock/species
  • abundance 3
  • Occurrence
  • and range
  • Season
    Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Western U.S. MMPA-D, S
  • ESA-T
  • 82,516 common Winter/Spring.
    Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Eastern U.S. MMPA-D, S
  • ESA-DL
  • 60,131-74,448 uncommon Unknown.
    1 MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified. 2 ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed. 3 2014 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Allen and Angliss, 2015).
    Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Steller Sea Lions

    NMFS categorizes the western DPS of Steller sea lion as a strategic stock and depleted under the MMPA and endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.). The latest abundance estimate for the western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions is 82,516 animals (Allen and Angliss, 2015).

    Eastern DPS of Steller Sea Lions

    The eastern DPS includes animals born east of Cape Suckling, AK (144° W) and the latest abundance estimate for the stock is 60,131 to 74,448 animals (Allen and Angliss, 2015). Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California (Loughlin et al., 1984), with centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, respectively. The species is not known to migrate, but individuals disperse widely outside of the breeding season (late May through early July), thus potentially intermixing with animals from other areas. Recently, Jemison et al. (2013) summarized that there is regular movement of Steller sea lions from the western DPS (males and females equally) and eastern DPS (almost exclusively males) across the DPS boundary at Cape Suckling, AK. However, the proposed land survey location is over 1,000 kilometers from the DPS boundary and NMFS expects that few if any Steller sea lions from the eastern DPS would be present on the small island.

    Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat

    Under the ESA, NMFS has designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions based on the location of terrestrial rookery and haulout sites, spatial extent of foraging trips, and availability of prey items (50 CFR 226.202). Critical habitat includes a terrestrial zone that extends 0.9 km (3,000 ft) landward from the baseline or base point of a major haulout in Alaska. Critical habitat includes an air zone that extends 0.9 km (3,000 ft) above the terrestrial zone of a major haulout in Alaska, measured vertically from sea level. Critical habitat includes an aquatic zone that extends 20 nautical miles (37 km; 23 miles (mi)) seaward in state and federally managed waters from the baseline or basepoint of a major haulout in Alaska west of 144° W longitude. BLM's proposed action falls within an area designated as a major haulout for Steller sea lions.

    Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed Action Area

    The BLM, in collaboration with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, has not encountered any other species of marine mammal (e.g., the northern fur seal, (Callorhinus ursinus)) hauled out on the small island in the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago during the course of previous surveying activities within the area over the past 13 years (ADGF, Pers. Comm.). NMFS independently evaluated the likelihood of northern fur seal presence in the action area using the Ocean Biogeographic Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations viewer (OBIS SEAMAP, 2015) and found no records of observations of northern fur seals within the proposed action area. Thus, NMFS will not consider this species further in this notice.

    Potential Effects of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., personnel presence) have been observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that NMFS considers to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level of a take. This section serves as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which the applicant will carry out the activity or the mitigation that will be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that NMFS expects BLM to take during this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity would impact marine mammals. NMFS will consider the content of the following sections: Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment; Proposed Mitigation; and Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals—and from that consideration—the likely impacts of this activity on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.

    Potential Effects of Human Presence on Marine Mammals

    The appearance of BLM surveyors may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of Steller sea lions hauled out on the small island in the proposed action area. Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. Disturbance may result in reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert to the presence of the surveyors (e.g., turning the head, assuming a more upright posture) to flushing from the haul-out site into the water. NMFS does not consider the lesser reactions to constitute behavioral harassment, or Level B harassment takes, but rather assumes that pinnipeds that move greater than 1 meter (m) (3.3 feet (ft)) or change the speed or direction of their movement in response to the presence of surveyors are behaviorally harassed, and thus subject to Level B taking. Animals that respond to the presence of surveyors by becoming alert, but do not move or change the nature of locomotion as described, are not considered to have been subject to behavioral harassment.

    Reactions to human presence, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). These behavioral reactions are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into the water from haul-outs or rookeries). If a marine mammal does react briefly to human presence by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if visual stimuli from human presence displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007).

    Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf et al., 1981; Schneider and Payne, 1983; Terhune and Almon, 1983; Allen et al., 1984; Stewart, 1984; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; Mortenson et al., 2000; and Kucey and Trites, 2006). Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush harbor seals off haulout sites (Allen et al., 1984; Calambokidis et al., 1991; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; and Mortenson et al., 2000) or lead to Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) avoidance of beach areas The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) avoiding beaches (Kenyon, 1972). In one case, human disturbance appeared to cause Steller sea lions to desert a breeding area at Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, Alaska (Kenyon, 1962).

    In cases where vessels actively approached marine mammals (e.g., whale watching or dolphin watching boats), scientists have documented that animals exhibit altered behavior such as increased swimming speed, erratic movement, and active avoidance behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption of normal social behaviors (Lusseau, 2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral activities which may increase energetic costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004).

    In 1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) conducted a study to measure the impacts of small boats (i.e., kayaks, canoes, motorboats and sailboats) on harbor seal haulout behavior in Métis Bay, Quebec, Canada. During that study, the authors noted that the most frequent disturbances (n=73) were caused by lower speed, lingering kayaks, and canoes (33.3 percent) as opposed to motorboats (27.8 percent) conducting high speed passes. The seal's flight reactions could be linked to a surprise factor by kayaks-canoes which approach slowly, quietly and low on water making them look like predators. However, the authors note that once the animals were disturbed, there did not appear to be any significant lingering effect on the recovery of numbers to their pre-disturbance levels. In conclusion, the study showed that boat traffic at current levels has only a temporary effect on the haulout behavior of harbor seals in the Métis Bay area.

    In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow Island, Washington. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haulout site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007). As a general statement from the available information, pinnipeds exposed to intense (approximately 110 to 120 decibels re: 20 μPa) non-pulse sounds often leave haulout areas and seek refuge temporarily (minutes to a few hours) in the water (Southall et al., 2007).

    There are three ways in which disturbance, as described previously, could result in more than Level B harassment of marine mammals. All three are most likely to be consequences of stampeding, a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus. The three situations are: (1) Falling when entering the water at high-relief locations; (2) extended separation of mothers and pups; and (3) crushing of pups by large males during a stampede. However, NMFS does not expect any of these scenarios to occur at the proposed survey site.

    Because hauled-out animals may move towards the water when disturbed, there is the risk of injury if animals stampede towards shorelines with precipitous relief (e.g., cliffs). However, while high-elevation sites exist on the small island, the haulout sites consist of ridges with unimpeded and non-obstructive access to the water. If disturbed, the small number of hauled-out adult animals may move toward the water without risk of encountering barriers or hazards that would otherwise prevent them from leaving the area. Moreover, the proposed area would not be crowded with large numbers of Steller sea lions during June or July, further eliminating the possibility of potentially injurious mass movements of animals attempting to vacate the haulout. Thus, in this case, NMFS considers the risk of injury, serious injury, or death to hauled-out animals as very low.

    Finally, only adult Steller sea lions occupy the haulout site during June and July. No pups or breeding adults would be present during the proposed survey.

    The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (i.e., vessel strike) occurring during the proposed activities is unlikely due to main vessels slow operational speed around the island, which is typically 8 knots (9.2 miles per hour) coupled with the observer and BLM personnel continually scanning the water for marine mammals presence during transit to the island. Thus, NMFS does not anticipate that take would result from the movement of the main vessel or skiff.

    Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The only habitat modification associated with the proposed activity is the placement of a group of official U.S. survey markers into the ground. BLM would conduct the installation of the survey markers under the appropriate authorities (ANCSA) and would not use any power tools to set the markers.

    NMFS expects that the presence of the surveyors would likely disturb any marine mammals present at the site. NMFS also expects that marine mammals would retreat to a distance where noise related to the use of shovels, digging bars, and mallets would not increase the disturbance. In most instances, wind and wave noise would also drown out the noise of the hand tools. At the conclusion of the survey, BLM would remove all survey equipment and would not leave any trash or field gear at the site.

    NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed survey would result in any permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). Based on the preceding discussion, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

    Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

    Mitigation Measures

    The BLM proposes to implement several mitigation measures to reduce potential take by Level B (behavioral disturbance) harassment. Measures include: (1) Conducting slow and controlled approaches to the island by vessel and skiff as far away as possible from hauled out sea lions to prevent or minimize stampeding; (2) avoiding placing the skiff in the path of swimming sea lions that may be present; (3) beginning terrestrial activities as far away as possible from hauled out sea lions; (4) conducting slow movements to prevent or minimize stampeding; (5) avoiding loud noises (i.e., using hushed voices); (6) avoiding pinnipeds along access ways to sites by locating and taking a different access way and vacating the area as soon as possible after completing the land survey; (7) monitoring the offshore area for predators (such as killer whales and white sharks) and avoid flushing of pinnipeds when predators are observed in nearshore waters; and (8) using binoculars to detect pinnipeds before close approach to avoid being seen by animals.

    BLM will use the methodologies and actions noted in this section which NMFS would include as mitigation measures in any issued Authorization to ensure that BLM mitigates impacts to marine mammals to the lowest level practicable. The primary method of mitigating the risk of disturbance to sea lions, which will be in use at all times, is the selection of judicious routes of approach to the survey site, avoiding close contact with sea lions hauled out on shore, and the use of extreme caution upon approach. In no case will BLM deliberately approach marine mammals. BLM personnel would select a pathway of approach to the survey sites that minimizes the number of marine mammals potentially harassed. In general, BLM personnel would stay inshore of sea lions whenever possible to allow slow and controlled egress to the ocean. The survey would last for approximately 6-10 hours, after which personnel would vacate the survey site. Any marine mammals that may have been disturbed by the presence of surveyors could re-occupy the site after completion of the survey.

    Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated BLM's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of affecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. The evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

    • The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

    • The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

    • The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here:

    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to vessel or visual presence that NMFS expects to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals exposed to vessel or visual presence that NMFS expects to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to vessel or visual presence that NMFS expects to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

    Based on the evaluation of BLM proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

    Proposed Monitoring

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for Authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that NMFS expects to be present in the proposed action area.

    BLM submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 13 of their Authorization application. NMFS or BLM may modify or supplement the plan based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.

    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

    1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, (i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and/or density of species).

    2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g., sound or visual stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following: The action itself and its environment (e.g., sound source characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected species (e.g., life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal (e.g., age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding areas).

    3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).

    4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g. through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival).

    5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).

    6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.

    7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.

    8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.

    As part of its Authorization application, BLM proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the proposed Authorization. These include:

    • The vessel would circle the island from the greatest distance feasible for accurate observation to allow the marine mammal observer (observer) to map and record the initial locations, numbers, and behaviors of Steller sea lions using the island before commencing the survey. The observer would use this information to recommend where BLM personnel should approach the survey area to minimize disruption to any Steller sea lions hauled out on the island.

    • Once on land, the observer would record any changes in sea lion locations, numbers, or behaviors observed during the reconnaissance.

    • The observer would post at a location (e.g., a ridge or other high elevation area) to visually observe sea lions with no or minimal risk of modifying their behavior. If possible, the observer would also have the land survey crew in sight and would communicate with the surveyors using hand-held radios. The observer would advise the crew on the location and behavior of the sea lions to maximize the safety of both the sea lions and the crew.

    Proposed monitoring requirements in relation to BLM's proposed activities would include species counts, numbers of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the monitoring surveys, including location, date, and time of the event. In addition, BLM would record observations regarding the number and species of any marine mammals either observed in the water or hauled out.

    BLM can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in the proposed action area by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.

    If at any time injury, serious injury, or mortality of the species for which take is authorized should occur, or if take of any kind of any other marine mammal occurs, and such action may be a result of the proposed land survey, BLM would suspend survey activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to proceed to ensure that another injury or death does not occur and to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.

    Proposed Reporting

    BLM would submit a draft report to NMFS Office of Protected Resources no later than 90 days after the expiration of the proposed Authorization, if issued. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the proposed Authorization. BLM will submit a final report to the Director of the NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If BLM receives no comments from NMFS on the report, NMFS will consider the draft report to be the final report.

    The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:

    1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities.

    2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities.

    3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to human presence associated with the survey activities.

    4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), BLM personnel shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the following information:

    • Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    • Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);

    • Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    BLM shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with BLM to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. BLM may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.

    In the event that BLM discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the marine mammal observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), BLM will immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with BLM to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    In the event that BLM discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), BLM will report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 within 24 hours of the discovery. BLM personnel will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us. BLM can continue their survey activities while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

    Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

    All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. NMFS expects that the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes. NMFS considers the potential for take by injury, serious injury, or mortality as remote. NMFS expects that the presence of BLM personnel could disturb of animals hauled out close to the survey site and that the animals may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the surveyors.

    As discussed earlier, NMFS considers an animal to have been harassed if it moved greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in response to the surveyors' presence or if the animal was already moving and changed direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushed into the water. NMFS does not consider animals that became alert without such movements as harassed.

    For the purpose of this proposed Authorization, BLM proposed take estimates based on sea lion survey counts obtained from NMFS' National Marine Mammal (NMML) Steller Sea Lion Count Database and from researchers with extensive knowledge and experience of the survey location. Data from NMFS' National Marine Mammal (NMML) Steller Sea Lion Count Database indicate that approximately 80 adult Steller sea lions of the western DPS haul out on the small island mainly in late winter and early spring (NMML, 2015). However, use of that particular haulout decreases after May in the summer with NMML's database records (2000-2008) indicating a maximum of eight adults hauled out on the island during June or July (NMML, 2015; B. Fadely, Pers. Comm.).

    These observations formed the basis of the actual number of marine mammals that may be subject to take. Based on best available information, NMFS estimates that the survey activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral harassment up to 20 Steller sea lions over the course of the Authorization. This estimate represents less than one percent (0.0002) of the western DPS of Steller sea lions and accounts for a maximum disturbance of 20 animals during the one-day visit to the island. Actual take may be slightly less if animals decide to haul out at a different location for the day or if animals are foraging at the time of the survey activities.

    NMFS does not propose to authorize any injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expect all potential takes to fall under the category of Level B harassment only.

    Encouraging and Coordinating Research

    BLM would share observations and counts of marine mammals and all observed disturbances to the appropriate state and federal agencies at the conclusion of the survey.

    Analysis and Preliminary Determinations Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact' is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact finding. An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

    Although BLM's survey activities may disturb sea lions hauled out on the island, NMFS expects those impacts to occur to a small, localized group of animals for a limited duration (e.g., 6-10 hours in one day). Steller sea lions would likely become alert or, at most, flush into the water in reaction to the presence of BLM personnel during the proposed activities. Disturbance will be limited to a short duration, allowing adult sea lions to reoccupy the island within a short amount of time. Thus, the proposed action is unlikely to result in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the haul-out.

    BLM's activities would occur during the least sensitive time (e.g., summer, June through July) for hauled out sea lions on the island. Only adult Steller sea lions occupy the haulout site during June and July. Thus, pups or breeding adults would not be present during the proposed one-day survey.

    Moreover, BLM's mitigation measures regarding transit speed, island approaches, and survey site ingress and egress would minimize the potential for stampedes and large-scale movements. Thus, the potential for large-scale movements and stampede leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality is low.

    NMFS proposes to authorize take for the Western DPS of Steller sea lion listed as endangered under the ESA and classified as a strategic stock and depleted under the MMPA. BLM's proposed action falls within an area designated as a major haulout for Steller sea lions under the critical habitat designations of the ESA. Steller sea lions spend much of their time in marine water but they do rest and breed on land. During the breeding and pupping season (late May to early July), reproductively active adult Steller sea lions occupy rookeries (terrestrial birthing sites) whereas non-breeding individuals use haulouts (terrestrial resting sites). In this case, relatively small numbers (less than 10) of adult, non-reproducing, Steller sea lions use the island as a haulout during the months of June and July when the one-day survey would occur. Moreover, BLM's proposed activities would not significantly alter the physical or biological features of the critical habitat. Project related disturbances to Steller sea lion would result from stimuli related to vessel and human presence within the proposed area. However, the disturbances related to these activities are temporary in nature and not expected to permanently modify the critical habitat.

    In summary, NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out Steller sea lions during BLM's land survey activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (i.e., less than one day) and limited intensity (i.e., temporary flushing at most). NMFS does not expect stampeding, and therefore injury or mortality to occur (see “Mitigation” for more details). Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from BLM's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers

    As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that BLM's proposed activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. NMFS estimates that the survey activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral harassment up to 20 Steller sea lions over the course of the proposed Authorization. This estimate represents less than one percent (0.0002) of the western DPS of Steller sea lions and accounts for a maximum disturbance of 20 animals during the one-day visit to the island. For the Western DPS of Steller sea lion, this estimate is small (less than one percent) relative to the population size of 82,516 animals. However, actual take may be slightly less if animals decide to haul out at a different location for the day or if animals are foraging at the time of the survey activities. Based on the analysis contained in this notice of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that BLM's proposed activities would take small numbers of marine mammals relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

    Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. The proposed activity occurs south of the latitude that NMFS' categorizes as within Arctic waters (i.e., north of 60° N). Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    For the reasons already described in this notice, NMFS has determined that the issuance of a proposed Authorization may have an effect on species or critical habitat protected under the ESA (specifically, the Steller sea lion). Under section 7 of the ESA, BLM has initiated formal consultation with NMFS on the proposed land survey. NMFS (i.e., National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division) will also consult internally with NMFS on the proposed issuance of an Authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. NMFS and BLM will conclude the consultation prior to a determination on the issuance of the Authorization.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    To meet NEPA requirements for the issuance of a proposed Authorization to BLM, NMFS intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on NMFS' proposed action. Prior to making a final decision on the issuance of an Authorization, NMFS would decide whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact. NMFS will review all comments submitted in response to this notice to complete the NEPA process prior to making a final decision on the Authorization request.

    Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes issuing an Incidental Harassment Authorization to BLM for take incidental to conducting a one-day field-based land survey of cultural sites located on a small island within the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago, during the period of June 1, 2015 through July 31, 2015, provided they incorporate the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

    Draft Proposed Authorization

    This section contains the draft text for the proposed Authorization. NMFS proposes to include this language in the Authorization if issued.

    Proposed Authorization Language

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—Alaska Division of Lands and Cadastral, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513 and/or its designees (holders of the Authorization) are hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting a one-day field-based land survey of cultural sites.

    1. This Authorization is valid from June 1 through July 31, 2015.

    2. This Authorization is valid only for land survey activities that would occur in the following specified geographic area: The island within the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago identified in BLM's application.

    3. Species Authorized and Level of Takes

    a. The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species: 20 Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus).

    b. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.

    c. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.

    4. General Conditions

    A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of the BLM, its designees, and field crew personnel operating under the authority of this Authorization at all times. BLM must also abide by the Terms and Conditions included within the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take Statement.

    5. Mitigation Measures

    BLM and its designees must implement the following mitigation measures:

    a. Conduct a slow and controlled approach to the island by vessel and skiff as far away as possible from hauled out sea lions to prevent or minimize stampeding.

    b. Ensure that the main vessel and skiff approach the island at a reasonably slow speed (i.e., no faster than 8 knots (9.2 miles per hour)).

    c. Monitor for offshore predators such as great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) or killer whales (Orcinus orca) prior to accessing the island. If BLM and/or its designees see predators in the area, they must not disturb the animals until the area is free of predators.

    d. Avoid placing the skiff in the path of swimming sea lions that may be present in the area.

    e. Select a pathway of approach to the survey site that minimizes the number of marine mammals harassed and conduct slow movements while accessing and exiting the island to prevent or minimize stampeding.

    f. Maintain a quiet working atmosphere, avoid loud noises, and use hushed voices in the presence of hauled out pinnipeds.

    g. Initiate the land survey away from hauled out sea lions as far away as practicable. If BLM and/or its designees need to survey in the direction of hauled out sea lions, proceed in a slow and controlled manner to minimize disturbance and allow animals to slowly flush into the water.

    h. Use binoculars to detect pinnipeds before close approach to avoid being seen by animals.

    6. Monitoring

    The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct monitoring of marine mammals present at the survey site. BLM and/or its designees shall have at least one NMFS-qualified biologist serve as a marine mammal observer to evaluate incidental take and implement mitigation measures.

    a. BLM and/or its designees shall record the following:

    i. Species counts (with numbers of adults/juveniles); and:

    ii. Numbers of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of intensity including: (1) Head orientation in response to disturbance, which may include turning head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, or changing from a lying to a sitting position and/or slight movement of less than 1 meter; “alert”; (2) Movements in response to or away from disturbance, typically over short distances (1-3 meters) and including dramatic changes in direction or speed of locomotion for animals already in motion; “movement”; and (3) All flushes to the water as well as lengthier retreats (>3 meters); “flight”.

    iii. Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility.

    b. If applicable, the observer shall note observations of marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammal.

    c. If applicable, the observer shall note the presence of any offshore predators (date, time, number, and species).

    7. Reporting

    The holder of this Authorization is required to:

    a. Draft Report: Submit a draft monitoring report to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service within 90 days after the Authorization expires. NMFS will review the Draft Report which is subject to review and comment by NMFS. BLM must address any recommendations made by NMFS in the Final Report prior to submission to NMFS. If NMFS decides that the draft final report needs no comments, NMFS will consider the draft report as the Final Report.

    b. Final Report: BLM shall prepare and submit a Final Report to NMFS within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report from NMFS.

    8. Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), BLM and/or its designees shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the following information:

    • Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    • Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);

    • Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    BLM shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with BLM to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. BLM may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.

    In the event that BLM discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the marine mammal observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), BLM will immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with BLM to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    In the event that BLM discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), BLM will report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 within 24 hours of the discovery. BLM personnel will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us. BLM can continue their survey activities while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

    Request for Public Comments

    NMFS requests comments on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed Authorization for the proposed activities. Please include any supporting data or literature citations with your comments to help inform our final decision on BLM's request for an Authorization.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08840 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 5/18/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Deletions

    On 3/6/2015 (80 FR 12156) and 3/13/2015 (80 FR 13351-13352), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products Product Name/NSN: Binder, Vinyl/7510-00-NIB-0588. Mandatory Source of Supply: ForSight Vision, York, PA. Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY. Product Name/NSN: Binder, Round Ring, Clear Overlay, Pockets, Brown, 1 1/2″ Capacity, Letter Size/7510-01-519-4361. Mandatory Source of Supply: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX. Contracting Activity(s): General Services Administration, New York, NY. Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL. Product Name/NSN(s): Bottle, Pharmaceutical, White, Screw Cap. 6530-00-NIB-0129—60cc 6530-00-NIB-0130—100cc 6530-00-NIB-0131—150cc 6530-00-NIB-0132—300cc 6530-00-NIB-0133—500cc Mandatory Source of Supply: Alphapointe, Kansas City, MO. Contracting Activity: Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Contract & Grants Operations, Washington, DC. Product Name/NSN(s): Cap, Operating, Surgical. 6532-00-250-5041 6532-00-250-5042 Mandatory Source of Supply: Allied Health Care Services, Clarks Summit, PA. Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA. Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08847 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: 5/18/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products Product Name/NSN: Rain Gauge, 4″/6660-00-920-3722. Mandatory Source of Supply: Productive Alternatives, Inc., Fergus Falls, MN. Contracting Activity: Dept of Comm/Office of the Secretary, Kansas City, MO. Product Name(s)/NSN(s): Brassard, Military Police/8455-00-818-8826, Brassard, Army, Military/8455-01-236-1174. Mandatory Source of Supply: No NPA Assigned. Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA. Product Name/NSN(s): Vest, Load Bearing Equipment, 8465-01-440-3690—Rappel Seat, Assembly, Part No 3505-06-203—strap, Leg, Part No 3505-06-205—Strap, Waist, 8465-01-440-5883—Harness, SPIE, Assembly. Mandatory Source of Supply: Chautauqua County Chapter, NYSARC, Jamestown, NY. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Commander, Quantico, VA. Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08848 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Reserve Forces Policy Board (“the Board”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being renewed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 175 and 10301 and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a), established the Board.

    The Board is a statutory Federal advisory committee that serves as an independent adviser to the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on strategic, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the reserve components. The Board shall provide to the Secretary of Defense, for transmittal to the President and the Congress, an annual report on any reserve component matters that the Board considers appropriate.

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

    Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 10301(c), the Board shall be composed of 20 members, appointed or designated as follows:

    a. A civilian appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among persons determined by the Secretary to have the knowledge of, and experience in, policy matters relevant to national security and reserve component matters necessary to carry out the duties of Chair of the Board, who shall serve as Chair of the Board.

    b. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Army:

    (1) One of whom shall be a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or a former member of the Army National Guard of the United States in the Retired Reserve; and,

    (2) One of whom shall be a member or retired member of the Army Reserve.

    c. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy:

    (1) One of whom shall be an active or retired officer of the Navy Reserve; and,

    (2) One of whom shall be an active or retired officer of the Marine Corps Reserve.

    d. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Air Force:

    (1) One of whom shall be a member of the Air National Guard of the United States or a former member of the Air National Guard of the United States in the Retired Reserve; and,

    (2) One of whom shall be a member or retired member of the Air Force Reserve.

    e. One active or retired reserve officer or enlisted member of the U.S. Coast Guard designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

    f. Ten persons appointed or designated by the Secretary of Defense, each of whom shall be a United States citizen having significant knowledge of, and experience in, policy matters relevant to national security and reserve component matters and shall be one of the following:

    (1) An individual not employed in any Federal or State department or agency.

    (2) An individual employed by a Federal or State department or agency.

    (3) An officer of a regular component of the armed forces on active duty, or an officer of a reserve component of the armed forces in an active status, who:

    a. Is serving or has served in a senior position on the Joint Staff, the headquarters staff of a Combatant Command, or the headquarters staff of an armed force; and,

    b. Has experience in joint professional military education, joint qualification, and joint operations matters.

    g. A reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, who is a general or flag officer, recommended by the Chair and designated by the Secretary of Defense, who shall serve without vote:

    (1) As military adviser to the Chair;

    (2) As military executive officer of the Board; and,

    (3) As supervisor of the operations and staff of the Board.

    h. A senior enlisted member of a reserve component recommended by the Chair and designated by the Secretary of Defense, who shall serve without vote as enlisted military adviser to the Chair.

    Each member, based upon his or her individual professional experience, provides his or her best judgment on the matters before the Board, and he or she does so in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Board members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees, will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE) members. Board members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will serve as regular government employee (RGE) members pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a). Members of the Board shall serve a term of service of one-to-four years, and their appointments must be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. No member may serve more than two consecutive terms of service without Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense approval.

    Board members are not compensated for service on the Board, but each member is reimbursed for travel and per diem as it pertains to official business of the Board.

    DoD, when necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P&R), as the Board's Sponsor.

    Such subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and will report all of their recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full and open deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.

    Each member, based upon his or her individual professional experience, provides his or her best judgment on the matters before the Board, and he or she does so in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. All subcommittee members will be appointed by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense to a term of service of one-to-four years, with annual renewals, even if the individual in question is already a member of the Board. Subcommittee members will not serve more than two consecutive terms of service, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Subcommittee members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed as an expert or consultant pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, to serve as a SGE member. Subcommittee members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a), to serve as a RGE member. With the exception of reimbursement of official travel and per diem related to the Board or its subcommittees, subcommittee members will serve without compensation.

    All subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.

    Currently, DoD has approved three permanent subcommittees to the Board. The subcommittees will have no more than 15 members and will normally meet once per quarter. A subcommittee Chairperson will be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.

    The three permanent subcommittees and their missions are:

    a. Subcommittee on Enhancing DoD's Role in the Homeland is focused on improving the capability and capacity of the reserve component to address the increasing threats to the homeland.

    b. Subcommittee on Ensuring a Ready, Capable, Available, and Sustainable Operational Reserve is focused on retaining the operational capability and experience within the reserve component to meet future threats.

    c. Subcommittee on Supporting and Sustaining Reserve Component Personnel assess whether the current Service member, families, and employers programs and policies are meeting the needs of an operational reserve.

    The Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD officer or employee, appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Board's DFO is required to attend all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Board's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Board according to established DoD policies and procedures, must attend the entire duration of all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees.

    The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, calls all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees; prepares and approves all meeting agendas; and adjourns any meeting when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board.

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

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

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08881 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps University AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) will meet to review, develop and provide recommendations on all aspects of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide such oversight and advice, as is necessary, to facilitate high educational standards and cost effective operations. The Board will be focusing primarily on the internal procedures of Marine Corps University. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 21, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. and Friday, May 22, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia. The address is: 2076 South Street, Marine Corps University, Quantico, Virginia 22134-5068.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Kimberly Florich, Faculty Development and Outreach Coordinator, Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134, telephone number 703-432-4682.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08865 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    Announcement of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel meeting scheduled for April 20, 2015, (Federal Register, Volume 80, No. 67, Wednesday, April 8, 2015) did not comply with 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). After subsequent review and pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of the Defense waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    The Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Advisory Panel will meet 8:15 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. to review ways to establish a culture of innovation in the Department of the Navy. This meeting is opened to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 2015, from 8:15 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Pentagon, in Room 4B746, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000.

    Building Access: Public access is limited due to the Pentagon Security requirements. Any individual wishing to attend this meeting should contact Ms. Cassandra Dean at 703-697-2386 or Commander Randall Biggs at 703-695-3042 no later than April 13, 2015. Members of the public who do not have Pentagon access will be required to provide Name, Date of Birth and Social Security Number by April 13, 2015, in order to obtain visitor's clearance. Public transportation is recommended as public parking is not available. Members of the public wishing to attend this meeting must enter through the Pentagon's Metro Entrance between 7:45 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. where they will need two forms of identification in order to receive a visitor badge and meet their escort. Members will then be escorted to Room 4B746 to attend the open of the meeting of the Advisory Panel. Members of the public must remain with the designated escort at all times while in the Pentagon. After the meeting is adjourned, members of the public will be escorted back to the Pentagon Metro Entrance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Commander Randall Biggs, SECNAV Advisory Panel, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000, 703-695-3042.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The agenda is as follows:

    April 20, 2015, speakers and discussions on the Department of the Navy Culture of Innovation Initiatives.

    Individuals or interested groups may submit written statements for consideration by the SECNAV Advisory Panel at any time or in response to the agenda of a schedule meeting. All requests must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address detailed below. If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in this meeting notice, it must be received at least five days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the SECNAV Advisory Panel before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. For further information write to: Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy, (Policy), Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, Designated Federal Officer, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08867 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Multiple Projects in Support of Marine Barracks Washington, DC AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section (102)(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Sections 4321-4370h); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R) Parts 1500-1508); Department of the Navy (DoN) Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775); and Marine Corps NEPA directives (Marine Corps Order P5090.2A), the United States Marine Corps (Marine Corps) has prepared and filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the potential environmental consequences that may result from implementation of repair, renovation, and construction projects at Marine Barracks Washington (MBW), District of Columbia (DC) anticipated to occur within an approximately 5-year planning horizon from the publication of the Record of Decision anticipated in 2016). The principal project analyzed in this Draft EIS is the replacement of a Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ) Complex (including supporting facilities and parking) currently housed in Building 20 at MBW. Depending on the alternative selected, the BEQ Complex replacement project may include land acquisition in DC. The Draft EIS also evaluates renovation and improvement projects to Building 7 at the Main Post; improvements to the MBW Annex gate at 7th and K Streets; and improvements to building facades, fencing, infrastructure, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping throughout the installation. The Draft EIS includes a programmatic evaluation of several additional projects anticipated to occur beyond the 5-year planning horizon for which information sufficient to conduct detailed NEPA analysis is not yet available. Principal among these projects is the potential reuse of Building 20 or the Building 20 site once the BEQ Complex has been relocated. Other longer-term projects include renovation of Building 9 to accommodate the consolidation of various administrative functions, as well as some additional landscaping and maintenance projects. Once these actions become sufficiently ripe for detailed analysis, additional NEPA analysis will be completed. A Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2013 (Vol. 78, No. 173, p. 54873).

    With the filing of the Draft EIS, the DoN is initiating a 45-day public comment period and has scheduled a public open house meeting to receive written and verbal comments on the Draft EIS. Federal, state, and local agencies and interested individuals are encouraged to attend the public meeting. This notice announces the dates and locations of the public meeting, and supplementary information about the environmental planning effort.

    Dates and Addresses:

    The Draft EIS public review period begins April 10, 2015 and ends on May 26, 2015. The Marine Corps is holding an open house public meeting to inform the public about the Proposed Action and the alternatives under consideration, and to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the Draft EIS. Marine Corps representatives will be on hand to discuss the Proposed Action, the NEPA process, and the analyses presented in the Draft EIS. The meeting will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at Tyler Elementary School (1001 G Street SE., Washington, DC 20003) on Wednesday, April 22, 2015. The DoN will consider and respond to comments received on the Draft EIS when preparing the Final EIS. The DoN expects to issue the Final EIS in November 2015, at which time a Notice of Availability will be published in the Federal Register and local print media.

    The Draft EIS has been distributed to Federal and local agencies, elected officials, and the interested public. The document can be viewed online and downloaded from www.mbweis.com/EISDocument.aspx.

    Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at the following public libraries: Southeast Public Library, 403 7th Street SE., Washington, DC 20003; Southwest Public Library, 900 Wesley Place SW., Washington, DC 20004; and Northeast Public Library, 330 7th Street NE., Washington, DC 20022.

    A copy of the Draft EIS will be made available upon written request to: MBW EIS Project Manager: Ms. Katherine Childs, 1314 Harwood Street SE., Building 212, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5018 or via email at [email protected]

    Comments: Attendees will be able to submit written or verbal comments at the public meeting. Comments may be mailed to MBW EIS Project Manager: Ms. Katherine Childs, 1314 Harwood Street SE., Building 212, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5018, or submitted electronically at the EIS Web site, www.mbweis.com. Comments may be submitted anytime during the 45-day public review period, and must be postmarked or electronically dated on or before May 26, 2015, to ensure they become part of the public record. All comments submitted during the official public review period will become part of the public record on the Draft EIS and will be addressed in the Final EIS.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    MBW EIS Project Manager: Ms. Katherine Childs, 1314 Harwood Street SE., Building 212, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5018, (202) 685-0164. Please submit requests for special assistance, sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired, or other auxiliary aids at the public meeting to Ms. Childs by April 17, 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Proposed Action evaluated in the Draft EIS would occur within an approximate 5-year planning horizon from the publication of the Record of Decision anticipated in 2016, and address existing and anticipated facility deficiencies at MBW. MBW is part of a highly urbanized metropolitan area of DC, with the Main Post and Building 20 located at the intersection of 8th and I Streets SE. in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, the largest historic district and one of the most densely populated residential neighborhoods in the city. The MBW Annex is located at the intersection of 7th Street SE. and Virginia Avenue SE. in the Near Southeast neighborhood, which has been an emerging growth area as a result of revitalization efforts that began in the 1990s and is transitioning to an established neighborhood with a growing residential community.

    The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address existing and anticipated facility deficiencies at MBW in order to better support the functions of the Marine Corps units assigned to MBW. The Proposed Action is needed for the Marine Corps to meet current Quality of Life (QOL), efficiency, sustainability, life safety, Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (AT/FP) requirements, and facilities standards. Most of these requirements are set forth in the Department of Defense (DoD) Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs) for planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization.

    The existing BEQ (Building 20) has multiple deficiencies relating to force protection, minimum space requirements, QOL, life safety, sustainability, and energy efficiency and cannot be renovated or redesigned to meet current standards. No existing MBW property can accommodate the entire replacement BEQ requirement (BEQ, support facilities, and parking) at a single site. However, the below-grade parking at Building 20 could be retained to meet parking needs associated with the replacement BEQ Complex. To comply with current standards and continue to meet MBW mission requirements, the Marine Corps needs to either acquire property, establish a tenant site on federal or DoD property, or select a site on DoD property to accommodate a portion of the replacement BEQ requirement (BEQ and support facilities) and construct a replacement BEQ near the MBW Main Post. The Proposed Action does not include any change to the MBW mission or staffing levels.

    Building 7 interior renovations are required to improve space utilization, meet life safety standards, improve attainment of sustainability goals, and address certain AT/FP shortfalls.

    The purpose and need for the following projects are aligned with fostering MBW integration with the community consistent with current UFC guidance:

    • Improve the MBW Annex gate at 7th and K Streets SE to provide a “sense of arrival” for both installation personnel and visitors.

    • Make aesthetic improvements (e.g., signs, door awnings, lighting, and landscaping) so that all building exteriors present a more attractive, less utilitarian appearance to the surrounding neighborhood.

    • Incorporate pedestrian-friendly amenities (e.g., pedestrian paths, signage systems, seating, lighting, and landscaping) into MBW properties that are safe and appropriately sized to their surroundings.

    Each of these projects is a separate, distinct, and independently complete and actionable project.

    The Draft EIS also discusses the need for optimal reuse of Building 20 or the Building 20 site and long-term solutions for MBW space needs.

    The Draft EIS evaluates five action alternatives. Projects analyzed in the Draft EIS and common to all five alternatives include:

    • Replacement BEQ Complex: A multi-story BEQ Complex (including parking and support facilities) to replace the functions currently housed in Building 20. The proposed replacement BEQ Complex would be constructed to accommodate 125 standard Marine Corps 2+0 berthing rooms, which would provide a 250-bed sleeping capacity. In addition, the replacement BEQ Complex would accommodate the following supporting uses: Music training, enlisted dining facility, company administration space, classroom training space, fitness facility, and armory.

    • Main Post renovation projects: Interior renovations to Building 7 at the Main Post.

    • Projects to foster integration of MBW with the community: These include improvements to the MBW Annex gate at 7th and K Streets SE. and improvements to the building facades, fencing, infrastructure, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping throughout the installation.

    Alternative 1—Site A. Under Alternative 1, the Marine Corps would acquire privately owned land and a government-owned right-of-way (ROW) for the proposed BEQ Complex. Alternative 1, Site A, consists of 3.0 acres in Squares 929 and 930 and an approximate 340-foot segment of L Street between 8th and 9th Streets SE. The affected segment of L Street SE. would be closed to vehicular and pedestrian traffic and street parking. For the purposes of this EIS, it is expected that the replacement BEQ Complex would be constructed within the L Street ROW.

    Alternative 2—Site B. Under Alternative 2, the Marine Corps would acquire privately-owned land and a government-owned ROW for the replacement BEQ Complex. Alternative 2, Site B, consists of 1.8 acres in Square 976 and an approximate 315-foot segment of the L Street ROW between 10th and 11th Streets SE. Unlike Alternative 1, there would be no construction within the L Street ROW. This segment of L Street would be closed to vehicular traffic and on-street parking, but it would remain open for pedestrians. No structures would be constructed within the adjacent Virginia Avenue Park, and the park would remain open to public use. The segment of the ROW and the adjacent portion of Virginia Avenue Park are included within this site as a means of satisfying the AT/FP vehicular standoff distance, while also allowing public use to continue.

    Alternative 3—Site C. The land comprising Site C is federally-owned, but subject to a master development plan and agreement between GSA and a private developer (Forest City Washington) authorized by prior special legislation. An agreement with Forest City Washington and GSA to transfer Site C to the DoN/USMC would be required in order for Site C to be selected. Under Alternative 3, the Marine Corps obtain appropriate real estate interest in a portion of the federally owned land at the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC) for the proposed replacement BEQ Complex and a 3-story above ground parking structure. Alternative 3, Site C, is 2.1 acres within Square 853, bounded by M Street SE. to the north and Tingey Street SE. to the south. In addition to having to reach an agreement with Forest City Washington and GSA, under this alternative, the SEFC “The Yards” Redevelopment Master Plan would need to be revised.

    Alternative 4—Site D. Under Alternative 4, the Marine Corps would establish a tenant site on 1.67 acres of federally owned land at the northern end of Square 953, within the boundary of the Washington Navy Yard (WNY). The existing land use includes an administrative building (Building 169) as well as tennis and basketball courts east of Building 169, all of which have been identified as areas for potential redevelopment in the WNY Master Plan (approved by the National Capital Planning Commission on November 6, 2014). Also included is the parking lot south of Building 169 (16 spaces) and potentially a portion of Poor Street that connects Parsons Avenue and 10th Street SE. BEQ construction on this site would require the demolition of Building 169, which is currently occupied by MBW functions. The existing below-grade parking at the Building 20 site would be maintained to satisfy the BEQ Complex parking requirement.

    Alternative 5—Site E. Under Alternative 5, the Marine Corps would use 0.89-acre within the boundary of the MBW Annex (Squares 881 and 881W). For the purposes of this EIS, it is expected that the replacement BEQ Complex construction would occur within the 6th Street L'Enfant Plan viewshed between Building 25 (Annex building) and Building 26 (Annex parking garage). The new facility would be sited as close to Building 25 as possible and would connect via a breezeway between the replacement BEQ Complex and the western end of Building 25. The site currently contains a basketball court that would be relocated to the north of Building 25. The existing below-grade parking at the Building 20 site would be maintained to satisfy the BEQ Complex parking requirement.

    The Marine Corps has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. Each of the action alternatives involve trade-offs among economic, technical, environmental, and Marine Corps statutory mission requirements. A preferred alternative will be selected in the Final EIS after public comments on the Draft EIS are evaluated.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08863 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2015-ICCD-0007] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reaffirmation Agreement AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0007 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ian Foss, 202-377-3681.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Reaffirmation Agreement.

    OMB Control Number: 1845—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households, Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 28,880.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,465.

    Abstract: The HEA provides for a maximum amount that a borrower can receive per year and in total. If a borrower receives more than one of these maximum amounts, the borrower is rendered ineligible for further title IV aid (including Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Federal Work-Study, and Teacher Education Assistance for Higher Education (TEACH) Grants) unless the borrower repays the excess amount or agreed to repay the excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note that the borrower signed. Agreeing to repay the excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note that the borrower signed is called “reaffirmation”. ED and FFEL Program lenders will use the information on this form to enforce the borrower's obligation to repay the total FFEL or Direct Loan debt that the borrower obtained including the amounts in excess of the annual or aggregate loan limit.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08855 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0044] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Understanding the Impact of Providing Information to Parents About the Role of Algebra II: An Opportunistic Study AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0044 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Christopher Boccanfuso, (202) 219-1674.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Understanding the Impact of Providing Information to Parents about the Role of Algebra II: An Opportunistic Study.

    OMB Control Number: 1850—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,468.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 132.

    Abstract: In June 2013, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed House Bill (HB) 5 into law, which changed high school graduation requirements for public school students in Texas. Prior to this, most students were required to complete algebra II in order to graduate from high school. After the enactment of HB 5, completing algebra II is optional—students may elect to complete algebra II as part of two of the graduation plans offered under HB 5. REL Southwest is working with the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to carry out an opportunistic experiment to determine if directly providing parents/guardians, prior to students' selection of their courses, with information on the importance of completing algebra II for college access and success has an impact on the percentage of students who enroll in and complete algebra II by the end of their junior year. REL Southwest will investigate the impact of providing parents/guardians with information about the role of algebra II in college access and success in a randomized controlled trial in which the treatment schools provide parents/guardians of students with information about the role of algebra II in college access and success, while control schools continue business-as-usual.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08854 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 8221-094] Alaska Energy Authority; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Ready for Environmental Analysis, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Amendment of License.

    b. Project No.: 8221-094.

    c. Date Filed: March 12, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Alaska Energy Authority.

    e. Name of Project: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Bradley River in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. The project occupies federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Sara Fisher-Goad, Executive Director, 813 West Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99503, (907) 771-3012.

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Steven Sachs (202) 502-8666 or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file any motion to intervene, protest, comments, and/or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-8221-094.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to construct a new 16-foot-high, 60-foot-wide diversion dam located on the West Fork Upper Battle Creek, 6.1 miles upstream of the mouth of Battle Creek. The diversion dam would feed a 6-foot-diameter, 9,100-foot-long underground steel pipe emptying into a rip-rap stilling basin. Water would then travel through a 1,000 foot-long canal to a natural stream channel draining to Bradley Lake, the main reservoir for the project. The applicant also proposes to construct 2.9 miles of new access roads for construction and maintenance of the new facilities. The proposal would not change the authorized installed capacity of the project; however, it is expected to increase the average annual generation by 37,000 megawatt-hours. Most of the new facilities would be constructed on lands owned by the State of Alaska though some would be constructed on federal land already occupied by the project and administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “TERMS AND CONDITIONS” or “FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08878 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-137-000] Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 30, 2015, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC. (REX), 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1519, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to construct, install, own, operate and maintain certain additional mainline compression and ancillary facilities that upon completion will comprise REX's proposed REX Zone 3 Capacity Enhancement Project. Specifically, the REX Zone 3 Capacity Enhancement Project facilities, upon construction, will increase the Zone 3 east-to-west capacity by 800,000 Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) from receipts at Clarington, Ohio to corresponding deliveries of 520,000 Dth/d and 280,000 Dth/d to Lebanon, Ohio and Moultrie County, Illinois, respectively.

    The complete application is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection, and is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link. It is also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to David Haag, Vice President of Regulatory, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1519, phone (303) 763-3258.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. 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.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on May 4, 2015.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08877 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-6-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725B); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the requirements and burden 1 of the information collection described below.

    1 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due June 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC15-6-000) by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for the collection described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FERC-725B, Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0248.

    Abstract: The information collected by the FERC-725B, Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection, is required to implement the statutory provisions of Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o).

    On January 18, 2008, the Commission issued order 706,2 approving eight Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for Commission approval. The CIP version 1 Reliability Standards, (CIP-002-1 through CIP-009-1),3 require certain users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System to comply with specific requirements to safeguard critical cyber assets. These standards help protect the nation's Bulk-Power System against potential disruptions from cyber-attacks. The CIP Reliability Standards include one actual reporting requirement and several recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, CIP-008-1 requires responsible entities to report cyber security incidents to the Electricity Sector-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC). In addition, the eight CIP Reliability Standards require responsible entities to develop various policies, plans, programs, and procedures. However, the CIP Reliability Standards do not require a responsible entity to report to the Commission, ERO or Regional Entities, the various policies, plans, programs and procedures. Nonetheless, a showing of the documented policies, plans, programs and procedures is required to demonstrate compliance with the CIP Reliability Standards.

    2Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Order No. 706, 122 FERC ¶ 61,040.

    3 Every version of the CIP Reliability Standards may be found on the NERC Web site at http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards%20Complete%20Set/RSCompleteSet.pdf.

    The Commission approved minor changes in CIP versions 2 and 3 Reliability Standards on September 30, 2009, and March 31, 2010,4 respectively. On April 19, 2012, the Commission issued Order No. 761, approving the CIP version 4 Standards (CIP-002-4 through CIP-009-4) and an implementation plan that scheduled their enforcement to begin October 1, 2014.5 The fundamental change in the CIP version 4 Standards was that all subject entities would use the same `bright line' criteria to determine which of the facilities they owned were subject to the required policies, plans, programs and procedures (which remained nearly the same as for prior versions).

    4 129 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2009) (approving Version 2 of the CIP Reliability Standards); North American Electric Reliability Corp., and 130 FERC ¶ 61,271 (2010) (approving Version 3 of the CIP Reliability Standards).

    5Version 4 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, Order No. 761, 77 FR 24,594 (Apr. 25, 2012), 139 FERC ¶ 61,058 (2012), order denying reh'g, 140 FERC ¶ 61,109 (2012).

    On November 22, 2013, the Commission issued Order No. 791, approving the CIP version 5 Standards (CIP-002-5 through CIP-009-5, CIP-010-1 and CIP-011-1) and the proposed implementation plan. The CIP version 5 Standards are currently scheduled to be implemented and enforceable beginning April 2016. Order No. 791 eliminated the enforceability of the CIP version 4 Standards. The Commission also approved nineteen new or revised definitions associated with the CIP version 5 Standards for inclusion in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary). The CIP version 5 Standards identify and categorize BES Cyber Systems using a new methodology based on whether a BES Cyber System has a Low, Medium, or High Impact on the reliable operation of the bulk electric system. At a minimum, a BES Cyber System must be categorized as a Low Impact asset. Once a BES Cyber System is categorized, a responsible entity must comply with the associated requirements of the CIP version 5 Standards that apply to the impact category. The CIP version 5 Standards include 12 requirements with new cyber security controls, which address Electronic Security Perimeters (CIP-005-5), Systems Security Management (CIP-007-5), Incident Reporting and Response Planning (CIP-008-5), Recovery Plans for BES Cyber Systems (CIP-009-5), and Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability Assessments (CIP-010-1).

    Type of Respondent: Entities registered with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: There are three tables presenting burden associated with CIP Reliability Standards in the following section.

    • The first table illustrates burden associated with CIP version 5 Reliability Standards.

    • The second table illustrates burden associated with CIP version 3 and 4 Reliability Standards.

    • The third and last table is a summation of the total burden for all active CIP-related Reliability Standards (i.e. CIP Versions 3-5).

    Annual Burden Related to CIP Reliability Standards [Version 5] Groups of registered entities Classes of entity's facilities requiring CIP Number of
  • entities
  • Total hours in year 1
  • (hours)
  • Total hours in year 2
  • (hours)
  • Total hours in year 3
  • (hours)
  • Group A Low 41 2,540 2,540 564 Group B Low 1,058 554,392 554,392 110,032 Group B Medium 260 128,960 64,896 64,896 Group C Low 316 165,584 165,584 32,864 Group C Medium (New) 78 1,248 19,136 19,136 Group C Low (Blackstart) 283 22,640 −206,024 −206,024 Group C Medium or High 316 257,856 131,456 131,456 Total 1,133,220 731,980 152,924
    The total annual burden (related to CIP Version 5 only) is 672,708 hours when averaging Years 1-3 [(1,133,220 hours + 731,980 hours + 152,924 hours) ÷ 3 = 672,708 hours]. The total annual cost averaged over Years 1-3 is $50,883,633 (672,708 hours * $75.64 6 = $50,883,633).

    6 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $75.64 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from May 2014 data on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). The figure is a mathematical average of the cost of wages and benefits related to legal services ($129.68), technical employees ($58.17), and administrative support ($39.12).

    Regarding CIP standards unaffected by CIP Version 5, the estimated burden has been adjusted to account for a reduction in affected entities.7 The applicable estimate related to CIP Version 3 and 4 standards (related to the active components) is provided in the table below. (For display purposes, the numbers in the tables below have been rounded, however exact figures were used in the calculations.)

    7 The estimate has been decreased from 1,475 to 1,415. The NERC Compliance Registry indicated that as of 1/14/2015, 1,415 entities were registered for at least one CIP-related function/responsibility.

    Burden Related to CIP Reliability Standards [Version 3 and version 4] 8 Number of respondents Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden and
  • cost per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)÷(1) 1,415 1 1,415 9 383
  • $28,937
  • 10 541,334
  • $40,946,496
  • $28,937

    The following items represent the estimated total annual burden for FERC-725B and includes all burden associated with CIP Reliability Standards.11

    8 Reliability Standards CIP-002-3, CIP-003-3, CIP-004-3a, CIP-005-3a, CIP-006-3a, CIP-007-3c, CIP-008-3, and CIP-009-3.

    9 This figure is rounded for display in the table. The actual number is 382.56813 and is used in the calculations above.

    10 This figure is rounded for display in the table. The actual number is 541,333.91 and is used in the calculations above.

    11 CIP Versions 3 and 4 (remaining components of Version 3 and 4), and 5.

    Number of respondents: 1,415 (Not all entities with CIP-related functions will be obligated to comply with every CIP reliability standard.)

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,214,042.

    Total Annual Cost: $91,830,137 (1,214,042 hours * $75.64 = $91,830,137).

    Average Cost per Respondent: $64,898 12 ($91,830,137 ÷ 1,415 entities = $64,898).

    12 This figure is rounded. The actual number is 64,897.623.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08875 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 184-246] El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Application for Temporary Variance of Minimum Flow Requirements.

    b. Project No.: 184-246.

    c. Date Filed: April 9, 2015.

    d. Applicant: El Dorado Irrigation District (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: El Dorado Project.

    f. Location: South Fork American River and its tributaries in El Dorado, Alpine, and Amador counties, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Brian Deason, Hydroelectric Compliance Analyst, (530) 642-4064, or [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: John Aedo, (415) 369-3335, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission (April 28, 2015). The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-184-246) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a modification of its previous March 25, 2015 request for temporary flow variance, which is currently pending before the Commission. Specifically, the licensee requests an expanded temporary flow variance at the South Fork American River below Kyburz location, such that flows are reduced: from required 60 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 45 cfs from May 1-15; from the required 60 cfs to 30 cfs from May 16-31; from the required 60 cfs to 18 cfs in June; from the required 40 cfs to 15 cfs in July; and from the required 18 cfs to 15 cfs in August.

    The licensee states that the revised request is in response to worsening drought conditions in the project area, including record low snowpack and accelerated spring runoff that has occurred this year. The licensee also states that it maintains its previous request for temporary flow variances in Caples Creek, Echo Creek, Silver Fork American River and Pyramid Creek.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the variance. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08876 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-144-000] Florida Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 31, 2015 Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT), 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP15-144-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act and Parts 157 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations requesting authorization to construct, own, and operate: (1) Approximately 3.0 miles of 30-inch mainline loop extension (Branford Loop); (2) one new reciprocating 5,000 horsepower compressor unit and building at Compressor Station (CS) 16; (3) re-wheel an existing turbine compressor unit at CS 16; (4) approximately 5.7 miles of 20-inch loop extension (Jacksonville Loop); and (5) a new regulator station and appurtenant auxiliary facilities, all known as its Jacksonville Expansion Project. The project will provide an initial 60,000 MMBtu/d, and an expansion of 15,000 MMBtu/d of firm transportation to two existing delivery points for Peoples Gas System (PGS), a division of Tampa Electric Company all in Suwanee, Bradford, Columbia and Clay Counties, Florida, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Stephen Veatch, Senior Director of Certificates & Reporting, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas, 77002, or call (713) 989-2024, or fax (713) 989-1205, or via eMail [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and ill not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

    Comment Date: May 4, 2015.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08871 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-148-000] Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 2, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization to construct and operate its Susquehanna West Project (Project) located in Pennsylvania. Tennessee asserts that the proposed Project will increase east-to-west delivery capacity in the region by approximately 145,000 dekatherms per day. Tennessee states that the Project involves: (i) Approximately 8.1 miles of new 36-inch diameter pipeline looping in Tioga County, Pennsylvania; (ii) pipeline modifications associated with the pipeline loops; (iii) modification to piping at three existing compressor stations, which are Compressor Station 315, Compressor Station 317, and Compressor Station 319; and (iv) increase in horsepower at two of the three existing compressor stations. Tennessee estimates the cost of the Project to be approximately $156.4 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web athttp://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to John E. Griffin, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone: (713) 420-3624, facsimile: (713) 420-1601, email: [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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 seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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).

    Comment Date: May 4, 2015.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08872 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1496-000] 2014 ESA Project Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 2014 ESA Project Company, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 4, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08874 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1494-000] Convergent Energy and Power LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Convergent Energy and Power LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 4, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08873 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13213-003; Project No. 13214-003] Lock 14 Hydro Partners; Lock 12 Hydro Partners; Notice of Technical Meeting

    a. Project Names and Numbers: From upstream to downstream order, Heidelberg Hydroelectric Project No. 13213, and Ravenna Hydroelectric Project No. 13214.

    b. Date and Time of Meeting: April 28, 2015; 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time (11:00 p.m. Central Time).

    c. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer, [email protected] or (202) 502-6093.

    d. Purpose of Meeting: To discuss the concerns raised in the FWS letter, filed March 31, 2015, about endangered species for the projects listed above.

    e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed for the projects' records.

    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please contact Michael Spencer at [email protected] or (202) 502-6093 by close of business Tuesday, November 25, 2014, to R.S.V.P. and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08879 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0217; FRL-9925-43] Streptomycin Sulfate; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received a specific exemption request from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to use the pesticide streptomycin sulfate (CAS No. 3810-74-0) to treat up to 47,656 acres of grapefruit for fresh market to control citrus canker. The FDACS proposes a use of a pesticide which contains the active ingredient, streptomycin sulfate, also used in human and animal treatment as an antibiotic. EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0217, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or state agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) has requested the EPA Administrator issue a specific exemption for the use of streptomycin sulfate on grapefruit grown for fresh market to control citrus canker (caused by the bacteria Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Citri (Xac)). Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request. Pursuant to 40 CFR 166.24(a)(8), the regulations governing FIFRA section 18 allow for publication of a notice of receipt of an application for an emergency exemption if the Administrator determines that publication is appropriate. The subject emergency exemption application submitted by the FDACS proposes a use of a pesticide which contains the active ingredient, streptomycin sulfate, also used in humans and animals as an antibiotic drug.

    As part of this request, the FDACS asserts that citrus canker has spread throughout the citrus growing areas causing significant economic losses. FDACS states that this introduced pathogen has become a serious threat to the viability of the fresh market grapefruit industry in the state of Florida.

    The FDACS proposes to make no more than two applications per crop of streptomycin sulfate, at a rate of 0.344 lbs active ingredient per acre (a.i./A), equivalent to 0.6875 lbs formulated product (equivalent to 50% streptomycin) per acre. A maximum total of 0.688 lbs a.i./A (1.375 lbs product/A) could potentially be applied on up to 47,656 acres of grapefruit in June through September of 2015. Use is possible statewide, but would primarily be in the commercial grapefruit producing counties of Polk, Hendry, Highlands, De Soto, Hardee, St. Lucie, Indian River, Collier, Manatee, and Martin. At maximum rates, applications, and acreage, 32,763 lbs of streptomycin sulfate (65,527 lbs formulated product), could be used under the proposed program.

    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 allows publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of a pesticide which contains the active ingredient, streptomycin sulfate, also used in humans and animals as an antibiotic drug. This notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.

    The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the FDACS.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08908 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9926-39-OEI; EPA-HQ-OEI-2014-0465] Establishment of a New System of Records Notice for the Superfund Enterprise Management System AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protections Agency's (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), 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. 552(a)). The EPA is implementing the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) system of records to provide project and program managers the ability to plan, manage, track and report on clean-up and enforcement activities taking place at Superfund sites. SEMS represents a joint development and ongoing collaboration between Superfund's Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities, Enforcement, and Emergency Response programs.

    DATES:

    Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must do so by May 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2014-0465, 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, Mail Code: 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. 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-2014-0465. 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 in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Wyman, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Information (OSRTT), Mail Code 5202P, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (703) 603-8882.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    General Information: EPA proposes to create a new system of records under the Privacy Act to integrate the legacy Superfund data collection, reporting and tracking modules into one single system. This single system will transform the Superfund program by improving operational effectiveness, reducing costs, streamlining business processes, and enhancing information management capabilities. The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) is an electronic repository of Superfund documents routinely used to disseminate records in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, establishment of Administrative Records (ARs), and litigation support. The SEMS database application supports the electronic capture, imaging, indexing and tracking of records which document investigation, cleanup, and enforcement activities at potential and existing hazardous waste sites, as mandated by CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.

    The types of information in the system include data and information that support program activities and decisions regarding the cleanup of specific Superfund sites. The system is intended to provide repositories of or access to a variety of programmatic information regarding site management, cost recovery, site financial resources, enforcement actions, and supporting documentation. The information is collected to ensure that supporting documentation for activities and decisions related to the Superfund site cleanup are well maintained and readily accessible as needed. The program utilizes this information in a variety of ways, including but not limited to research, enforcement, litigation support, responses to congressional and FOIA requests, public participation in the Superfund process, electronic archiving, cost recovery, disaster recovery, and support of the program and Agency missions.

    Records protected under the Privacy Act are subject to Agency-wide security requirements governing all database systems at EPA. Privacy is maintained by limiting access to the database containing confidential business and personal information. Access to the database is limited to individuals designated as System Administrators, Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), Data Sponsors, On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), Budget Coordinators (BCs), Regional Attorneys, Regional Managers, Data Entry Support Staff, Support Contractors, and any other staff with assigned data management responsibilities.

    Physical access to the building (EPA's National Computer Center (NCC) at Research Triangle Park, NC) is limited to EPA employees and their contractors with key cards. The building is equipped with cameras and sign-in sheets are utilized to monitor employee activities, traffic flow, and access to the computer room where the file servers and storage networks are located.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Ann Dunkin, Chief Information Officer. EPA-69 System Name:

    Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS)

    System Location:

    The system is hosted at the National Computer Center (NCC) located at Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. Address: 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP NC 27711.

    Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:

    This system covers potentially responsible parties, EPA employees with responsibilities at specific Superfund sites, members of the public who have made public comments on program decisions or who have environmental sampling results reported for their personal business or residence, and contractor and analytical laboratory staff with responsibilities on specific Superfund sites.

    Categories of Records Covered by the System:

    Site location and basic descriptive information; contact information (e.g., name, address, telephone number, email address) for key individuals with responsibilities on specific Superfund sites; data generated by EPA in regards to site information and actions conducted at the site; planned and actual site financial and enforcement information; potentially responsible parties (PRP); negotiation data; litigation/referral data; lien data; alternative dispute resolution data; litigation history; correspondence tracking; community involvement data (i.e., location, contact data, technical assistance grant data); and medical information pertaining to environmental sampling results or public complaints.

    Authority for Maintenance of the System:

    42 U.S.C. Chapter 103; 40 CFR 300

    Purpose(s):

    The purpose of SEMS is to provide project and program managers with data and information needed to plan, manage, track and report on cleanup and enforcement activities taking place at Superfund sites. SEMS is an electronic repository of Superfund documents and data used to disseminate records in response to FOIA and other external requests, and in support of litigation, investigation, cleanup, program planning, and enforcement activities. SEMS tracks activities at each Superfund site which include removal, risk characterization, remedy selection, post construction, enforcement activities, financial resources, and community involvement.

    Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users, and Purposes of Such Uses:

    General Routine Uses A, E, F, G, H, K and L apply to this system.

    Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records in the System:

    • Storage: Records will be stored electronically in an Agency-approved database (Oracle) and managed by system developers and administrators, along with EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Information (OSRTI) personnel. Incremental system backups are performed nightly and monthly. Actual files are stored in a Windows file server.

    • Retrievability: Records can be retrieved by Site Name, Site ID Number, Author, Addressee, Document Title, Document Date, and Document ID Number.

    • Safeguards: The following safeguards are in place:

    (a) Information is maintained in a secure username/password protected environment. Permission-level assignments allow users access only to those functions for which they are authorized. Access to all information and hardware is maintained in a secure, access controlled facility at the NCC.

    (b) The system has a single point of access via a front-end Portal. All users are required to complete a new user form (signed by their supervisor) and take online security training before they are provided with access.

    (c) All authorized users of the SEMS application are required to take an annual security training identifying the user's role and responsibilities for protecting the Agency's information resources, as well as, consequences for not adhering to the policy.

    (d) Audit logs are reviewed on a monthly basis to identify system access outside of normal business hours, anomalous user accounts or server names, or login failures.

    (e) No external access to SEMS is provided.

    • Retention and Disposal: Records stored in this system are subject to record schedule 0755, which is still being finalized.

    System Manager(s) and Address:

    Steven Wyman, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Information (OSRTI), Mail Code 5202P, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number 703-603-8882.

    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 FOIA Office, Attn: Privacy Act Officer, MC 2822D, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Record Access Procedure:

    Request for access must be made in accordance with the procedures described in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16. Requesters will be required to provide adequate identification, such as driver's license, employee identification card, or other identifying document. Additional identification procedures may be required in some instances.

    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 captured in SEMS is derived from existing programmatic records, EPA employees, contractors, civil investigators and attorneys, analytical laboratories, the public and State cleanup programs.

    System Exempted from Certain Provisions of the Act:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08926 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9926-25-Region 5] Notice of Issuance of a Federal Operating Permit for G&K Services Inc.—Green Bay AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that on March 23, 2015, pursuant to title V of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Federal operating permit to G&K Services, Inc., for G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay. The permit authorizes the operation of industrial washers, industrial dryers, a natural gas-fired boiler, a steam tunnel, and other processes used to clean and recondition soiled industrial towels.

    ADDRESSES:

    The final signed permit is available for public inspection online at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/Tribal+Permits!OpenView, or during normal business hours at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. We recommend that you call Michael Langman, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6867 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Langman, Environmental Scientist, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6867, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    A. What is the background information?

    G&K Services, Inc. owns and operates G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay, which is located within the exterior boundaries of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin's tribal reservation in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Emission units at the source consist of nine industrial washers, six natural gas-fired industrial dryers, a natural gas-fired boiler, a natural gas-fired steam tunnel, and other processes. These emission units and other processes are used to process, clean, and recondition soiled industrial towels.

    On February 13, 2013, G&K Services, Inc. contacted EPA Region 5 to discuss the permitting status of G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay, since a question had arisen regarding the identity of the proper permitting authority. Prior to the issuance of this permit, G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay operated according to the requirements of an operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). However, on December 4, 2001, EPA granted full approval of Wisconsin's title V operating permit program (see 66 FR 62951). In its action, EPA specifically exempted Indian country from the approval of Wisconsin's title V operating permit program (id. at 62953). Since the source is located within the exterior boundaries of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin's tribal reservation and EPA did not grant WDNR the authority to issue title V operating permits to sources located in Indian country, EPA determined that we are the permitting authority for this source.

    On June 14, 2013, G&K Services, Inc. submitted an application for an initial operating permit pursuant to the requirements of the Federal operating permit program codified at 40 CFR part 71. On July 17, 2013, G&K Services, Inc. submitted additional information to supplement its permit application. On July 25, 2013, EPA determined that the application was complete pursuant to 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2).

    On December 5, 2014, EPA issued a draft permit for a 30-day public comment period pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(d). The public comment period ended on January 5, 2015. During the public comment period, EPA received comments from G&K Services, Inc. requesting clarification of permit terms. EPA responded to all comments as required by 40 CFR 71.11(j).

    EPA issued the final permit for G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay, permit number V-ON-5500900021-2014-01, on March 23, 2015. Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(i)(2), the final permit becomes effective on April 22, 2015, unless review is requested pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(i)(1).

    B. Appeal of the Permit

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(l), any person who filed comments on the draft permit may petition the Environmental Appeals Board for administrative review of any condition of the permit decision. Any person who failed to file comments may petition for administrative review of the permit only on changes from the draft to the final permit or to the extent that new grounds for a petition have arisen that were not reasonably foreseeable during the public comment period on the draft permit. The 30-day period during which a person may seek review under 40 CFR 71.11(l) began on March 25, 2015, the date on which EPA notified G&K Services, Inc. of issuance of the permit.

    C. What is the purpose of this notice?

    EPA is notifying the public of the issuance of a title V operating permit, permit number V-ON-5500900021-2014-01, issued on March 23, 2015, to G&K Services, Inc. for its source in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The permit becomes effective on April 22, 2015, unless review is requested pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(i)(1).

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08910 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9925-75-Region 2] New York State Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Proposed Determination AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed determination.

    SUMMARY:

    By petition dated May 19, 2014 and submitted pursuant to 33 CFR 1322(f)(3) and 40 CFR 140.4(a), the State of New York certified that the protection and enhancement of the waters of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake, the Seneca River and tributaries thereto requires greater environmental protection than the applicable Federal standards provide and petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for those waters, so that the State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters. Upon consideration of the petition, EPA proposes to make the requested determination and hereby invites the public to comment on the proposed determination.

    DATES:

    Comments relevant to this proposed determination are due by May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “Comments on Proposed Determination on Seneca Lake/Cayuga Lake NDZ Petition” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail and Hand Delivery/Courier: Moses Chang, U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation (8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Moses Chang, (212) 637-3867, email address: [email protected] .

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Petition: To receive a copy of the petition, please contact Moses Chang at (212) 637-3867 or email at [email protected]

    The Proposed No Discharge Zone

    New York proposes to establish a vessel waste No Discharge Zone (NDZ) covering the approximately 150 square miles of connected waters and tributaries of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River.

    Certification of Need

    New York's petition contains a certification by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that the protection and enhancement of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake, the Seneca River and the navigable tributaries thereto, requires greater environmental protection than the applicable Federal standards provide. The certification states that Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake are water bodies of unique ecological, economic and public health significance, as well as drinking water sources. Pathogens and chemicals contained in the currently-lawful effluent from discharging marine sanitation devices (MSDs) threaten public health and the environment and contravene the State's ongoing efforts to control point and non-point source pollution from municipal discharges, combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff. A NDZ designation covering the waters of each lake represents one component of a comprehensive approach to water quality management. Protecting Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake warrants this greater level of environmental protection in order to maintain excellent water quality, prevent future degradation and speed the recovery of impaired segments. Seneca Lake is the largest and deepest of all the Finger Lakes at 4.2 trillion gallons in volume and 291 feet in average depth. The maximum depth of the lake is 618 feet. The Seneca Lake Watershed comprises 14% of the greater Oswego River Watershed. While the water quality of the lake is generally good, the lake is on the NYSDEC Priority Waterbody List (PWL) as a Water with Minor Impacts. This means that the current uses of the lake are fully supported but some negative water quality impacts have been observed and action must be taken to ensure that the water will continue to support its uses in the future. Pollutants that negatively impact the lake include pathogens and oxygen demand from the Watkins Glen wastewater treatment plant and general lakeside activities as well as sediment from eroding stream banks and steep slopes surrounding the lake. As part of its broader efforts to protect and enhance the water quality of Seneca Lake, New York seeks to eliminate the discharge of pathogens and chemicals from all vessels using the lake.

    Cayuga Lake has a maximum depth of 435 feet and a volume of about 2.5 trillion gallons. The Cayuga Lake Watershed comprises 15% of the greater Oswego River Watershed. While the water quality of Cayuga Lake is generally good, the northern to mid-south portions of the lake are on the NYSDEC Priority Waterbody List (PWL) as Threatened Segments because of the lake's significant value as a drinking water resource. As part of its broader effort to preserve and enhance water quality to maintain the lake's use as drinking waters with minimal required treatment, New York seeks to eliminate the discharge of pathogens and chemicals from all vessels using the lake.

    Adequacy of Sewage Removal and Treatment Facilities

    In determining whether adequate facilities exist for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels using a water body, EPA relies on the “Clean Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines,” (59 FR 11290, March 10, 1994) published by the Department of the Interior (DOI), which provides that at least one pumpout station should be provided for every 300 to 600 boats over 16 feet in length. The guidance also provides that approximately 20% of boats between 16 and 26 feet, 50% of boats between 26 and 40 feet and all vessels over 40 feet in length can be assumed to have an installed toilet with some type of MSD. Vessels below 16 feet in length are generally presumed not to have an MSD onboard.

    Estimated Vessel Population

    In support of its petition, New York provided information on the vessel population in the proposed NDZ. The population of recreational vessels using Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River was estimated based on the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation's 2012 Boating Report (OPRHP Report) for the counties of Cayuga, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Stueben, Tompkins and Yates, which surround the lakes. While it is very unlikely that every single vessel registered in these counties will operate in the proposed NDZ simultaneously, the state took a conservative approach and considered all boats registered in these counties as part of the overall recreational vessel population of the proposed NDZ. According to the OPRHP Report, in the seven counties surrounding the proposed NDZ, there are 16,740 registered boats between 16 and 25 feet long, 1161 boats between 26 and 40 feet long and 71 boats over 40 feet long. Applying the percentages in the DOI guidance yields an estimate of 3,967 recreational vessels with MSDs that operate in the proposed NDZ.

    The population of commercial vessels using Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River was estimated based on information provided by the Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board and the Finger Lakes Institute as well as information obtained from the Internet.

    According to these sources, the majority of commercial vessels operating in the proposed NDZ are chartered fishing boats. There are at least 18 charter services that operate primarily in Seneca Lake and Cayuga Lake, as well as 11 cruise companies. These companies own anywhere from one to three vessels. A conservative assumption of 40 companies (18 charter companies + 11 cruise companies + 11 unlisted business) with 3 vessels each yields a total of 120 commercial vessels that operate in the proposed NDZ. As an additional conservative assumption, all 120 commercial vessels are assumed to have MSDs. Therefore, there are approximately 4,090 vessels with MSDs operating in the proposed NDZ.

    Available Pumpout Facilities

    In further support of its petition, New York provided information on the number of pumpout facilities available to the recreational and commercial vessels in the proposed NDZ. The federal Clean Vessel Act of 1992 made grants available to states for construction, replacement and renovation of recreational vessel pumpouts. New York applied for the first federal grant in 1994 and initiated a statewide program known as the Clean Vessel Assistance Program (CVAP), managed and administered by New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) that has helped establish and support 17 pumpout facilities serving Seneca Lake and Cayuga Lake, of which two are pumpout boats and 15 are dockside pumpouts. EPA independently updated and verified these pumpout information and concluded that two pumpout boats are out of operation and only 14 dockside pumpouts are operational. An additional 3 pumpout facilities are available to the public but are not funded through CVAP. All these current 17 pumpout (14 CVAP + 3 non-CVAP pumpouts = 17 pumpouts) facilities either discharge to a holding tank, to a municipal wastewater treatment plant or to an on-site septic system.

    While some commercial shipping vessels are so large as to require special docking accommodations or mobile pumpouts to access pumpout services, the commercial vessels that operate in the proposed NDZ are all small enough to use the same pumpouts that the recreational vessels use. Therefore, the total number of pumpout facilities available for use by the vessels that operate in the proposed NDZ is 17. A list of pumpout facilities, phone numbers, locations, hours of operation, water depth and fees is provided below:

    Pumpout Facilities # Name Location Lat./Long. Contact
  • information
  • *Days and hours of
  • operation
  • Water depth (feet) Fee
    1 Cayuga-Seneca—Lock CS1-4 Seneca Lake State Park, 42.870575/-76.939667 315-789-2331 April 1-September 30, 24 hours 6 $2.00 2 Cayuga Lake Allan H Treman. State Marine Park, 42.458467/-76.513033 607-273-3440 May 1-October 15, 24 hours 7 2.00 3 Cayuga Lake Frontenac Harbor, 42.839778/-76.695769 315-889-5532 April 1-October 15, 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. 4 5.00 4 Seneca Lake Barret Marine, Inc.—Stationary, 42.874176/-76.935906 315-789-9513 Year round, 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. 5 0.00 5 Seneca Lake Village Marina, 42.384630/-76.87871697 607-535-7910 June -October, 11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 5 5.00 6 Seneca Lake Stivers (GPJ) Seneca Marine, Inc., 42.868925/-76.939064 315-789-5520 May 1—Labor Day, 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. 6 5.00 7 Cayuga Lake Johnson Boat Yard (dba)—Pierce Cleveland, Inc., 42.452369/-76.510231 607-272-5191 April 1-November 1, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 6 0.00 8 Seneca Lake Montour Falls-V Municipal Marina, 42.354167/-76.853333 607-210-4124 May 2-October 15, 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. 4.5 5.00 9 Cayuga Seneca—Lock CS1-4 Oak Island Marine Facility, 42.900983/-76.866894 315-539-9131 April 1-October 1, 24 hours 8 0.00 10 Cayuga Lake Hibiscus Harbor, 42.856781/-76.706081 315-889-5086 April 1-November 1, 24 hours 12 5.00 11 Seneca Lake Frog Hollow Marina, 42.370636/-76.859106 607-535-2671 April 15-November 15, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 5 5.00 12 Seneca Lake Seneca Falls-V, 42.909675/-76.795868 315-568-2316 May 1-November 1, 24 hours 20 2.00 13 Cayuga-Seneca—Lock CS1-4 Waterloo Harbor, 42.540172/-76.524237 315-539-8848 May 1-September 30, 24 hours 10 5.00 14 Seneca Lake Glen Harbor Marina, 42.383099/-76.861575 607-535-2751 April 15-October 15, 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 6 0.00 15 Cayuga Lake Eagles Landing Marina, 42.072211/-76.548915 315-834-6829 April 15-October 15 Unknown 0.00 16 Cayuga Lake Taughannock Falls State Park, 42.547636/-76.595714 607-387-6739 March 1-October 15 6 0.00 17 Seneca Lake Sampson State Park Marina, 42.4247/-76.9119 315-585-6392 April 15-October 20 Unknown 0.00 * Please note that the actual days of operation depend on the weather.
    Ratio of Pumpouts Facilities to Vessels Operating in the Proposed NDZ Total boat
  • registrations
  • Total
  • pumpout
  • facilities
  • Boat:
  • pumpout
  • ratio
  • 4,090 17 241:1

    Based on a total vessel population of 4,090 and 17 currently available pumpout facilities, the ratio of boats to pumpouts is 241:1, which means there are significantly more pumpouts than the recommended range of 300-600:1. Also, the pumpouts are evenly distributed between the lakes (7 in Cayuga Lake and 10 in Seneca Lake). Therefore, EPA proposes to issue a determination that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage for all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River.

    A 30-day period for public comment has been opened on this matter and EPA invites any comments relevant to its proposed determination. If, after the public comment period ends, EPA makes a final determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River, the State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters.

    Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08807 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9020-5] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements. Filed 04/06/2015 Through 04/10/2015. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20150103, Final EIS, DOI, UT, Provo River Delta Restoration Project, review period ends: 05/18/2015, Contact: W. Russ Findlay 801-379-1084. EIS No. 20150104, Final EIS, NPS, CA, Channel Islands National Park Final General Management Plan and Wilderness Study, review period ends: 05/18/2015, Contact: Greg Jarvis 303-969-2263. EIS No. 20150105, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Greater Red Lodge Vegetation and Habitat Management Project, review period ends: 05/18/2015, Contact: Amy Waring 406-255-1451. EIS No. 20150106, Draft EIS, FERC, LA, Lake Charles Liquefaction Project, comment period ends: 06/01/2015, Contact: Shannon Crosley 202-502-8853. Amended Notices WITHDRAWN—EIS No. 20140277, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Greater Red Lodge Vegetation and Habitat Management Project, Contact: Amy Waring 406-255-1451.

    Revision to the FR Notice Published 09/24/2014; This document was Officially Withdrawn by the preparing agency.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08924 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 21, 2015, to consider the following matters:

    Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.

    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.

    Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed FDIC Strategic Plan, 2015-2019.

    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule to Revise 12 CFR part 340 “Restrictions on Sale of Assets by the FDIC”.

    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule: Minimum Requirements for Appraisal Management Companies.

    Summary reports, status reports, reports of the Office of Inspector General, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.

    Discussion Agenda:

    Memorandum and resolution re: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Large Bank Deposit Insurance Determination Modernization.

    Briefing: Update of Projected Deposit Insurance Fund Losses, Income, and Reserve Ratios for the Restoration Plan.

    The meeting will be held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.

    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. Visit https://fdic.primetime.mediaplatform.com/#!/channel/1232003497484/Board+Meetings to view the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.

    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call 703-562-2404 (Voice) or 703-649-4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.

    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-7043.

    Dated: April 14, 2015.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08986 Filed 4-15-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10173 Premier American Bank, Miami, Florida

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Premier American Bank, Miami, Florida (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Premier American Bank on January 22, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08790 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and section 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 4, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:

    1. Meredith R. Willson, individually and as co-trustee of the Hugh M. Willson S Corp Family Trust and the Hugh M. Willson S Corp Marital Trust, all of Athens, Tennessee, to retain voting shares of Citizens National Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Citizens National Bank, both in Athens, Tennessee; and by the Hugh M. Willson S Corp Family Trust, and the Hugh M. Willson S Corp Marital Trust (Meredith R. Willson and Paul G. Willson, co-trustees of both) and Debra M. Willson; all of Athens, Tennessee, to join the previously approved Willson Family control group.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Ronald L. Mordy and Margaret S. Mordy, as trustees of the Ronald L. Mordy and Margaret S. Mordy Revocable Living Trust, Dated 8-20-02, all of Independence, Kansas; to acquire voting shares of 1889 Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The First National Bank of Nevada, both in Nevada, Missouri. In addition, Joseph W. Swearingen, as a member of the Swearingen/Mordy family group, has applied to retain voting shares of 1889 Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The First National Bank of Nevada, both in Nevada, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08859 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 14, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. Western Alliance Bancorporation, Phoenix, Arizona; to merge with Bridge Capital Holdings, and thereby indirectly acquire its subsidiary bank, Bridge Bank, National Association, both in San Jose, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08860 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-3305-FN] Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Continued Approval of the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities' Accreditation Program for Organizations That Provide Outpatient Physical Therapy and Speech Language Pathology Services AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This final notice announces our decision to approve the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for organizations that provide outpatient physical therapy and speech language pathology (OPT) services that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs. An OPT that participates in Medicaid must also meet the Medicare Conditions of Participation.

    DATES:

    This final notice is effective April 22, 2015 through April 22, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Melanson, (410) 786-0310, or Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786-6899.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    A healthcare provider may enter into an agreement with Medicare to participate in the program as an outpatient physical therapy and speech language pathology (OPT) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(p)(4) of the Social Security Act (the Act), establish distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an OPT. Regulations concerning Medicare provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to the survey and certification for Medicare participation of providers and certain types of suppliers are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 485, subpart H specify the specific conditions that a provider must meet to participate in the Medicare program as an OPT.

    Generally, to enter into a Medicare provider agreement, a facility must first be certified by a State Survey Agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 485, subpart H of our Medicare regulations. Thereafter, the OPT is subject to periodic surveys by a State Survey Agency to determine whether it continues to meet these conditions. However, there is an alternative to certification surveys by state agencies. Accreditation by a national Medicare accreditation program approved by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may substitute for both initial and ongoing state agency review.

    Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) finds that accreditation of a provider entity by an approved national accreditation organization meets or exceeds all applicable Medicare conditions or requirements, we may “deem” the provider entity to be in compliance. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

    Part 488, subpart A, implements the provisions of section 1865 of the Act and requires that a national accrediting organization applying for approval of its Medicare accreditation program must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that its accredited provider entities meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at §§ 488.4 and 488.8(d)(3). The regulations at § 488.8(d)(3) require an accrediting organization to reapply for continued approval of its Medicare accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by the CMS. The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities (AAAASF's) current term of approval as a Medicare accreditation program for OPTs expires April 22, 2015.

    II. Application Approval Process

    Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides us 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, with any documentation necessary to make the determination, to complete our survey activities and application process. Within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, we must publish a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provide at least a 30-day public comment period. At the end of the 210-day period, we must publish a notice announcing our approval or denial of an application.

    III. Provisions of the Proposed Notice

    On November 21, 2014, we published a proposed notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 69481) entitled “Application from the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities for Continued Approval of its Accreditation Program for Organizations that Provide Outpatient Physical Therapy and Speech Language Pathology Services” announcing AAAASF's request for continued approval of its Medicare OPT accreditation program. In that notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and in our regulations at § 488.4 and § 488.8, we conducted a review of AAAASF's Medicare OPT accreditation application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulations, which include, but are not limited to the following:

    • An onsite administrative review of AAAASF's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its OPT surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited OPTs; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.

    • The comparison of AAAASF's Medicare accreditation program standards to our current Medicare OPT Conditions of Participation (CoPs).

    • A documentation review of AAAASF's survey process to:

    ++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and AAAASF's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.

    ++ Compare AAAASF's processes to those we require of State Survey Agencies, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited OPTs.

    ++ Evaluate AAAASF's procedures for monitoring OPTs it has found to be out of compliance with AAAASF's program requirements. (This pertains only to monitoring procedures when AAAASF identifies non-compliance. If noncompliance is identified by a State Survey Agency through a validation survey, the State Survey Agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).

    ++ Assess AAAASF's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed OPT and respond to the OPT's plan of correction in a timely manner.

    ++ Establish AAAASF's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

    ++ Determine the adequacy of AAAASF's staff and other resources.

    ++ Confirm AAAASF's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.

    ++ Confirm AAAASF's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.

    ++ Obtain AAAASF's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.

    In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the November 21, 2014 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether AAAASF's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoPs for OPTs. We received no public comments in response to our proposed notice.

    IV. Provisions of the Final Notice A. Differences Between AAAASF's Standards and Requirements for Accreditation and Medicare Conditions and Survey Requirements

    We compared AAAASF's OPT accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs of part 485, subpart H and the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489. Our review and evaluation of AAAASF's OPT application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, AAAASF has completed revising its standards and certification processes in order to meet the requirements at:

    • Section 488.4(a)(3)(ii), to ensure surveyors are provided the necessary tools to evaluate compliance with the Medicare conditions.

    • Section 488.4(a)(3)(iii), to ensure the accreditation review process and accreditation decision making process meets the Medicare requirements, the following was modified:

    ++ Policy related to how AAAASF verifies an organization without a CMS certification number (CCN) seeking an initial survey has completed the Medicare enrollment application prior to receiving an accreditation survey;

    ++ Policy for establishing an effective date for renewal surveys;

    ++ Policy for withdrawals and terminations; and

    ++ Guidance and instructions on how plans of correction are handled when they are not adequate.

    • Section 488.4(a)(6), to address the requirement where complaints that do not rise to the level of requiring an onsite investigation are tracked and trended for potential focus areas during the next onsite survey.

    • Section 488.9, to address the number of medical records reviews that must be completed onsite.

    • Section 488.26(b), to ensure survey reports contain the appropriate level of deficiency (that is, standard versus condition).

    • Section 488.28(a), to ensure plans of correction correct the cited deficiencies, include thresholds of compliance and are sent timely.

    B. Term of Approval

    Based on our review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we approve AAAASF as a national accreditation organization for OPTs that request participation in the Medicare program, effective April 22, 2015 through April 22, 2019.

    V. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08917 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: Initial Medical Exam Form and Initial Dental Exam Form.

    OMB No.: New.

    Description

    Pursuant to Exhibit 1, part A.2 of the Flores Settlement Agreement (Jenny Lisette Flores, et al., v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Case No. CV 85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), licensed programs, on behalf of the Administration for Children and Families' Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), shall arrange for appropriate routine medical and dental care, family planning services, and emergency health care services, including a complete medical examination (including screening for infectious disease) within 48 hours of admission, excluding weekends and holidays, unless the minor was recently examined at another facility; appropriate immunizations in accordance with the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), Center for Disease Control; administration of prescribed medication and special diets; appropriate mental health interventions when necessary for each minor in its care.

    The forms are to be used as worksheets for clinicians, medical staff, and the health department to compile information that would otherwise have been collected during the initial medical or dental exam. Once completed, the forms will be given to shelter staff for data entry into ORR's electronic data repository known as ‘The Portal.’ Data will be used to record UC health on admission and for case management of any identified illnesses/conditions.

    Respondents: Clinicians, Health Department staff, Office of Refugee Resettlement Grantee staff.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours per response
  • Total burden hours
    Initial Medical Exam Form (including Appendix A: Supplemental TB Screening Form) 206 155 .25 7982.5 Initial Dental Exam Form 116 28 .08 259.8

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8242.3.

    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. 2015-08835 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Community-Based Family Resource and Support Grants.

    OMB No.: 0970-0155.

    Description: The Program Instruction, prepared in response to the enactment of the Community-Based Grants for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (administratively known as the Community Based Child Abuse Prevention Program, (CBCAP)), as set forth in Title II of Public Law 111-320, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 2010, provides direction to the States and Territories to accomplish the purposes of (1) to support community-based efforts to develop, operate, expand, enhance, and coordinate initiatives, programs, and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect and to support the coordination of resources and activities to better strengthen and support families to reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect; and (2) to foster understanding, appreciation and knowledge of diverse populations in order to effectively prevent and treat child abuse and neglect. This Program Instruction contains information collection requirements that are found in (Pub. L. 111-320) at sections 201; 202; 203; 205; 206; and pursuant to receiving a grant award. The information submitted will be used by the agency to ensure compliance with the statute, complete the calculation of the grant award entitlement, and provide training and technical assistance to the grantee.

    Respondents: State Governments.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    Application 52 1 40 2,080 Annual Report 52 1 24 1,248

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,328.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-7285, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08866 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: Grants to States for Access and Visitation

    OMB No.: 0970-0204

    Description: On an annual basis, States must provide OCSE with data on programs that the Grants to States for Access and Visitation Program has funded. These program reporting requirements include, but are not limited to, the collection of data on the number of parents served, types of services delivered, program outcomes, client socio economic data, referrals sources, and other relevant data including the number of noncustodial parents who were able to obtain increased parenting time with their children.

    Respondents: State Child Access and Visitation Programs and State and/or local service providers.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Online Portal Survey by States and Jurisdictions 54 1 16 864 Survey of local service grantees 331 1 16 5,296

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,160.

    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. 2015-08842 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0152] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RAVICTI AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for RAVICTI and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Campus Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-7900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product RAVICTI (glycerol phenylbutyrate). RAVICTI is indicated for use as a nitrogen-binding agent for chronic management of adult and pediatric patients 2 years of age or older with urea cycle disorders that cannot be managed by dietary protein restriction and/or amino acid supplementation alone. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for RAVICTI (U.S. Patent No. 5,968,979) from Hyperion Therapeutics, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May 2, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of RAVICTI represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for RAVICTI is 2,126 days. Of this time, 1,719 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 407 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: April 10, 2007. The applicant claims April 8, 2006, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was April 10, 2007, when the IND was removed from clinical hold.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 23, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for RAVICTI (NDA 203284) was submitted on December 23, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: February 1, 2013. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 203284 was approved on February 1, 2013.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,450 days of patent term extension.

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by June 16, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by October 14, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08845 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Addressing Inadequate Information on Important Health Factors in Pharmacoepidemiology Studies Relying on Healthcare Databases; Public Workshop AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop, cosponsored by FDA and the University of Maryland Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation, entitled “Methodological Considerations to Address Unmeasured Information About Important Health Factors in Pharmacoepidemiology Studies that Rely on Electronic Healthcare Databases to Evaluate the Safety of Regulated Pharmaceutical Products in the Postapproval Setting.” The purpose of the public workshop is to engage in constructive dialogue among regulators, academicians, pharmaceutical industry, clinicians, other stakeholders and the general public on potential strategies to improve availability of information on important health factors in pharmacoepidemiology studies that rely on electronic healthcare databases to evaluate the safety of pharmaceutical products in the postapproval setting. Electronic healthcare databases are increasingly being used in the postapproval assessment of the safety profile of pharmaceutical drug products.

    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on May 4, 2015, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: The public workshop will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    Contact Person: Leslie Wheelock, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4345, Silver Spring, MD, 301-796-4580, FAX: 301-847-8106, [email protected].

    Registration: Submit your online registration information (including name, title, firm name, address, telephone and fax numbers) by April 30, 2015, at: http://www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/centers/cersievents/biasinbigdata/. There is no registration fee for University of Maryland faculty, students, and staff, University of Maryland Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation Industrial Consortia Members, and Federal Government employees. There is a $50.00 registration fee for all other participants. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. There will be no onsite registration.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Leslie Wheelock (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In many instances, these resources allow for the timely evaluation of drug-related adverse events since data on healthcare utilized by a large number of individuals are readily available. However, because these data are typically collected for administrative purposes, information on important health factors necessary to evaluate drug-outcome relationship may be absent or incomplete in these data sources. Examples include tobacco/smoking use and history, alcohol consumption, weight and height, patient and family medical history, or use of over-the-counter medications. Incomplete capture or the absence of this information can result in biased or uncertain estimates for the drug-outcome relationship of interest leading to inadequate evaluation of the safety profile of prescription drug products.

    Webcast: Please be advised that as soon as possible after a Webcast of the public workshop is available, it will be accessible at: http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/ucm429136.htm.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08846 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.

    Date: May 5-6, 2015.

    Closed: May 5, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Open: May 6, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: This portion of the meeting will be open to the public for announcements and reports of administrative, legislative, and program developments in the drug abuse field.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Research, Office of the Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC, Room 5274, MSC 9591, Rockville, MD 20892, 301-443-6487, [email protected]

    Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.drugabuse.gov/NACDA/NACDAHome.html where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08800 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.

    Date: May 19-20, 2015.

    Open: May 19, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Discussion of Program Policies and Issues.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, 6th Floor, C Wing, Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: May 20, 2015, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, 6th Floor, C Wing, Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Ann R. Knebel, DNSC, RN, FAAN, Deputy Director, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Room 5B05, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8230, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nih.gov/ninr/a_advisory.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08802 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.

    Date: April 29-30, 2015.

    Closed: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Johns Hopkins Bayview Campus, Baltimore, MD 21223.

    Contact Person: Joshua Kysiak, Program Specialist, Biomedical Research Center, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224, 443-740-2465, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the intramural research review cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08799 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Program Project Meeting III (P01).

    Date: June 9-10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Majed M. Hamawy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W120, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6457, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee I-Transition to Independence.

    Date: June 9-10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Sergei Radaev, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W114, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-276-6466, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Omnibus SEP-4.

    Date: June 11-12, 2015.

    Time: 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Clifford W. Schweinfest, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Special Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W108, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6343 [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Omnibus R03 & R21/SEP-8.

    Date: June 16-17, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree by Hilton Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Yisong Wang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Special Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W240, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-7157, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/sep/sep.htm, http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/irg/irg.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08803 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications, contract proposals and their discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NHLBI Short-Term Experience in Research.

    Date: May 8, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7194, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Charles Joyce, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0288, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Maintenance of the NHLBI Biologic Specimen Repository.

    Date: May 12, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: William J. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725 [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08801 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [USCG-2015-0005; OMB Control Numbers 1625-(0032, 0043, 0044, 0081, 0113)] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0032, Vessel Inspection Related Forms and Reporting Requirements Under Title 46 U.S.C.; 1625-0043, Ports and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR Subchapter P; 1625-0044, Outer Continental Shelf Activities—Title 33 CFR Subchapter N; 1625-0081, Alternate Compliance Program; and 1625-0113, Crewmember Identification Documents. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0005] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:

    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via: [email protected].

    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF, 202-493-2251. (b) To OIRA at 202-395-6566. To ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532 or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2015-0005], and must be received by May 18, 2015. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

    Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2015-0005]; indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and type “USCG-2015-0005” in the “Search” box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and will address them accordingly.

    Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Search” box insert “USCG-2015-0005” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Numbers: 1625-(0032, 0043, 0044, 0081, 0113).

    Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 8334, February 17, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

    Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Vessel Inspection Related Forms and Reporting Requirements Under Title 46 U.S.C.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0032.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Owners, operators, agents and masters of vessels.

    Abstract: This collection of information requires owners, operators, agents or masters of certain inspected vessels to obtain and/or post various forms as part of the Coast Guard's Commercial Vessel safety Program.

    Forms: CG-841, CG-854, CG-948, CG-949, CG-950, CG-950A and CG-2832.

    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 1,601 hours to 1,642 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual number of respondents.

    2. Title: Ports and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR Subchapter P.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0043.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Master, owner, or agent of a vessel.

    Abstract: The collection of information allows the master, owner, or agent of a vessel affected by these rules to request deviation from the navigation safety equipment requirements to the extent that there is no reduction in safety.

    Forms: None.

    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 2,447 hours to 2,110 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated number of responses.

    3. Title: Outer Continental Shelf Activities—Title 33 CFR Subchapter N.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0044.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Operators of facilities and vessels engaged in activities on the OCS.

    Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended, authorizes the Coast Guard to promulgate and enforce regulations promoting the safety of life and property on OCS facilities. Title 33 Subchapter N promulgates the regulations. The information is needed to ensure compliance with the safety regulations related to OCS activities.

    Forms: CG-5432.

    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 6,304 hours to 8,407 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated number of responses.

    4. Title: Alternate Compliance Program.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0081.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Owners and operators of U.S.-flag inspected vessels.

    Abstract: This information is used by the Coast Guard to assess vessels participating in the voluntary Alternate Compliance Program (ACP) before issuance of a Certificate of Inspection.

    Forms: None.

    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 176 hours to 152 hours a year due to a decrease in the annual number of respondents.

    5. Title: Crewmember Identification Documents.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0113.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Crewmembers and operators of certain vessels.

    Abstract: This information collection covers requirements that crewmembers on vessels calling at U.S. ports must carry and present on demand an identification that allows the identity of crewmembers to be authoritatively validated.

    Forms: None.

    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 30,275 hours to 34,293 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated time to acquire an acceptable identification document.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Thomas P. Michelli, Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08916 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4212-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Rhode Island; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Rhode Island (FEMA-4212-DR), dated April 3, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective: April 3, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 3, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Rhode Island resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm during the period of January 26-28, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Rhode Island.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert L. Lewis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Rhode Island have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Bristol, Kent, Newport, Providence, and Washington Counties for Public Assistance.

    Bristol, Kent, Newport, Providence, and Washington Counties for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate the incident period.

    All areas within the State of Rhode Island are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08911 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0003; OMB No. 1660-0068] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form. AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, facsimile number (202) 212-4701, or email address [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form.

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

    OMB Number: 1660-0068.

    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 516-0-1, Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form.

    Abstract: Applicants complete and submit the Hotel-Motel Declaration Form online through the USFA Web site (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/applications/hotel/) or they may request a paper-based version. Applications submitted through the Web site are reviewed and, if approved, the applicant will receive a FEMA ID Number for their facility. Online submission is the preferred method selected by the majority applicants. Paper-based forms returned by traditional methods (USPS mail, special delivery, or facsimile) receive the same review process as those submitted online. Lodging establishments must meet a certain level of life-safety from fire, as defined in Pub. L. 101-391, to become eligible for listing on the NML. Federal employees use the NML to select lodging while traveling on government-related business, but the list is also accessible to the general public.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; State, local or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,294.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 696 hours.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $35,004. There are no annual costs to respondents' operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $50,053.00.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Janice Waller, Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08914 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-45-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Public Availability of DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Service Contract Inventory AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2014 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were awarded in FY 2014. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. DHS developed the inventory following the guidance issued on November 5, 2010 and December 19, 2011 by Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). This guidance is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement-service-contract-inventories. Additionally, beginning with the FY 2014 inventory, agency inventories must include information collected from contractors on the amount invoiced and the direct labor hours expended on covered service contracts. The new requirement was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2013 and is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/12/31/2013-31148/federal-acquisition-regulation-service-contracts-reporting-requirements. DHS has posted its FY 2014 inventory for public review at: http://www.dhs.gov/acquisition-reports-and-notices#2 under “Acquisition Reports and Notices.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this notice, please contact Gail Carter at [email protected], or telephone 202-447-5302.

    Laura Auletta, Executive Director, Procurement and Acquisition Workforce.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08817 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0002] President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee management; notice of partially closed Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet on Wednesday, May 6, 2015, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be partially closed to the public.

    DATES:

    The NSTAC will meet in a closed session on Wednesday, May 6, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. and in an open session on Wednesday, May 6, 2015, from 12 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC. Due to limited seating, requests to attend in person will be on a first-come basis and the public portion of the meeting will be streamed via webcast at http://www.whitehouse.gov/live, as an alternative option. All those who wish to attend, please send an email to [email protected] or call Suzanne Daage at 703-235-5461, to register for this meeting. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact [email protected] as soon as possible.

    The NSTAC is inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider, as listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Associated briefing materials that will be discussed at the meeting will be available at www.dhs.gov/nstac for review on April 22, 2015. Comments may be submitted in writing at any time. Comments must be identified by docket number DHS-2015-0002 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Fax: 703-235-5961, Attn: Suzanne Daage.

    Mail: Designated Federal Officer, National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0604, Arlington, VA 20598-0615.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received by the NSTAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    A public comment period will be held during the open portion of the meeting on Wednesday, May 6, 2015, from 2:05 p.m. to 2:25 p.m., and speakers are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Please contact Suzanne Daage at 703-235-5461 to register as a speaker by close of business on May 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Helen Jackson, NSTAC Designated Federal Officer, DHS, telephone (703) 235-5321.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. (Pub. L. 92-463). The NSTAC advises the President on matters related to national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) telecommunications policy.

    Agenda: The committee will meet in an open session to hear a keynote address on DHS activities, and engage in a panel with members of the NS/EP Communications Executive Committee to discuss NS/EP communications challenges and mutual priorities. Additionally, members will receive a status update from the DHS regarding the Government's progress in response to recent NSTAC recommendations. The NSTAC members also will receive an update on the status of the Big Data Analytics Subcommittee. The committee will meet in a closed session to hear a classified briefing regarding cybersecurity threats and discuss future studies based on the Government's national security priorities and perceived vulnerabilities.

    Basis for Closure: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), Government in the Sunshine Act, it has been determined that two agenda items require closure as the disclosure of the information would not be in the public interest.

    The first of these agenda items, the classified briefing, will provide members with context on nation-state capabilities and strategic threats. Such threats target national telecommunications infrastructure and impact industry's long-term competitiveness and growth, as well as the Government's ability to mitigate threats. Disclosure of these threats would provide criminals who wish to intrude into commercial and Government networks with information on potential vulnerabilities and mitigation techniques, weakening existing cybersecurity defense tactics. This briefing will be classified at the top-secret level, thereby exempting disclosure of the content by statute. Therefore, this portion of the meeting will be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(A).

    The second agenda item, the discussion of potential NSTAC study topics, will address areas of critical cybersecurity vulnerabilities and priorities for Government. Government officials will share data with NSTAC members on initiatives, assessments, and future security requirements across public and private networks. The data to be shared includes specific vulnerabilities within cyberspace that affect the Nation's telecommunications and information technology infrastructures and proposed mitigation strategies. Disclosure of this information to the public would provide criminals with an incentive to focus on these vulnerabilities to increase attacks on the Nation's cyber and telecommunications networks. Therefore, this portion of the meeting is likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed DHS actions and will be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B).

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Helen Jackson, Designated Federal Officer for the NSTAC.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08818 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5828-N-16] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

    Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

    Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

    For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

    For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

    Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

    For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: Agriculture: Ms. Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, (202)- 720-8873; Navy: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426; (These are not toll-free numbers).

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Brian P. Fitzmaurice Director, Division of Community Assistance, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT FOR 04/17/2015 Suitable/Available Properties Building Wyoming Bridger-Teton Supervisor's Off 340 N. Cache Street Jackson WY 83001 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201520001 Status: Excess Directions: TN807017, RPUID-B1262.002791 Comments: off-site removal; 69+yrs.old; 475 sq. ft.; wood; asbestos; garage; poor condition; contact Agriculture for more information. Unsuitable Properties Building California 2 Buildings Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake China Lake CA 93555 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201510019 Status: Excess Directions: (NAWS CL) #01298, #01298SUB Comments: public access denied & no alternative method to gain access without compromising National Security. Reasons: Secured Area Pennsylvania 6 Buildings Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg Mechanicsburg PA 17055 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201510020 Status: Excess Directions: Buildings 15, 24, 101, 204, 210, 211 Comments: public access denied & no alternative method to gain access without compromising National Security. Reasons: Secured Area
    [FR Doc. 2015-08479 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-IA-2015-N071; FXIA16710900000-156-FF09A30000] Endangered Species; Issuance of Permits AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of permits.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

    ADDRESSES:

    Brenda Tapia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281; or email [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax); [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended, and/or the MMPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), we issued requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, we found that (1) The application was filed in good faith, (2) The granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) The granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Endangered Species Permit No. Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register notice Permit issuance date 46538B Albert Seeno 79 FR 65980; November 6, 2014 January 5, 2015. 47538B Don Byrne 79 FR 65980; November 6, 2014 January 5, 2015. 49584B Ryan Ringer 79 FR 68461; November 17, 2014 January 5, 2015. 42412B Randy Gisvold 79 FR 68461; November 17, 2014 January 5, 2015. 047058 Space Wild Animal Farm, Inc. 79 FR 72007; December 4, 2014 February 11, 2015. 37451A Mac Embury 79 FR 72007; December 4, 2014 February 11, 2015. 48586B Honolulu Zoo 79 FR 72007; December 4, 2014 January 15, 2015. 48426B Lee Friend 79 FR 72007; December 4, 2014 January 16, 2015. 49080B Larry Johnson 79 FR 72007; December 4, 2014 January 15, 2015. 677660 Toledo Zoo 79 FR 72007; December 4, 2014 January 27, 2015. 49174B David L. Bahl 77 FR 72007; December 4, 2014 February 3, 2015. 46530B Frank Giacalone 77 FR 72007; December 4, 2014 February 3, 2015. 37027B Nicholas Anastasiou 79 FR 76347; December 22, 2014 January 25, 2015. 219951 Texas Tech University, Department of Biological Sciences 79 FR 76347; December 22, 2014 January 25, 2015. 50855B Smithsonian National Zoological Park 79 FR 76347; December 22, 2014 March 4, 2015. 49932B Harvey Welch 79 FR 76347; December 22, 2014 January 23, 2015. 50619B Lynn Hale 79 FR 76347; December 22, 2014 February 3, 2015. 51545B Henry Jeans 79 FR 76347, December 22, 2014 March 18, 2015. 46366b Martin Lohne 80 FR 255; January 5, 2015 February 5, 2015. 46122b Edwin Rymut 80 FR 255; January 5, 2015 February 5, 2015. 47547b Brent Abshire 80 FR 255; January 5, 2015 February 5, 2015. 54012b Donald Chumley 80 FR 255; January 5, 2015 February 5, 2015. 53745b Stanley Williams 80 FR 255; January 5, 2015 February 5, 2015. 54027b Dennis Jordan 80 FR 255; January 5, 2015 February 5, 2015. 46302b Maurice Holthaus 80 FR 255; January 5, 2015 February 5, 2015. 54296B Pueblo Zoo 80 FR 255; January 5, 2015 February 5, 2015. 46358B Nicholas Sackman 80 FR 3249; January 22, 2015 February 26, 2015. 43489B Elizabeth Krottinger 80 FR 3249; January 22, 2015 February 26, 2015. 54323B Tuyrner Butts 80 FR 3249; January 22, 2015 February 26, 2015. 51146B Austin Nick 80 FR 3249; January 22, 2015 February 26, 2015. 165944 Peter Stein 80 FR 3249; January 22, 2015 February 27, 2015. 48446B William Lehrer 80 FR 3249; January 22, 2015 March 9, 2015. 678171 Caldwell Zoo 80 FR 6536; February 5, 2015 March 26, 2015. 55130B James DeBlasio 80 FR 6536; February 5, 2015 March 9, 2015. 43192B Honolulu Zoo 80 FR 6536; February 5, 2015 March 10, 2015. 46740B Fauna & Flora International, Inc. 80 FR 6536; February 5, 2015 April 3, 2015. 56026B Janice Simpson 80 FR 6536; February 5, 2015 March 9, 2015. 42334B Tonya Bryson 80 FR 6536; February 5, 2015 March 19, 2014. 53980B Albert Seeno 80 FR 6536; February 5, 2015 March 23, 2015. 47211A Don Do 80 FR 6536; February 5, 2015 April 2, 2015. 48053A GTWT, LLC, dba Bang 57 Ranch 80 FR 8896; February 19, 2015 March 25, 2015. 56820B Bernard Richburg 80 FR 8896; February 19, 2015 April 2, 2015. 55925B Robert Bonar 80 FR 8896; February 19, 2015 April 2, 2015. 49585B Leo Wright 80 FR 8896; February 19, 2015 April 2, 2015. 45981B Joan Embery-Pillsbury 80 FR 8896; February 19, 2015 April 7, 2015. Availability of Documents

    Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281.

    Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08822 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-FAC-2015-N067; FXFR133609ANS09-FF09F14000-134] Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Meeting AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, which consists of 13 Federal and 13 ex-officio members. The ANS Task Force's purpose is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive species (AIS); to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information.

    DATES:

    The ANS Task Force will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, and Thursday, May 7, 2015, and on Friday, May 8, 2015, from 8 a.m. to noon. For more information, contact the ANS Task Force Executive Secretary (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The ANS Task Force meeting will take place at the Bahia Mar Fort Lauderdale Beach, 801 Seabreeze Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316, (Telephone: 954-764-2233).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Norcutt, Acting Executive Secretary, ANS Task Force, by telephone at (703) 358-2398, or by email at [email protected] If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the ANS Task Force will hold a meeting.

    Background

    The ANS Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Act) (Pub. L. 106-580, as amended), and is composed of 13 Federal and 13 ex-officio members, and co-chaired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The ANS Task Force provides advice on AIS infesting waters of the United States and other nations, among other duties as specified in the Act.

    Meeting Agenda Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan Update • Building Policy Consensus in the West: Update on Development of Model Law and Regulations • Addressing AIS Transport at Federally Managed Water Bodies • Fish Passage Need and AIS Threats • Approval of the National Invasive Lionfish Prevention and Management Plan and the National Snakehead Control and Management Plan • ANS Hotline Update • eDNA Information Clearinghouse Web site • Organisms in Trade Project and WebCrawler Tool • Update from the Aquatic Invasive Species Summit: Boat Design and Construction in the Consideration of AIS • Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Update • Plans for Revitalizing Habitattitude • ANSTF Involvement with National Invasive Species Awareness Week • Detection and Management of Monoecious Hydrilla in the Erie Canal • A National EDRR Framework and Emergency Response Funding Plan • Hydraulic Fracturing for Gas Development as an AIS Pathway

    There will be a field trip Wednesday from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on exotic fish and the South Florida melaleuca control program. To register for the field trip, complete this doodle poll: http://doodle.com/pdng82up43uranpx.

    The final agenda and other related meeting information will be posted on the ANS Task Force Web site athttp://anstaskforce.gov.

    Meeting Minutes

    Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive Secretary (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The minutes will be available for public inspection within 60 days after the meeting and will be posted on the ANS Task Force Web site athttp://anstaskforce.gov.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. David W. Hoskins, Co-Chair, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Assistant Director for Fish and Aquatic Conservation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08921 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-R-2015-N073; FXRS12630900000-156-FF09R81000] Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget for Approval; Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2015. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail), or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0140” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at [email protected] (email) or 703-358-2482 (telephone). You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Collection Request

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0140.

    Title: Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges; 50 CFR 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 32.

    Service Form Number(s): 3-2354, 3-2355, 3-2356, 3-2357, 3-2358, 3-2359, 3-2360, 3-2361, 3-2362.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion (for applications, usually once per year at the beginning of the hunting season; for activity reports, once at the conclusion of the hunting/fishing experience).

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion time per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • FWS Form 3-2354 169,200 169,200 30 84,600 FWS Form 3-2355 87,400 87,400 30 43,700 FWS Form 3-2356 2,400 2,400 30 1,200 FWS Form 3-2357 4,900 4,900 30 2,450 FWS Form 3-2358 2,400 2,400 30 1,200 FWS Form 3-2359 82,700 82,700 15 20,675 FWS Form 3-2360 387,300 387,300 15 96,825 FWS Form 3-2361 29,100 29,100 15 7,275 FWS Form 3-2362 24,400 24,400 15 6,100 Totals 789,800 789,800 264,025

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: We estimate the annual nonhour cost burden to be $60,000 for hunting application fees at some refuges.

    Abstract: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended (Administration Act), and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) govern the administration and uses of national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. The Administration Act consolidated all the different refuge areas into a single Refuge System. It also authorizes us to permit public uses, including hunting and fishing, on lands of the Refuge System when we find that the activity is compatible and appropriate with the purpose for which the refuge was established. The Recreation Act allows the use of refuges for public recreation when the use is not inconsistent or does not interfere with the primary purpose(s) of the refuge.

    We administer 373 hunting programs and 271 fishing programs on 408 refuges and wetland management districts. We only collect user information at about 20 percent of these refuges. Information that we plan to collect will help us:

    • Administer and monitor hunting and fishing programs on refuges.

    • Distribute hunting and fishing permits in a fair and equitable manner to eligible participants.

    We use nine application and report forms associated with hunting and fishing on refuges. We may not allow all opportunities on all refuges; therefore, we developed different forms to simplify the process and avoid confusion for applicants. The currently approved forms are available online at http://www.fws.gov/forms/. Not all refuges will use each form and some refuges may collect the identical information in a nonform format.

    We use the following application forms when we assign areas, dates, and/or types of hunts via a drawing because of limited resources, high demand, or when a permit is needed to hunt. We issue application forms for specific periods, usually seasonally or annually.

    • FWS Form 3-2354 (Quota Deer Hunt Application).

    • FWS Form 3-2355 (Waterfowl Lottery Application).

    • FWS Form 3-2356 (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application).

    • FWS Form 3-2357 (Migratory Bird Hunt Application).

    • FWS Form 3-2358 (Fishing/Shrimping/Crabbing Application).

    We collect information on:

    • Applicant (name, address, phone number) so that we can notify applicants of their selection.

    • User preferences (dates, areas, method) so that we can distribute users equitably.

    • Whether or not the applicant is applying for a special opportunity for disabled or youth hunters.

    • Age of youth hunter(s) so that we can establish eligibility.

    We ask users to report on their success after their experience so that we can evaluate hunting/fishing quality and resource impacts. We use the following activity reports, which we distribute during appropriate seasons, as determined by State or Federal regulations.

    • FWS Form 3-2359 (Big Game Harvest Report).

    • FWS Form 3-2360 (Fishing Report).

    • FWS Form 3-2361 (Migratory Bird Hunt Report).

    • FWS Form 3-2362 (Upland/Small Game/Furbearer Report).

    We collect information on:

    • Names of users so we can differentiate between responses.

    • City and State of residence so that we can better understand if users are local or traveling.

    • Dates, time, and number in party so we can identify use trends and allocate staff and resources.

    • Details of success by species so that we can evaluate quality of experience and resource impacts.

    Comments Received and Our Responses

    Comments: On February 2, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 5572) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on April 3, 2015. We received one comment. The commenter opposed the issuance of any hunting permits, but did not address the information collection requirements. We did not make any changes to our requirements.

    Request for Public Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08808 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-IA-2015-N072; FXIA16710900000-156-FF09A30000] Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of applications for permit.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Brenda Tapia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281; or email [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax); [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Comment Procedures A. How do I request copies of applications or comment on submitted applications?

    Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES. Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an email or address not listed under ADDRESSES. If you provide an email address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

    Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

    The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).

    B. May I review comments submitted by others?

    Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under ADDRESSES. The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. 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.

    II. Background

    To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), along with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of January 21, 2009—Transparency and Open Government (74 FR 4685; January 26, 2009), which call on all Federal agencies to promote openness and transparency in Government by disclosing information to the public, we invite public comment on these permit applications before final action is taken.

    III. Permit Applications Endangered Species Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center, Carr, CO; PRT-800411 and PRT-086867

    The applicant requests renewal and amendment of their permits to export, import, and re-import both live captive-born and wild specimens, biological samples, and salvaged material of black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) to and from Canada and Mexico for completion of identified tasks and objectives mandated under the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. Salvaged materials may include but are not limited to: whole or partial specimens, blood, tissue, hair, and fecal swabs. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens, Los Angeles, CA; PRT-42627B

    The applicant requests a permit to import one female Tomistoma (Tomistoma schlegelii) held in captivity from Singapore Zoo, Singapore for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

    Multiple Applicants

    The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

    Applicant: Scott Schuster, Fort Worth, TX; PRT-61398B Applicant: Jared Forbus, Saint Joe, AR; PRT-59497B Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08821 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey [GX15RN00FUJA300] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revision of a currently approved information collection, 1028-0048, Did You Feel It? Earthquake Questionnaire.

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the information collection request (ICR) described below. The revision includes modifications to make it mobile-friendly. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this ICR. This collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments on this ICR are considered, OMB must receive them on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email: ([email protected]); or by fax (202) 395-5806; and identify your submission with `OMB Control Number 1028-0048'. Please also forward a copy of your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7195 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `OMB Information Collection 1028-0048' in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Wald, (303) 273-8441, [email protected] You may also find information about this ICR at www.reginfo.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The U.S. Geological Survey is required to collect, evaluate, publish and distribute information concerning earthquakes. Respondents have an opportunity to voluntarily supply information concerning the effects of shaking from an earthquake—on themselves, buildings, other man-made structures, and ground effects such as faulting or landslides. Respondents' observations are interpreted in terms of numbers that measure the strength of shaking, and the resulting numbers are displayed on maps that are viewable from USGS earthquake Web sites. Observations are submitted via the Felt Report questionnaire accessed from the USGS Did You Feel It? Earthquake Questionnaire Web pages, and may be submitted via computer or mobile phone. Respondents are asked to provide information on the location to which the report pertains. The locations may, at the respondent's option, be given imprecisely (city-name or postal Zip Code) or precisely (street address, geographic coordinates, or current location determined by the user's mobile phone). Low resolution maps of shaking based on both precise and imprecise observations are published for all earthquakes for which observations are submitted. For earthquakes felt by many respondents, the observations that are associated with more precise locations are used in the preparation of higher resolution maps of earthquake shaking.

    We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We will release data collected on these forms only in formats that do not include proprietary information volunteered by respondents.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-0048.

    Form Number: NA.

    Title: Did You Feel It? Earthquake Questionnaire.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondent Obligation: None.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion, after each earthquake.

    Description of Respondents: General Public.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: Approximately 300,000 individuals, based on past experience, but strongly dependent on the number of moderate or large earthquakes occurring near population centers, which cannot be known in advance.

    Estimated Time per Response: We estimate that it will take 6 minutes per person on average to answer the entire survey.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 30,000 hours

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until the OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obliged to respond.

    Comments: On February 3, 2015, we published a Federal Register notice (80 FR 5776) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval and soliciting comments. The comment period closed on April 6, 2015. We received no comments.

    III. Request for Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this ICR as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) how to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Linda Pratt, Geologic Hazards Science Center, Associate Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08780 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [145A2100DD-AADD001000.A0E501010.999900] American Indian Education Study Group AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Additional tribal consultation meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) published a notice in the Federal Register on March 25, 2015 (80 FR 15807), announcing that the American Indian Education Study Group (Study Group) will conduct four consultation meetings with Indian tribes to obtain oral and written comments. This notice announces an additional consultation meeting scheduled for May 1, 2015, making a total of five tribal consultations meetings.

    DATES:

    The BIE will host an additional consultation meeting on Friday, May 1, 2015. We will consider all comments received by May 15, 2015, 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments by mail or hand-deliver written comments to Ms. Jacquelyn Cheek, Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of Indian Education, 1849 C Street NW., Mailstop 4657-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; facsimile: (202) 208-3312; or email to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jacquelyn Cheek, Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of Indian Education, telephone: (202) 208-6983.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The additional tribal consultation meeting on the BIE Restructuring will be held on the following date and location:

    Date Time Location Friday, May 1, 2015 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (Central Standard Time) Renaissance Oklahoma City, Convention Center Hotel, 10 North Broadway Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. Information for this set of consultations is available on the BIE Web site at http://www.bie.edu/Consultations.

    As required by 25 U.S.C. 2011(b), the purpose of consultation is to provide Indian tribes, school boards, parents, Indian organizations, and other interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the implementation plan developed following the submittal of the American Indian Study Group's Blueprint for Reform and Secretarial Order 3334. The consultation will cover issues raised during previous consultation meetings and those issues currently being considered by BIE on Indian education programs.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08851 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation [RR04073000, XXXR4081X3, RX.05940913.7000000] Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group AGENCY:

    Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management actions to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The AMWG meets two to three times a year.

    DATES:

    The May 28, 2014, AMWG WebEx/conference call will begin at 12 p.m. (EDT), 10 a.m. (MDT), and 9 a.m. (PDT) and conclude three (3) hours later in the respective time zones. See call-in information in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation, telephone (801) 524-3781; facsimile (801) 524-3807; email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was implemented as a result of the Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102-575) of 1992. The AMP includes a Federal advisory committee, the AMWG, a technical work group, a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and independent review panels. The technical work group is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice and recommendations to the AMWG.

    Agenda: The primary purpose of the conference call will be for the AMWG to discuss the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Budget for Fiscal Year 2016 and the 2016 hydrograph. There will also be updates on renewal of the AMWG Charter and the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. To participate in the WebEx/conference call, please use the following instructions:

    1. Go to: https://ucbor-events.webex.com/ucbor-events/onstage/g.php?MTID=e03f40495743cbb6a8a121702b6d02606.

    2. If requested, enter your name and email address.

    3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: AMWG.

    4. Click “Join Now”.

    Audio Conference Information

    • Phone Number: (877) 913-4721.

    • Passcode: 3330168.

    • Event Number: 991 594 863.

    There will be limited ports available, so if you wish to participate, please contact Linda Whetton at (801) 524-3880 to register.

    To view a copy of the agenda and documents related to the above meeting, please visit Reclamation's Web site at: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15may28/index.html. Time will be allowed for any individual or organization wishing to make formal oral comments on the call. To allow for full consideration of information by the AMWG members, written notice must be provided to Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138; telephone (801) 524-3781; facsimile (801) 524-3807; email at [email protected] at least five (5) days prior to the call. Any written comments received will be provided to the AMWG members.

    Public Disclosure of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Glen Knowles, Chief, Adaptive Management Group, Environmental Resources Division, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08862 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation [RR04073000, XXXR4081X3, RX.05940913.7000000] Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management actions to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The AMWG meets two to three times a year.

    DATES:

    The May 28, 2014, AMWG WebEx/conference call will begin at 12:00 p.m. (EDT), 10:00 a.m. (MDT), and 9:00 a.m. (PDT) and conclude three (3) hours later in the respective time zones. See call-in information in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation, telephone (801) 524-3781; facsimile (801) 524-3807; email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was implemented as a result of the Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102-575) of 1992. The AMP includes a Federal advisory committee, the AMWG, a technical work group, a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and independent review panels. The technical work group is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice and recommendations to the AMWG.

    Agenda: The primary purpose of the conference call will be for the AMWG to discuss the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Budget for Fiscal Year 2016 and the 2016 hydrograph. There will also be updates on renewal of the AMWG Charter and the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. To participate in the WebEx/conference call, please use the following instructions:

    1. Go to: https://ucbor-events.webex.com/ucbor-events/onstage/g.php?MTID=e03f40495743cbb6a8a121702b6d02606.

    2. If requested, enter your name and email address.

    3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: AMWG.

    4. Click “Join Now”.

    Audio Conference Information

    • Phone Number: (877) 913-4721

    • Passcode: 3330168

    • Event Number: 991 594 863

    There will be limited ports available, so if you wish to participate, please contact Linda Whetton at (801) 524-3880 to register.

    To view a copy of the agenda and documents related to the above meeting, please visit Reclamation's Web site at: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15may28/index.html. Time will be allowed for any individual or organization wishing to make formal oral comments on the call. To allow for full consideration of information by the AMWG members, written notice must be provided to Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138; telephone (801) 524-3781; facsimile (801) 524-3807; email at [email protected] at least five (5) days prior to the call. Any written comments received will be provided to the AMWG members.

    Public Disclosure of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Glen Knowles, Chief, Adaptive Management Group, Environmental Resources Division, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08923 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Review)] Commodity Matchbooks From India; Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the countervailing duty order and antidumping duty order on commodity matchbooks from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on November 3, 2014 (79 FR 65186) and determined on February 6, 2015 that it would conduct expedited reviews (80 FR 9480, February 23, 2015).

    The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on April 6, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4525 (April 2015), entitled Commodity Matchbooks from India: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 2, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08826 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 701-TA-530 (Preliminary)] Supercalendered Paper From Canada; Determination Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of supercalendered paper, provided for in subheading 4802.61.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the government of Canada.2

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    2 Commissioner F. Scott Kieff did not participate in this investigation.

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigation

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of an affirmative preliminary determination in the investigation under section 703(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determination is negative, upon notice of an affirmative final determination in that investigation under section 705(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigation need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigation. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation.

    Background

    On February 26, 2015, the Coalition for Fair Paper Imports, which is an ad hoc association of U.S. producers that includes Madison Paper Industries, Inc., Madison, ME and Verso Corp., Memphis, TN, filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of supercalendered paper from Canada. Accordingly, effective February 26, 2015, the Commission, pursuant to section 703(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-530 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of March 5, 2015 (80 FR 12036). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on March 19, 2015, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 703(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on April 14, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4529 (April 2015), entitled Supercalendered Paper from Canada: Investigation No. 701-TA-530 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08882 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy Board AGENCY:

    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to announce the meeting of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB). The CJIS APB is a federal advisory committee established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This meeting announcement is being published as required by section 10 of the FACA.

    The FBI CJIS APB is responsible for reviewing policy issues and appropriate technical and operational issues related to the programs administered by the FBI's CJIS Division, and thereafter, making appropriate recommendations to the FBI Director. The programs administered by the CJIS Division are the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System/Next Generation Identification, Interstate Identification Index, Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal, National Crime Information Center, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, National Incident-Based Reporting System, National Data Exchange, and Uniform Crime Reporting.

    This meeting is open to the public. All attendees will be required to check-in at the meeting registration desk. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Any member of the public may file a written statement with the Board. Written comments shall be focused on the APB's current issues under discussion and may not be repetitive of previously submitted written statements. Written comments should be provided to Mr. R. Scott Trent, DFO, at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting so that the comments may be made available to the APB for their consideration prior to the meeting.

    Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Mr. Trent at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.

    DATES:

    Dates and Times: The APB will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., on June 3-4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place at The Hyatt Regency Orange County, 11999 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, California 92840, telephone (714) 750-1234.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Inquiries may be addressed to Ms. Kimberly S. Parsons; Management and Program Analyst; CJIS Training and Advisory Process Unit, Resources Management Section; FBI CJIS Division, Module C2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306-0149; telephone (304) 625-2404, facsimile (304) 625-5090.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. R. Scott Trent, CJIS Designated Federal Officer, Criminal Justice Information, Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08919 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    On April 10, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island in the consolidated lawsuit entitled Emhart Industries, Inc. v. New England Container Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 06-218-S.

    The Consent Decree resolves claims alleged by the United States on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) against New England Container Co., Inc. (“NECC”) pursuant to section 107 and 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607. The United States' cross claim seeks reimbursement and contribution of response costs incurred and to be incurred for response actions taken and to be taken at or in connection with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund Site in North Providence, Rhode Island (“Site”).

    Under the proposed Consent Decree, NECC, a former operator of the Site, will pay $8.75 million in partial reimbursement of EPA's past response costs. This amount was determined based on an analysis of NECC's ability to pay, and is being funded by proceeds from certain historic insurance policies.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to Emhart Industries, Inc. v. New England Container Co., Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-07101/2. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. We will provide a paper copy of the proposed Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ-ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $4.00.

    Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08844 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Notice of Proposed Revisions for the LSC Grant Assurances for Calendar Year 2016 Funding AGENCY:

    Legal Services Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed changes and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) intends to revise the LSC Grant Assurances for calendar year 2016 funding and is soliciting public comment on the proposed changes. The proposed revisions affect Grant Assurances 2, 14, 16, and 17. In addition, LSC is proposing one new Grant Assurance, which requires LSC recipients to have a whistleblower protection policy and a conflicts of interest policy. The proposed LSC grant assurances for calendar year 2016 funding, in redline format indicating the proposed changes to the current “LSC 2015 Grant Assurances,” are available at http://grants.lsc.gov/sites/default/files/Grants/ReferenceMaterials/2016-GrantAssurances-Proposed.pdf.

    DATES:

    All comments and recommendations must be received on or before the close of business on May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.lsc.gov/contact-us. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Web site.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (202) 337-6813.

    Mail: Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.

    Instructions: All comments should be addressed to Reginald J. Haley, Office of Program Performance, Legal Services Corporation. Include “2016 LSC Grant Assurances” as the heading or subject line for all comments submitted.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reginald J. Haley, [email protected], (202) 295-1545.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the LSC grant assurances is to delineate the rights and responsibilities of LSC and the recipient pursuant to the provisions of the grant. As a grant-making agency created by Congress, LSC has grant assurances that are intended to reiterate and/or clarify the responsibilities and obligations already applicable through existing law and regulations and/or obligate the recipient to comply with specific additional requirements in order to effectuate the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act, as amended, and other applicable law. A summary of the proposed changes follows.

    Grant Assurance-2 notifies LSC recipients that they are subject to all provisions of Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal funds; of recipients' responsibility to inform their employees and board members of the laws governing Federal funding; and of the consequences of violating the laws as required by 45 CFR part 1640. The proposed change refers recipients to a list of Federal laws related to the proper use of Federal funds, and notifies recipients that a violation of any of the Federal laws listed could result in summary termination of the LSC grant. LSC proposes this change to conform the 2016 Grant Assurances with the revisions to 45 CFR part 1640, which will become effective on or around May 18, 2015.

    Grant Assurance-13 is new. It requires LSC recipients to: (a) Have a whistleblower policy and a conflicts of interest policy, (b) distribute these policies to all parties who may be affected by them, (c) provide training on these policies to staff and board members, and (d) document its distribution of and training on the policies. The purpose of the proposed grant assurance is to promote program governance and oversight.

    Grant Assurance-14 prohibits recipients from taking or threatening to take disciplinary action against any person for cooperating with, or the appropriate release of information to LSC. It also requires grantees to notify its staff and volunteers that it will not take retaliatory actions for any appropriate cooperation with LSC or other entity authorized to receive such cooperation. The proposed change makes a stronger anti-retaliation statement. It notifies recipients that retaliatory action is prohibited for good faith cooperation with LSC or other authorized entity.

    Grant Assurance-16 requires LSC recipients to notify LSC of any crime, fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement, or theft or loss of $200 or more or theft involving property regardless of whether the funds or property are recovered; when local, state, or Federal law enforcement officials are contacted by the program about a crime; or when it has been the victim of a theft that could lead to a loss of $200 or more. The proposed change to the grant assurance further clarifies that recipients must notify the OIG within two business days about an actual, perceived, or reported crime.

    Grant Assurance-17 requires recipients to notify LSC when the recipient receives any notice of a claim for attorney's fees from the recipient; any monetary judgment, sanction, and any penalty entered against the recipient; a force majeure event; or if any of the recipient's key officials is charged with fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement, theft, or any similar offense, or is subjected to suspension, loss of license, or other disciplinary action by a bar or other professional licensing organization. The proposed change to the grant assurance specifies that in addition to recipient's key officials, employees with fiscal responsibilities who are charged with a similar offense, or are subjected to suspension, loss of license, or other disciplinary action must also be reported to LSC, and that recipients are to notify LSC of an occurrence within 10 days.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08853 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice TIME AND DATE:

    The Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals will meet on Tuesday, 5 May 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Wednesday, 6 May 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Thursday, 7 May 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Commission and the Committee also will meet in executive session on Tuesday, 5 May 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Francis Marion Hotel, 387 King Street, Charleston, South Carolina.

    STATUS:

    The executive session will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b) and applicable regulations. The session will limited to discussions of internal agency practices, personnel, and the budget of the Commission. All other portions of the meeting will be open to the public. Public participation will be allowed as time permits and as determined to be desirable by the Chairman.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commission and Committee will meet in public session to discuss a broad range of marine mammal science and policy issues related to growing challenges in conserving healthy marine mammal populations and the ecosystems in which they live, with a particular focus on issues related to the Atlantic Coast. An opening roundtable discussion will focus on major marine conservation issues in the Southeast, particularly those off the coast of South Carolina. Six themed sessions will reflect the Objectives in the Commission's Strategic Plan for 2015-19, available at http://www.mmc.gov/reports/strategic_plans/welcome.shtml. These sessions will examine issues related to (1) marine mammal health in the Southeast; (2) North Atlantic right whales; (3) offshore energy; (4) Florida manatees; (5) human interactions with marine mammals; and (6) fisheries bycatch of marine mammals. In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service's Office of Protected Resources will discuss its strategic plan. A draft meeting agenda is available on the Commission's Web site, http://www.mmc.gov/index.shtml.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Michael L. Gosliner, General Counsel, Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 700, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-0087; email: [email protected]

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Rebecca J. Lent, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08771 Filed 4-15-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6820-31-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Nixon Presidential Historical Materials: Opening of Materials AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of opening of additional Presidential materials.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum is opening additional Nixon Presidential Historical Materials for public access. These materials include previously restricted materials and select White House Central Files, Name Files. In accordance with section 104 of Title I of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA, 44 U.S.C. 2111 note) and § 1275.42(b) of the regulations implementing the Act (36 CFR part 1275), NARA has identified, inventoried, and prepared for public access these additional textual materials with certain information redacted as required by law, including the PRMPA.

    DATES:

    The materials described in this notice will be available to the public on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m. PDT (12:30 p.m. EDT).

    In accordance with 36 CFR 1275.44, any person who believes it necessary to file a claim of legal right or privilege concerning access to these materials must notify the Archivist of the United States in writing of the claimed right, privilege, or defense by May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The materials will be available for viewing at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum; 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd.; Yorba Linda, CA. Selections from these materials will also be available online at www.nixonlibrary.gov.

    You must send any petition asserting a legal or constitutional right or privilege that would prevent or limit public access to the materials to The Archivist of the United States; National Archives at College Park; 8601 Adelphi Rd.; College Park, Maryland 20740-6001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Cumming, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, by telephone at 714-983-9131.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Researchers must have a NARA researcher card to view the materials; you may obtain a card when you arrive at the Library.

    Description of Materials

    The following materials will be made available in accordance with this notice:

    1. Previously restricted textual materials. Volume: 2 cubic feet. A number of textual materials previously withheld from public access have been reviewed for release or declassified under the systematic declassification review provisions and under the mandatory review provisions of Executive Order 13526, the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), or in accordance with 36 CFR 1275.56 (Public Access regulations). The materials are from integral file segments for the National Security Council (NSC Files and NSC Institutional Files); along with Henry A. Kissinger (HAK) Office Files; Kissinger Telephone Conversation Transcripts; the White House Special Files; and White House Central Files.

    2. White House Central Files, Name Files: Volume: 4.5 cubic feet. The Name Files were used for routine materials filed alphabetically by the name of the correspondent; copies of documents in the Name Files were usually filed by subject in the Subject Files.

    Brosk Brown, Robert H-K Brown, William H-K Bryant, We Bush, G Bush, George (Cong.) Gov. Jimmy Carter Hon. Fletcher, Arthur (Art) Ford, Gerald Ford, Gerald (Cong.) Goldwater, Barry (Cong.) Goldwater, Barry (Sen.) Hoover, J. Edgar Humphrey, Hubert Kerne Linkletter, Art Luce, Clare Booth Marriott, J. Willard (Bill) McGovern, George S. (Sen) McHugh, A-E Meade, R. Meany, George (Hon) Murphy, Mr. Audie Nesse Orm Patman, Wright (Cong.) Payton, Q-T Pelles Peric Proxmire, William (Sen.) Wayne, John (Duke) Dated: April 10, 2015. David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08850 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2012-0054; Docket No. 70-0036] Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC; Hematite Decommissioning Project; Festus, Missouri AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of a license amendment to special nuclear material (SNM) license number SNM-33 issued to Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC for the former Hematite fuel cycle facility in Festus, Missouri, authorizing alternative disposal of buried debris and contaminated soil, concrete and asphalt, filter media, ion exchange resin and piping at the US Ecology Idaho, Inc. (USEI) disposal facility located near Grand View, Idaho. In addition, the NRC is considering the issuance of an exemption to USEI so that it may accept the waste for disposal. This exemption would allow USEI to accept the NRC regulated material under its Idaho Department of Environmental Quality issued license. The NRC staff is issuing an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed action.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on April 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0054 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0054. 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 access publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John J. Hayes, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5928; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering the issuance of an amendment to license SNM-33, issued to Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (WEC), for the operation of the Hematite facility, located in Festus, Missouri for the disposal of radioactive waste at the USEI facility located near Grand View, Idaho. As part of this action, the NRC is also considering the approval of an exemption that will allow USEI to accept the waste. As required by section 51.21 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC has prepared an environmental assessment (EA). Based upon this EA, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license amendment and is issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).

    By letter dated July 11, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14193A008), WEC requested NRC authorization under 10 CFR 20.2002 for alternate disposal of an additional 87,100 m3 (cubic meters) of radioactive waste from the WEC's Hematite facility, consisting of buried debris and contaminated soil, concrete and asphalt, filter media, ion exchange resin and piping containing NRC-licensed source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. The amendment requests authorization for WEC to transfer this waste from the Hematite facility to the USEI facility located near Grand View, Idaho, which is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C disposal facility. On August 12, 2014 USEI also submitted a request for an exemption from 10 CFR 30.3 and 10 CFR 70.3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14272A425) to enable it to receive the WEC radioactive waste from the Hematite site. The USEI facility is regulated by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and is not an NRC-licensed facility.

    An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to WEC dated August 29, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14188B647), found the application acceptable to begin a technical review. On September 25, 2014, Westinghouse submitted a revision (ADAMS Accession No. ML14293A614) to their July 11, 2014, request. On October 29, 2014, the NRC transmitted to WEC a Request for Additional Information (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14294A141 and ML14294A146). On December 19, 2014, WEC provided a response to NRC's request (ADAMS Accession No. ML15009A166). Additional information was provided by WEC in submittals dated February 18, 2015, and March 25, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15063A033 and ML15084A071).

    On December 3, 2014, the NRC published in the Federal Register (79 FR 71795), a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the July 11, 2014, WEC license amendment request. No request for a hearing was received within the request period. The NRC relied upon the information provided in the July 11, 2014, license amendment request, the September 25, 2014, December 19, 2014, February 18, 2015, and March 25, 2015, submittals, supporting documentation and other sources as noted in the EA references section, in preparing the EA. The EA is electronically available to the public through ADAMS (ADAMS Accession No. ML15029A064). This notice provides an EA summary and the FONSI.

    ll. Environmental Assessment Summary Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would authorize WEC to transfer an additional 87,100 m3 of radioactive waste consisting of buried debris and contaminated soil, concrete and asphalt, filter media, ion exchange resin and piping containing NRC-licensed source, byproduct, and special nuclear material from the Hematite facility to the USEI disposal facility located near Grand View, Idaho. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated July 11, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated September 25, 2014, December 19, 2014, February 18, 2015, and March 25, 2015. In order to implement the proposed action, the NRC would need to amend WEC's license, SNM-33, to expressly allow for the disposal of the radioactive waste and would need to grant exemptions to USEI from NRC regulations 10 CFR 30.3 and 10 CFR 70.3.1

    1 NRC regulation 10 CFR 30.3 requires a NRC issued license for the manufacture, production, transfer, receipt, acquisition, ownership, possession or use of byproduct material. Similarly, 10 CFR 70.3 requires a NRC issued license for the ownership, acquisition, delivery, receipt, possession, use or transfer of special nuclear material. Approvals of the exemption requests are part of the proposed action as USEI is not a NRC licensed facility and Idaho is not an Agreement State under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act. If the proposed action is approved, the NRC would issue exemptions pursuant to its exemption grant authority at 10 CFR 30.11(a) and 10 CFR 70.17(a), respectively.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    The WEC Hematite Decommissioning Project (HDP) is a decommissioning 2 and environmental restoration project that will generate low-activity, low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) in the form of buried debris and contaminated soil, concrete and asphalt, filter media, ion exchange resin and piping containing low concentrations of source, byproduct and special nuclear material. There is also the potential that this LLRW will contain hazardous constituents, such as metals and volatile organics, that exceed the levels identified in 40 CFR part 261. If the LLRW contains such hazardous constituents, and if the levels of such constituents exceed the 40 CFR part 261 limits, then the LLRW is considered hazardous waste under RCRA and will require treatment at a RCRA facility, such as USEI, prior to disposal. The need for the proposed action is the safe and permanent disposal of HDP's LLRW.

    2 In NRC regulations, the term “decommission” means to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits: Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license. See 10 CFR 70.4.

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    In accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002, WEC proposes to dispose of this LLRW at the USEI hazardous waste disposal facility near Grand View, Idaho. The facility occupies Section 19 (2.59 square kilometers or 640 acres) of Township 4 South and Range 2 East in Owyhee County, Idaho. This disposal is in addition to the approximately 23,000 m3 (30,000 yd3) of LLRW which was approved for alternate disposal by Hematite License Amendment 58, the 23,000 m3 (30,000 yd3) of LLRW that was approved for Hematite License Amendment 60, and the 22,000 m3 (29,000 yd3) of LLRW that was approved for Hematite License Amendment 63. As such, the cumulative impacts on the USEI facility and surrounding environment resulting from the receipt of the waste material described in the aforementioned license amendments were considered.

    In 2002, WEC and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) entered into a Letter Agreement, which, among other things, provided for MDNR oversight of certain studies and response actions in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan under the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. (Westinghouse MDNR Review Draft Remedial Design Work Plan, 2002).

    On July 3, 2008, Missouri and WEC entered into a Consent Decree, and the Letter Agreement was terminated. The Consent Decree provides for MDNR oversight of those portions of the investigation and selection of the remedy for Operable Units at the site that are not preempted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Selected Remedy for Operable Unit 1 at the HDP is Alternative 4: Removal, Treatment of Volatile Organic Compound Waste, and Off-site Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Non-Hazardous Treatment Residues.

    Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). The no-action alternative involves discontinuing ongoing decommissioning activities at the HDP and leaving contaminated soil and other radioactive waste at the HDP site. This action would require an exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR 70.38(d) that decommissioning of facilities specifically licensed for possession and use of special nuclear material be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The no-action alternative would result in leaving approximately 87,100 m3 of total waste volume onsite.

    As was previously noted, the radioactive waste, regulated by the NRC, is co-mingled with chemically contaminated waste regulated under CERCLA. The no-action alternative would not be in accordance with the July 2009 CERCLA Record of Decision (http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/docs/20090721HRSFINALROD.pdf) for the removal and subsequent treatment of the chemically contaminated waste.

    The no-action alternative would not allow WEC to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Selection of this alternative would require WEC to continue environmental monitoring/surveillance and to maintain administrative and engineered controls to ensure facility safety and security. The environmental impacts of the no-action alternative would include continued contamination of soil and water, which could further escalate over time if groundwater contamination spreads and material such as Technicium-99 continue to leach into the soil. The continued monitoring required at the site would result in environmental impacts due to the emissions from vehicular traffic associated with workers traversing to and from the site and entities providing services and supplies to the Hematite facility. Additional vehicular traffic could also impact public and occupational health with the potential for vehicle accidents.

    Another alternative to the proposed action is to dispose of the LLRW in a facility licensed by an NRC Agreement State for the storage and/or disposal of LLRW. For this EA, the NRC evaluated the EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions) Clive, Utah, facility as the alternative disposal site for the radioactive and chemically hazardous waste.

    The EnergySolutions LLRW disposal facility at Clive, Utah, is located 128 kilometers (80 miles) west of Salt Lake City, Utah, and 70 kilometers (45 miles) east of Wendover, Nevada. The site is arid with an annual precipitation of approximately 20 centimeters (8 inches). The facility is licensed by the State of Utah, to dispose of Class A radioactive waste only (Utah License 2300249) and 11e.(2) byproduct material (UT2300478) and holds a Part B Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) solid waste permit (Environmental Protection Agency ID No. UTD982598898).

    The selection of this alternative would allow WEC to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. In addition, this site is environmentally similar to USEI. However, this alternative was not selected by WEC.

    Alternative Use of Resources

    The proposed action does not impact any resource implications discussed in previous environmental reviews.

    Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with the Missouri Department of Conservation, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the development of this EA. On January 14, 2015, the NRC staff consulted with MDNR and IDEQ regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action and solicited comments on a draft EA and FONSI. No comments were received.

    lIl. Finding of No Significant Impact

    WEC has requested NRC authorization under 10 CFR 20.2002 for the alternate disposal of an additional 87,100 m3 of radioactive waste consisting of buried debris and contaminated soil, concrete and asphalt, filter media, ion exchange resin and piping containing NRC-licensed source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. In addition, both WEC and USEI have requested that the NRC exempt USEI from the requirements of 10 CFR 30.3 and 10 CFR 70.3. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the proposed action described Section II of this document and publicly available in ADAMS (ADAMS Accession No. ML15029A064). The EA is incorporated by reference in this finding. On the basis of the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

    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. 2015-08933 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on August 12, 2015, to discuss the ACMUI Germanium/

    Gallium-68 subcommittee report. Meeting information, including a copy of the agenda and handouts, will be available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acmui/meetings/2015.html. The agenda and handouts may also be obtained by contacting Ms. Sophie Holiday using the information below. DATES:

    The teleconference meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    Public Participation: Any member of the public who wishes to participate in the teleconference should contact Ms. Holiday using the contact information below.

    Contact Information: Ms. Sophie Holiday, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; by telephone: (404) 997-4691; or by email: [email protected].

    Conduct of the Meeting

    Dr. Bruce Thomadsen, ACMUI Chairman, will preside over the meeting. Dr. Thomadsen will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting:

    1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Ms. Holiday at the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by August 07, 2015, three business days prior to the meeting, and must pertain to the topic on the agenda for the meeting.

    2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meetings, at the discretion of the Chairman.

    3. The draft transcript and meeting summary will be available on ACMUI's Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acmui/meetings/2015.html on or about September 24, 2015.

    This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 7.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08935 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-016; NRC-2008-0250] UniStar Nuclear Energy; Combined License Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a December 31, 2014, letter from UniStar Nuclear Energy (UNE), on behalf of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Project, LLC, and UniStar Operating Services, LLC, co-applicants for the combined license (COL) application for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 (CCNPP3), which requested an exemption to delay the submission of the annual update of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to be included in their COL application. The NRC staff reviewed this request and determined that it is appropriate to grant the exemption to delay the FSAR update submittal up to December 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0250 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access the 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-2008-0250. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For the technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Surinder Arora, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1421, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On March 14, 2008, UNE, on behalf of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Operating services, LLC, submitted to the NRC a COL application, under subpart C of part 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to construct and operate a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR), designated as Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3, at a site in Calvert County, Maryland. The UNE application was docketed on June 3, 2008 (Docket Number 52-016). UNE's COL application for CCNPP3 incorporates by reference AREVA NP's application for a standard design certification for the U.S. EPR. The NRC is currently performing concurrent reviews of the CCNPP3 COL application as well as AREVA NP's application for design certification of the U.S. EPR. UNE also had previously requested an exemption on November 19, 2013 (this request was later supplemented by UNE's follow up updated request on March 21, 2014), under 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) to submit the scheduled 2013 FSAR update, and proposed, for approval, a new submittal deadline of December 31, 2014. The NRC reviewed the bases for the exemption request and granted the exemption as described in Federal Register notice published on September 11, 2014 (79 FR 54303).

    By a letter dated December 16, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14351A301), UNE requested that after January 2015, the NRC defer its safety review portion of the Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 COL application until such time that UNE formally requests that the NRC resume its review. The letter also stated that UNE will monitor and evaluate progress of the technical issue resolution for the U.S. EPR FSAR and the development of guidance necessary to address Foreign Ownership Control and Domination (FOCD) prior to requesting the NRC to resume review. By letter dated February 27, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15062A050), UNE requested that after March 6, 2015, the NRC suspend the Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 COL application review until such time the UNE formally requests that the NRC resume its review. The letter also stated that UNE will continue to monitor the U.S. EPR Design Certification efforts, as well as other project conditions such as foreign ownership guidance, loan guarantee availability and the electricity market, among others.

    II. Request/Action

    The regulations at 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) require that an applicant for a COL under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application and until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's FSAR, which is Part 2 of the COL application. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update of the FSAR for the CCNPP3 COL application would have been due by December 31, 2014.

    On September 30, 2014, UNE submitted Revision 10 of the COL application, including updates to the FSAR. The FSAR updates in Revision 10 of the CCNPP3 COL application satisfied the applicant's requested exemption of November 19, 2013, and the supplement follow up request of March 21, 2014.

    By a letter dated December 31, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15002A245), UNE submitted a request to the NRC, for exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) for delaying the scheduled 2014 FSAR updates and proposed for approval a new submittal date of December 31, 2015. UNE's letter states that the requested exemption is a schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) to accommodate the incorporation of the U.S. EPR Design Certification application revisions in an orderly and efficient manner. The current requirements to submit an FSAR update could not be changed, absent the exemption request.

    III. Discussion

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, including 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), 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) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1) Application 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 (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); or (2) the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).

    The purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to ensure that the NRC has the most up-to-date information regarding the COL application, in order to perform an efficient and effective review. The rule targeted those applications that are being actively reviewed by the NRC. As requested by UNE in the above referenced letter dated February 27, 2015, the NRC suspended the CCNPP3 COL application review until further notification by UNE. Therefore, updating the CCNPP3 FSAR would only cause undue hardship on UNE, and the purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would still be achieved so long as the next update is submitted by December 31, 2015, as committed to in UNE's exemption request letter.

    The requested exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the FSAR included in the CCNPP3 COL application would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii).

    Authorized by Law

    The exemption is a one-time schedule exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow UNE to submit the next CCNPP3 COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2015. Per 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC staff has determined that granting UNE the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.

    No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety

    The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; therefore, neither the probability, nor the consequences, of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, the requested exemption does not result in any undue risk to public health and safety.

    Consistent With Common Defense and Security

    The requested exemption would allow UNE to submit the next FSAR update on or before December 31, 2015. This schedule change has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by the exemption.

    Special Circumstances

    Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present whenever: (1) Application 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 (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); or (2) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).

    As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the CCNPP3 COL application, when resumed, as well as issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. For this reason, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of that rule. Therefore, special circumstances exist under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). In addition, special circumstances are also present under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) because granting a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), would provide only temporary relief. For the above reasons, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) exist.

    Eligibility for Categorical Exclusion From Environmental Review

    With respect to the exemption's impact on the quality of the human environment, the NRC has determined that this specific exemption request is eligible for categorical exclusion as identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation of 10 CFR Chapter 1 (which includes 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii)) is an action that is a categorical exclusion, provided that:

    (i) There is no significant hazards consideration;

    (ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite;

    (iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure;

    (iv) There is no significant construction impact;

    (v) There is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and

    (vi) The requirements from which an exemption is sought involve:

    (A) Recordkeeping requirements;

    (B) Reporting requirements;

    (C) Inspection or surveillance requirements;

    (D) Equipment servicing or maintenance scheduling requirements;

    (E) Education, training, experience, qualification, requalification or other employment suitability requirements;

    (F) Safeguard plans, and materials control and accounting inventory scheduling requirements;

    (G) Scheduling requirements;

    (H) Surety, insurance or indemnity requirements; or

    (I) Other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature.

    The requirements from which this exemption is sought involve only “(B) Reporting requirements” or “(G) Scheduling requirements” of those required by 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).

    The NRC staff's determination that each of the applicable criteria for this categorical exclusion is met as follows:

    I. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i): There is no significant hazards consideration.

    Staff Analysis: The criteria for determining if an exemption involves a significant hazards consideration are found in 10 CFR 50.92. The proposed action involves only a schedule change regarding the submission of an update to the application for which the licensing review is currently suspended. Therefore, there are no significant hazard considerations because granting the proposed exemption would not:

    (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

    (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

    (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    II. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii): There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

    Staff Analysis: The proposed action involves only a schedule change, which is administrative in nature, and does not involve any changes in the types or significant increase in the amounts of effluents that may be released offsite.

    III. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iii): There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure.

    Staff Analysis: Since the proposed action involves only a schedule change, which is administrative in nature, it does not contribute to any significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.

    IV. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv): There is no significant construction impact.

    Staff Analysis: The proposed action involves only a schedule change which is administrative in nature. While the environmental portion of the application review is complete in that the final environmental impact statement is already issued, the safety portion of the COL application review has been suspended and no license will be issued prior to the NRC resuming the review and receipt of the aforementioned application's December 31, 2015, submittal of the revised FSAR; therefore, the proposed action does not involve any construction impact.

    V. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v): There is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

    Staff Analysis: The proposed action involves only a schedule change which is administrative in nature and does not impact the probability or consequences of accidents.

    VI. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi): The requirements from which this exemption is sought involve only “(B) Reporting requirements” or “(G) Scheduling requirements.”

    Staff Analysis: The exemption request involves requirements in both of these categories because it involves submitting an updated COL FSAR by December 31, 2015, and also relates to the schedule for submitting COL FSAR updates to the NRC.

    IV. Conclusion

    The NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances exist under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application, when resumed, as well as issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants UNE a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the BBNPP COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update on or before December 31, 2015.

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22, the Commission has determined that the exemption request meets the applicable categorical exclusion criteria set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), and the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Frank Akstulewicz, Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08934 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, and 72-41; NRC-2015-0093] Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of exemptions in response to a request from Southern California Edison Company (SCE or the licensee) that would permit the licensee to reduce its emergency planning (EP) activities at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The licensee is seeking exemptions that would eliminate the requirements to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reduce some of the onsite EP activities based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled reactors. Offsite emergency planning provisions would still exist using a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) process. The NRC staff is issuing a final Environmental Assessment (EA) and final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed exemptions.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on April 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0093 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-2015-0093. 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] For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

    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:

    Thomas J. Wengert, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4037; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of an exemption concerning Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-13, NPF-10, and NFP-15, issued to SCE for the operation of SONGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, located in San Diego County, California. Therefore, as required by sections 51.20(b) and 51.22(c) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC performed an EA. Based on the results of the EA that follows, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the exemptions, and is issuing a finding of no significant impact.

    SONGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, are permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors in the process of decommissioning. SONGS is located in San Diego County, California, on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, approximately 51 miles north of San Diego, California. SCE is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-13, NPF-10, and NFP-15 for SONGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. SONGS, Unit 1 was permanently shut down in 1993. On June 12, 2013, the licensee provided the certifications that SONGS, Units 2 and 3, had permanently ceased power operations. On June 28 and July 22, 2013, the licensee provided certifications that all fuel had been permanently removed from the SONGS, Units 3 and 2, reactors, respectively. As a permanently shutdown and defueled facility, and pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the reactors or emplace fuel into the reactor vessels, but is still authorized to possess and store irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated fuel is currently stored onsite at SONGS in spent fuel pools (SFPs) and in the ISFSI dry casks. The licensee has requested exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” for SONGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, and the ISFSI. The NRC's regulations concerning EP do not recognize the reduced risks after a reactor is permanently shut down and defueled. A permanently shutdown reactor must continue to maintain the same EP requirements as an operating reactor. To establish a level of EP commensurate with the reduced risks, SCE requires exemptions from certain EP regulatory requirements before it can change its emergency plans.

    The NRC is considering issuance of exemptions to SCE from portions of 10 CFR 50.47, “Emergency plans,” and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,” which would permit SCE to modify its emergency plan to eliminate the requirements to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reduce some of the onsite EP activities based on the reduced risks at SONGS, due to its permanently shutdown and defueled status. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC staff has reviewed the requirements in 10 CFR 51.20(b) and 10 CFR 51.22(c) and determined that an EA is the appropriate form of environmental review for the requested action. Based on the results of the EA, which is provided in Section II of this document, the NRC is issuing a final finding of no significant impact.

    II. Environmental Assessment Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt SCE from meeting certain requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. More specifically, SCE requested exemptions from (1) certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors, (2) certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP zones for nuclear power reactors, and (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up the content of emergency plans. The proposed action, granting these exemptions, would result in the elimination of the requirements for the licensee to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reduce some of the onsite EP activities at SONGS, based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled reactors. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities will be retained. If necessary, offsite protective actions could still be implemented using a CEMP process. A CEMP in this context, also referred to as an emergency operations plan (EOP), is addressed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, “Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans.” CPG 101 is the foundation for State, territorial, Tribal, and local EP in the United States. It promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of risk-informed planning and decisionmaking, and helps planners at all levels of government in their efforts to develop and maintain viable, all-hazards, all-threats emergency plans. An EOP is flexible enough for use in all emergencies. It describes how people and property will be protected; provides details regarding who is responsible for carrying out specific actions; identifies the personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies and other resources available; and outlines how all actions will be coordinated. A CEMP is often referred to as a synonym for “all-hazards planning.”

    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated March 31, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated September 9, October 2, October 7, October 27, November 3, and December 15, 2014. An additional supplemental letter dated October 6, 2014, contains security-related information and is therefore, withheld from public disclosure.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed for SCE to revise the SONGS emergency plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled status of the facility. The EP requirements currently applicable to SONGS are for operating power reactors. There are no explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that has been shut down from those for an operating power reactor. Therefore, since the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for SONGS no longer authorize operation of the reactors or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessels, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible. In its exemption request, the licensee identified the remaining possible accidents at SONGS in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition. The NRC staff evaluated these possible radiological accidents in the Commission Paper (SECY)-14-0144, dated December 17, 2014. In SECY-14-0144, the staff verified that SCE's analyses and calculations provide reasonable assurance that if the requested exemptions were granted, then (1) for a design-basis accident (DBA), an offsite radiological release will not exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAGs) at the exclusion area boundary, as detailed in the EPA “PAG Manual, Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents,” dated March 2013, which was issued as Draft for Interim Use and Public Comment; and (2) in the unlikely event of a beyond DBA resulting in a loss of all SFP cooling, there is sufficient time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions, and in the unlikely event that a release is projected to occur, there is sufficient time for offsite agencies to take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the health and safety of the public. The Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to grant the exemptions in the Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY-14-0144, dated March 2, 2015.

    Based on these analyses, the licensee states that application of all of the standards and requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c), and 10 CFR part 50 appendix E, section IV, are not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of those rules. SCE also states that it would incur undue costs in the maintenance of an emergency response organization in excess of that actually needed to respond to the diminished scope of credible accidents associated with a shutdown plant.

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff concluded that the exemptions, if granted, will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents at SONGS in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition. There will be no significant change in the types of effluents that may be released offsite. There will be no significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. There will be no significant increase in the individual or cumulative occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are also no known socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with the proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

    Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

    Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

    Alternative Use of Resources

    The proposed action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for SONGS, Units 2 and 3, dated April 1981, and the “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, dated November 2002.

    Agencies or Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff did not enter into consultation with any other Federal agency or with the State of California regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. On April 8, 2015, the California State representatives were notified of this EA and FONSI.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The licensee has proposed exemptions from (1) certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP zones for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up the content of emergency plans. The proposed action of granting these exemptions would result in the elimination of the requirements for the licensee to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reduce some of the onsite EP activities at SONGS, based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled reactor. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities will be retained.

    The NRC staff decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. On the basis of the EA included in Section II of this document, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC staff has determined that a finding of no significant impact is appropriate.

    IV. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

    Document ADAMS Accession No./Web link/
  • Federal Register citation
  • Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101, Version 2.0, November 2010 http://www.fema.gov. Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, dated March 31, 2014 ADAMS Accession No. ML14092A332. Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI dated, September 9, 2014 ML14258A003. Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI dated October 2, 2014 ML14280A265. Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI dated October 7, 2014 ML14287A228. Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, Response to Requests for Clarification of October 6, 2014 RAI Responses concerning Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3, and ISFSI, dated October 27, 2014 ML14303A257. Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI, dated November 3, 2014 ML14309A195. Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, Redacted Version of Response to Request for Additional Information Proposed Exemptions from Certain Portions of 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI, dated December 15, 2014 ML14351A078. Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft for Interim Use and Public Comment, March 2013 http://www.epa.gov. SECY 14-0144, “Request by Southern California Edison for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,” dated December 17, 2014 ML14251A554. Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY-14-0144, dated March 2, 2015 ML15061A521. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, dated April 30, 1981 ADAMS Legacy Library Accession No. 8105180391. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, issued November 2002 ADAMS Accession No. ML023470327.
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Meena K. Khanna, Chief, Plant Licensing IV-2 and Decommissioning Transition Branch, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08929 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0044] Guidance for Evaluation of Acute Chemical Exposures and Proposed Quantitative Standards AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft interim staff guidance; supplemental information; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing supplemental information to an earlier notice, appearing in the Federal Register on March 4, 2015, which requested comment on a draft interim staff guidance (ISG), “Guidance for Evaluation of Acute Chemical Exposures and Proposed Quantitative Standards.” The draft ISG, if issued in final form, would supplement existing guidance in NUREG-1520, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility,” by providing additional guidance and the descriptions of proposed quantitative standards for the NRC to follow when evaluating the integrated safety analysis (ISAs) of acute chemical exposures. This action is necessary to provide the public with the backfitting information with respect to the draft ISG, and includes references to the key documents on backfitting issues. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on May 18, 2015. The NRC is extending the public comment period on this action to allow more time for members of the public to review the additional information on backfitting before submitting any comments.

    DATES:

    The due date of comments requested in the document published on March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11692) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than July 1, 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 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-2015-0044. 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, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, 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:

    Marilyn Diaz, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7110, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0044 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-2015-0044.

    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 draft ISG is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15051A029.

    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-2015-0044 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. Background

    The NRC is providing supplemental information to a notice requesting comment on its draft ISG, “Guidance for Evaluation of Acute Chemical Exposures and Proposed Quantitative Standards,” that was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 11692; March 4, 2015). The draft ISG, if issued in final form, would supplement existing guidance in NUREG-1520, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility” (ADAMS Accession No. ML101390110), by providing additional guidance for the NRC to follow when evaluating the ISAs of acute chemical exposures, including the descriptions of proposed quantitative standards used to classify exposure events using the general criteria of section 70.61 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The draft ISG identifies sources of information that the staff could use when reviewing the proposed quantitative standards.

    This supplemental information provides the NRC's proposed position on backfitting with respect to the draft ISG, and includes references to the key documents on backfitting. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on May 18, 2015. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period on the draft ISG to allow more time for members of the public to review the supplemental information before submitting any comments.

    III. Supplemental Information

    The NRC believes that the draft ISG, if issued in final form, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 70.76(a)(1). All fuel cycle facility licensees are required to conduct and maintain an ISA that analyzes the chemical hazards of licensed material. The performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61(b) and (c) require that the risk of each credible high or intermediate consequence event be limited, and such events include those arising from an acute chemical exposure as specified in 10 CFR 70.61(b)(4) and (c)(4). For all credible event consequences as specified in 10 CFR 70.61(b)(4) and (c)(4), the ISA summary must describe the proposed quantitative standards used to address acute chemical exposures from credible event sequences in accordance with 10 CFR 70.65(b)(7). This requirement is reinforced by the ISA definition in 10 CFR 70.4. Subpart H of 10 CFR part 70 contains performance-based requirements under which the applicant/licensee must address all credible hazards, and there is no regulatory language limiting consideration of chemical hazards to specific exposure pathways. The draft ISG is consistent with the regulatory language in subpart H of 10 CFR part 70 and the NRC's position that the ISA should consider all acute chemical exposures, including dermal and ocular exposures.

    Since the initial NRC approval of ISA summaries, there have been a number of hazardous chemical exposure incidents involving dermal and ocular exposures at fuel cycle facilities. Two of these incidents of exposure have resulted in intermediate or high consequences. See Table 1, Fuel Cycle Facility Dermal and Ocular Exposure Events Known to the NRC Staff. The NRC believes that these events demonstrate the need for fuel cycle facilities to address all exposure pathways when updating their safety programs, ISAs, and ISA summaries. The information contained in the draft ISG reflects and reiterates existing NRC regulatory requirements for the fuel cycle facility licensees who will be subject to the draft ISG. Therefore, issuance of the draft ISG in final form would not constitute backfitting. The NRC's positions on backfitting with respect to consideration of all exposure pathways (the subject of this draft ISG) are set forth in a September 15, 2014, letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14251A150; Enclosure: ADAMS Accession No. ML14251A149). The NRC's September 2014 letter responds to a March 26, 2014, letter from NEI to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML14086A267), which raises backfitting issues with respect to consideration of dermal and ocular exposures to hazardous chemicals at NRC-regulated fuel cycle facilities. The NEI also provided their views on backfitting with respect to consideration of dermal and ocular exposures to hazardous chemicals at NRC-regulated fuel cycle facilities in a November 7, 2014, letter to the General Counsel of the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML14322B019).

    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P EN17AP15.008 EN17AP15.009 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Craig G. Erlanger, Deputy Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08932 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2015-47 and CP2015-58; Order No. 2437] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an addition of Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 17 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 17 to the competitive product list.1

    1 Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 17 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, April 10, 2015 (Request).

    The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Id. Attachment B.

    To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

    II. Notice of Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-47 and CP2015-58 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 17 product and the related contract, respectively.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 20, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-47 and CP2015-58 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).

    3. Comments are due no later than April 20, 2015.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08775 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. CP2014-68; Order No. 2438] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a modification to an existing Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On April 10, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to a Modification to the existing Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.1 In support of its Notice, the Postal Service includes a redacted copy of the Modification, and a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), as required by 39 CFR 3015.5.

    1 Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing Modification to Global Expedited Package Services 3 Negotiated Service Agreement, April 10, 2015 (Notice).

    The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Modification and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal. Notice at 1.

    The Modification adds an additional provision regarding mail preparation requirements and replaces the agreement's pricing annex. Id.

    The Postal Service intends for the rates in the Modification to become effective on May 1, 2015. Id. The Postal Service asserts that the Modification will not impair the ability of the contract to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633. Id. Attachment 2.

    II. Notice of Filings

    The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 20, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints Cassie D'Souza to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2014-68 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Cassie D'Souza to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    3. Comments are due no later than April 20, 2015.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08779 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2015-46 and CP2015-57; Order No. 2439] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an addition of Priority Mail Contract 122 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 122 to the competitive product list.1

    1 Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 122 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, April 10, 2015 (Request).

    The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Id. Attachment B.

    To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

    II. Notice of Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-46 and CP2015-57 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 122 product and the related contract, respectively.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 20, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-46 and CP2015-57 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).

    3. Comments are due no later than April 20, 2015.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08812 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: April 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 10, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 122 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2015-46, CP2015-57.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Requirements.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08815 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: April 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 10, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 17 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2015-47, CP2015-58.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Requirements.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08816 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    PRESIDIO TRUST Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    The Presidio Trust.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, 2015, at the Observation Post, 211 Lincoln Boulevard, Presidio of San Francisco, California. The Presidio Trust was created by Congress in 1996 to manage approximately eighty percent of the former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in San Francisco, California.

    The purposes of this meeting are to take action on the minutes of previous Board meetings, to provide the Chairperson's report, to provide the Executive Director's report, to provide a partner report, to present “Strategy 2020,” to provide an update on the New Presidio Parklands Project, to take action on a budget adjustment, and to receive public comment in accordance with the Trust's Public Outreach Policy. Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact Mariella deMey at 415.561.5300 prior to May 7, 2015.

    DATES:

    The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Observation Post, 211 Lincoln Boulevard, Presidio of San Francisco.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Cook, General Counsel, the Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129-0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Karen A. Cook, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08920 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74718; File No. SR-C2-2015-006] Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Opening Procedures April 13, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on April 2, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “C2”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.11 to provide additional clarity regarding the Exchange's opening procedures. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below. (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])

    C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules Rule 6.11. Openings (and sometimes Closings)

    (a)-(d) No change.

    (e) Opening Conditions: Subject to subparagraph (f) below, the System will not open a series if one of the following conditions is met:

    (1) There is no quote present in the series;

    (2) The opening price is not within an acceptable range (as determined by the Exchange) compared to the lowest quote offer and the highest quote bid;

    (3) The opening trade would be at a price that is not the NBBO; or

    (4) The opening trade would leave a market order imbalance (i.e., there are more market orders to buy or to sell for the particular series than can be satisfied by the limit orders, quotes and market orders on the opposite side); however, in series that will open at a minimum price increment (e.g., at a price of $0.05 or, in penny series, at a price of $0.01), the System will open even if a sell market order imbalance exists.

    (f) Presence of Opening Conditions:

    (1) If the condition in paragraph (e)(1) is present, the System will check to see if there is an NBBO quote on another market that falls within the acceptable opening range. If such an NBBO quote is present, the series will open and expose the marketable order(s) at the NBBO price. If such an NBBO quote is not present, the System will not open the series and will send a notification to Participants indicating the reason.

    (2) If the condition in paragraph (e)(2) is present, the System will match orders and quotes to the extent possible at a single clearing price within the acceptable range and then expose the remaining marketable order(s) at the widest price point within the acceptable opening range or the NBBO price, whichever is better.

    (3) If the condition in paragraph (e)(3) is present, the System will match orders and quotes to the extent possible at a single clearing price within the acceptable opening range or the NBBO price, whichever is better, and then expose the remaining marketable order(s) at the NBBO price.

    (4) If the condition in paragraph (e)(4) is present, the System will match orders and quotes to the extent possible at a single clearing price and then expose the remaining marketable order(s) at the widest price point within the acceptable opening range or the NBBO price, whichever is better.

    (g)—(j) No change.

    . . . Interpretations and Policies

    .01-.03 No change.

    .04 Opening Auction Exposure: The Exchange may determine to expose orders at the opening via auction including under any of the scenarios described in paragraphs (f)(1)-(4) above. In such cases, the exposure process will be conducted via the Hybrid Agency Liaison (“HAL”) pursuant to Rule 6.18. Any remaining balance of orders not executed via HAL on the opening will be booked at their limit price to the extent consistent with Rule 6.10 except that any remaining balance of orders not executed via HAL on the opening that are priced, or would be executed at a price, that is not within an acceptable tick distance from the initial HAL price will be cancelled. An “acceptable tick distance” (“ATD”) shall be determined by the Exchange on a series-by-series and premium basis and shall be no less than 2 minimum increment ticks. When the HAL Opening Auction Exposure procedure is activated, the ATD will be the same as the ATD established under Rule 6.17.

    The text of the proposed rule change is also 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 is proposing to adopt Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.11 relating to the Exchange's opening procedures to provide additional clarity in the Rules regarding the manner in which marketable orders may be exposed at the opening of trading. Specifically, proposed Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.11 would provide that the Exchange may determine to expose marketable orders on the opening via the Hybrid Agency Liaison (“HAL”) auction procedures described in Rule 6.18.4 Proposed Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.11 would also provide that any remaining balance of orders not executed via HAL on the opening will be booked at their limit price to the extent consistent with Rule 6.10 5 except that any remaining balance of orders not executed via HAL on the opening that are priced, or would be executed at a price, that is not within an acceptable tick distance from the initial HAL price will be cancelled..[sic] 6 The proposed Interpretation and Policy is substantially based, in all material respects, on the HAL Opening Procedure set forth in Interpretation and Policy .03 to Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) Rule 6.2B (Hybrid Opening System (“HOSS”)).

    4 Such determination as to whether to expose marketable orders on the opening via the HAL auction procedures described in Rule 6.18 would be made prior to activation and announced via Regulatory Circular.

    5 Notably, certain order types, or portions thereof, may not, by rule, be booked. See, e.g., Rule 6.10(6) (Immediate-or-Cancel Order); 6.10(7) (Opening Rotation Order). Accordingly, under proposed Interpretation .04 to Rule 6.11, any remaining balance of orders not executed via HAL on the opening would be booked at their limit price, but only to the extent consistent with Rule 6.10.

    6 This includes a market order, which cannot be filled in total. In such cases, the remainder of a market order would be cancelled when the order cannot be filled on an away exchange and no quotes are present on C2.

    Under the Exchange's current opening procedures, pre-opening orders and quotes and orders resting in the book from the prior business day are matched in the Exchange's autom