Federal Register Vol. 80, No.85,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 85 (May 4, 2015)

Page Range25207-25569
FR Document

80_FR_85
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 25207 - Delegation of Authority To Transfer Certain Funds in Accordance With Section 610 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 25362 - Publication of Wait-Times for the Department for the Veterans Choice ProgramPDF
80 FR 25347 - In the Matter of Cedar Creek Mines Ltd., General Kinetics Incorporated, ProDigital Film Studios, Inc. (a/k/a ProDigital Film Labs, Inc.), SendTec, Inc., and Specialized Services, Inc. (n/k/a Exergetic Energy, Inc.); Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 25347 - In the Matter of Eden Energy Corp. and Fifth Season International, Inc., Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 25215 - Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 25286 - Wave Energy PrizePDF
80 FR 25237 - Reactor EffluentsPDF
80 FR 25325 - Public Disclosure Room; Notice of Temporary RelocationPDF
80 FR 25275 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Requirements for Requests To Amend Import RegulationsPDF
80 FR 25278 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 39-Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Valeo North America, Inc. d/b/a Valeo Compressor North America, (Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioner Compressors), Dallas, TexasPDF
80 FR 25323 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 25335 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 25277 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 154-Baton Rouge, Louisiana Notification of Proposed Production Activity Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (Herbicides and Insecticides) St. Gabriel and Baton Rouge, LouisianaPDF
80 FR 25232 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CAPDF
80 FR 25256 - Safety Zone; NOBLE DISCOVERER, Outer Continental Shelf Drillship, Chukchi Sea, AlaskaPDF
80 FR 25209 - Minority and Women Inclusion AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 25233 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Alameda, CAPDF
80 FR 25313 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Visa Waiver Program Carrier AgreementPDF
80 FR 25312 - Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 25281 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25288 - National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Meeting and Public CommentPDF
80 FR 25282 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25235 - Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category; Correcting AmendmentPDF
80 FR 25293 - Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small Business Size RepresentationPDF
80 FR 25233 - Grants for Adaptive Sports Programs for Disabled Veterans and Disabled Members of the Armed ForcesPDF
80 FR 25294 - Council Member Summary Notice of Application Process for Council-Selected Restoration Component Projects and ProgramsPDF
80 FR 25306 - National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice for Request for NominationsPDF
80 FR 25304 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25304 - Council on Graduate Medical Education; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 25260 - Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) ProgramPDF
80 FR 25290 - Filing Dates for the Illinois Special Elections in the 18th Congressional DistrictPDF
80 FR 25358 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Cochise County, AZ.PDF
80 FR 25272 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Common Thresher Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
80 FR 25336 - Information Collection: Renewal of NRC Form 590, Application/Permit for Use of the Two White Flint North (TWF) AuditoriumPDF
80 FR 25284 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; 2015-16 National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) Full-Scale Data CollectionPDF
80 FR 25280 - Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 25292 - Notice of Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 25288 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25216 - Substantial Product Hazard List: Seasonal and Decorative Lighting ProductsPDF
80 FR 25230 - Additional Requirements for Charitable Hospitals; Community Health Needs Assessments for Charitable; Requirements of a Section 4959 Excise Tax Return and Time for Filing the Return; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 25298 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEMPDF
80 FR 25300 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; NESINAPDF
80 FR 25303 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; TUDORZA PRESSAIRPDF
80 FR 25302 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; KAZANOPDF
80 FR 25299 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEMPDF
80 FR 25301 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BOSULIFPDF
80 FR 25226 - Medical Devices; Physical Medicine Devices; Classification of the Powered Lower Extremity Exoskeleton; RepublicationPDF
80 FR 25362 - Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 25310 - Navigation Safety Advisory Council; VacanciesPDF
80 FR 25325 - Employment and Training Administration Program Year (PY) 2015 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Allotments; PY 2015 Wagner-Peyser Act Final Allotments and PY 2015 Workforce Information Grants.PDF
80 FR 25289 - Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088976XXPDF
80 FR 25361 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 25360 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 13997PDF
80 FR 25360 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 25274 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25321 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 25280 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0009, Large Trader ReportsPDF
80 FR 25285 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)PDF
80 FR 25341 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Sixth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the ExchangePDF
80 FR 25347 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend NYSE Arca Rules 3.1 and 3.3 and Section 4.01(a) of the Exchange's Bylaws to Establish a Regulatory Oversight Committee as a Committee of the Board of Directors of the ExchangePDF
80 FR 25287 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 25311 - Request for Applicants for Appointment to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 25276 - Land Between The Lakes Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 25295 - CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment; MeetingPDF
80 FR 25333 - Scope of the Copyright Royalty Judges' Continuing JurisdictionPDF
80 FR 25359 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue ProcedurePDF
80 FR 25324 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection; Americans With Disabilities Act Discrimination Complaint FormPDF
80 FR 25324 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of an existing collection in use without an OMB control number; FBI Expungement Form (FD-1114)PDF
80 FR 25323 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New Collection; Rap Back Services Form (1-796)PDF
80 FR 25338 - Excepted ServicePDF
80 FR 25340 - Civil Service Retirement System Board of ActuariesPDF
80 FR 25298 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25337 - Submission for Review: Certification of Qualifying District of Columbia Service, RI 20-126, 3206-XXXXPDF
80 FR 25296 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 25341 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25352 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25353 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Collection of Exchange FeesPDF
80 FR 25344 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. Relating to Fees, Dues and Other ChargesPDF
80 FR 25350 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees, Dues and Other ChargesPDF
80 FR 25292 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
80 FR 25314 - John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of Final Revised Maps for Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and VirginiaPDF
80 FR 25307 - National Institute On Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 25309 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Option License: The Development of a Single Domain Human Anti-Mesothelin Monoclonal Antibody as a Bispecific Antibody for the Treatment of Human Cancers.PDF
80 FR 25307 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
80 FR 25307 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 25309 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 25308 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 25306 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 25307 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 25277 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 25356 - Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2010 European Market Ferrari California Passenger Cars Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
80 FR 25355 - Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 25278 - Sugar From Mexico: Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 25289 - Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088734XXPDF
80 FR 25290 - Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088934XXPDF
80 FR 25322 - National Environmental Policy Act: Implementing Procedures; Revision to Categorical Exclusions for U.S. Geological Survey (516 DM 9)PDF
80 FR 25247 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 25254 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
80 FR 25249 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 25312 - Approval of the Strawn Group, as a Commercial GaugerPDF
80 FR 25230 - Privacy Act; ImplementationPDF
80 FR 25282 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 25313 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Screening Requirements for CarriersPDF
80 FR 25528 - New Mailing Standards for Domestic Mailing Services ProductsPDF
80 FR 25260 - Qualifications of Drivers; Diabetes StandardPDF
80 FR 25366 - Confined Spaces in ConstructionPDF

Issue

80 85 Monday, May 4, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25274-25275 2015-10318 2015-10319
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Requirements for Requests to Amend Import Regulations, 25275-25276 2015-10392 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25281-25282 2015-10363 2015-10367 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25296-25298 2015-10286 Meetings: CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment, 25295-25296 2015-10306 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25298 2015-10296 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA, 25232-25233 2015-10377 Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Alameda, CA, 25233 2015-10373 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: NOBLE DISCOVERER, Outer Continental Shelf Drillship, Chukchi Sea, Alaska, 25256-25260 2015-10376 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Navigation Safety Advisory Council, 25310-25311 2015-10329 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25277 2015-10268
Commission Fine Commission of Fine Arts NOTICES Meetings: Commission of Fine Arts, 25280 2015-10345 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Large Trader Reports, 25280-25281 2015-10314 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Substantial Product Hazard List: Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products, 25216-25226 2015-10342 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress NOTICES Scope of the Copyright Royalty Judges' Continuing Jurisdiction, 25333-25335 2015-10305 Defense Department Defense Department RULES Privacy Act; Implementation, 25230-25232 2015-10061 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small Business Size Representation, 25293-25294 2015-10361 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 25282-25284 2015-10060 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2015-16 National Teacher and Principal Survey Full-Scale Data Collection, 25284-25285 2015-10346 Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program, 25285-25286 2015-10313 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Public Disclosure Room; Temporary Relocation, 25325 2015-10395 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Wave Energy Prize, 25286-25287 2015-10409 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category; Correcting Amendment, 25235-25236 2015-10362 NOTICES Meetings: National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 25288 2015-10366 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25288-25289 2015-10343 Applications for Long-Term Loans or Financial Guarantees in Excess of 100 Million Dollars, 25289-25290 2015-10250 2015-10251 2015-10327 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements; Correction, 25215-25216 2015-10423 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 25249-25254 2015-10177 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 25254-25256 2015-10179 Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 25247-25249 2015-10180 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Special Elections: Illinois 18th Congressional District Filing Dates, 25290-25291 2015-10350 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 25287-25288 2015-10309 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency RULES Minority and Women Inclusion Amendments, 25209-25215 2015-10374 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Qualification of Drivers; Diabetes Standard, 25260-25272 2015-09993 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25292-25293 2015-10280 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 25292 2015-10344 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System: Final Revised Maps for Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia, 25314-25321 2015-10279 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Physical Medicine Devices; Classification of the Powered Lower Extremity Exoskeleton, 25226-25230 2015-10332 NOTICES Regulatory Review Periods for Patent Extensions: BOSULIF, 25301-25302 2015-10333 CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM, 25299-25300 2015-10334 KAZANO, 25302-25303 2015-10335 NESINA, 25300-25301 2015-10337 RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM, 25298-25299 2015-10338 TUDORZA PRESSAIR, 25303-25304 2015-10336 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Foreign-Trade Zone 39; Valeo North America, Inc. d/b/a Valeo Compressor North America (Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioner Compressors), Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, 25278 2015-10386 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (Herbicides and Insecticides), Foreign-Trade Zone 154, St. Gabriel and Baton Rouge, LA, 25277-25278 2015-10379 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Charter Renewals: Land Between the Lakes Advisory Board, 25276-25277 2015-10307 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small Business Size Representation, 25293-25294 2015-10361 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25321-25322 2015-10317 Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council NOTICES Application Process for Council-Selected Restoration Component Projects and Programs, 25294-25295 2015-10357 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

PROPOSED RULES Child Care and Development Fund Program; Withdrawal, 25260 2015-10351
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25304-25306 2015-10355 Meetings: Council on Graduate Medical Education, 25304 2015-10354 Requests for Nominations: National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice, 25306 2015-10356 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

NOTICES National Environmental Policy Act; Implementing Procedures: Revision to Categorical Exclusions for U.S. Geological Survey, 25322-25323 2015-10242
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Requirements for Charitable Hospitals: Community Health Needs Assessments for Charitable; Requirements of an Excise Tax Return and Time for Filing the Return; Correction, 25230 2015-10340 2015-10341 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25359-25362 2015-10304 2015-10320 2015-10321 2015-10322 2015-10323 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Sugar from Mexico, 25278-25280 2015-10253 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25323 2015-10385 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Americans with Disabilities Act Discrimination Complaint Form, 25324-25325 2015-10303 FBI Expungement Form, 25324 2015-10302 Rap Back Services Form, 25323-25324 2015-10301 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Program Year 2015 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Allotments: Wagner-Peyser Act Final Allotments and Workforce Information Grants, 25325-25333 2015-10328
Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small Business Size Representation, 25293-25294 2015-10361 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Importation Eligibility; Petitions: Nonconforming Model Year 2010 European Market Ferrari California Passenger Cars, 25356-25358 2015-10264 Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance: Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, 25355-25356 2015-10263 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Exclusive Licenses: Development of a Single Domain Human Anti-Mesothelin Monoclonal Antibody as a Bispecific Antibody for the Treatment of Human Cancers, 25309-25310 2015-10276 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 25307-25308 2015-10275 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 25309 2015-10273 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 25306-25307 2015-10271 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 25307 2015-10274 National Institute of Nursing Research, 25307 2015-10270 National Institute on Aging, 25307 2015-10278 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Common Thresher Shark; 90-day Finding on Petition to List as Threatened or Endangered, 25272-25273 2015-10348 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Reactor Effluents, 25237-25247 2015-10408 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application/Permit for Use of the Two White Flint North Auditorium, 25336-25337 2015-10347 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25335-25336 2015-10384 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Confined Spaces in Construction, 25366-25526 2015-08843 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certification of Qualifying District of Columbia Service, 25337-25338 2015-10288 Charter Establishments: Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries, 25340-25341 2015-10297 Excepted Service, 25338-25340 2015-10300 Postal Service Postal Service RULES Mailing Standards: Domestic Mailing Services Products, 25528-25569 2015-10029 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of April 16, 2015), 25207 2015-10501 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25341, 25352 2015-10284 2015-10285 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 25344-25346 2015-10282 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 25350-25355 2015-10281 2015-10283 NYSE Arca, Inc., 25347-25350 2015-10311 NYSE MKT, LLC, 25341-25344 2015-10312 Trading Suspension Orders: Cedar Creek Mines Ltd., et al., 25347 2015-10438 Eden Energy Corp. and Fifth Season International, Inc., 25347 2015-10437 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Union Pacific Railroad Co., Cochise County, AZ, 25358-25359 2015-10349 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Screening Requirements for Carriers, 25313 2015-10059 Visa Waiver Program Carrier Agreement, 25313-25314 2015-10372 Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations, 25312 2015-10371 Commercial Gaugers; Approvals: The Strawn Group, 25312-25313 2015-10152 Requests for Nominations: Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee, 25311 2015-10308 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Grants for Adaptive Sports Programs for Disabled Veterans and Disabled Members of the Armed Forces, 25233-25235 2015-10358 NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs, 25362-25363 2015-10330 Wait-Times for the Department for the Veterans Choice Program, 25362 2015-10460 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Labor Department, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 25366-25526 2015-08843 Part III Postal Service, 25528-25569 2015-10029 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 85 Monday, May 4, 2015 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY 12 CFR Part 1207 RIN 2590-AA67 Minority and Women Inclusion Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Housing Finance Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is adopting a final rule to amend its regulation on minority and women inclusion by requiring the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) and the Office of Finance to include in the contents of their annual reports certain demographic information related to their boards of directors as well as a description of their related outreach activities during the reporting year.

DATES:

This rule is effective July 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharron P.A. Levine, Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, [email protected], (202) 649-3496; or Eric Howard, Deputy Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, [email protected], (202) 649-3009; or Karen Lambert, Associate General Counsel, [email protected], (202) 649-3094 (not toll-free numbers), Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Hearing Impaired is (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. General

Effective July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Public Law 110-289, amended the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) (Safety and Soundness Act) to establish FHFA as an independent agency of the Federal government. HERA transferred the supervisory and oversight responsibilities of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight over the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, Enterprises), and of the Federal Housing Finance Board over the Banks and the Bank System's Office of Finance to FHFA. The Enterprises and the Banks are collectively referred to as the regulated entities.

The Safety and Soundness Act provides that FHFA is headed by a Director with general supervisory and regulatory authority over the regulated entities. FHFA is charged, among other things, with overseeing the prudential operations of the regulated entities. FHFA is also charged with ensuring that the regulated entities: Operate in a safe and sound manner including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls; foster liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets; comply with the Safety and Soundness Act and the respective authorizing statutes of the regulated entities; carry out their missions through activities authorized and consistent with the Safety and Soundness Act and their authorizing statutes; and engage in activities and operations that are consistent with the public interest.1

1 Section 1102 of HERA, 122 Stat. 2663 and 2664.

B. Office of Minority and Women Inclusion i. Statutory Requirements

Section 1116 of HERA amended section 1319A of the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4520, to require, in part, that the regulated entities establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) or designate an office responsible for carrying out the responsibilities of OMWI. That office is responsible for: All matters relating to diversity in the entity's management, employment, and business activities; the development and implementation of standards and procedures to promote diversity in all business and activities of the regulated entity; and the submission of an annual report to FHFA detailing the actions taken to promote diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, 12 U.S.C. 1833e, and Executive Order 11478, require FHFA and the regulated entities to promote equal opportunity in employment and contracting.

ii. FHFA's Regulations

FHFA adopted regulations to implement section 1116 of HERA, 12 U.S.C. 1833e and Executive Order 11478, and to set forth the minimum requirements for the regulated entities' diversity programs and reporting requirements. Those regulations, located at 12 CFR part 1207, require each regulated entity and the Office of Finance to establish an OMWI, or designate another office that would be responsible for fulfilling the entity's OMWI responsibilities. Each of these entities must implement policies and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, in balance with financially safe and sound business practices, the inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and minority-, women-, and disabled-owned businesses in all business and activities and at all levels of the regulated entity and the Office of Finance, including in management, employment, procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.2 The policies also must encourage the consideration of diversity in the nomination or solicitation of nominees for positions on boards of directors as well as engagement in recruiting and outreach directed at encouraging minorities, women and individuals with disabilities to seek or apply for employment with the regulated entity or the Office of Finance.3

2 12 CFR 1207.21(b).

3 12 CFR 1207.21(b)(5).

Part 1207 also requires each regulated entity and the Office of Finance to submit to the FHFA Director, on or before March 1 of each year, a detailed annual report summarizing its activities during the reporting year (January 1 through December 31 of the preceding year) to comply with the OMWI regulatory requirements.4 To that end, each regulated entity and the Office of Finance is required to submit as part of its annual report the EEO-1 Employer Information Report (Form EEO-1 used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to collect certain demographic information) or a similar report.5 The Form EEO-1 pertains only to broad occupational categories of employees such as executives/senior level officials, first/mid-level officials and managers, professionals, technicians, and other employee job categories, and those employees' gender, race, and ethnicity classifications.6

4 12 CFR 1207.22(c) and 1207.23.

5 12 CFR 1207.23(b)(1).

6 The race and ethnicity categories used on the Form EEO-1 are: Hispanic or Latino; White (Not Hispanic or Latino); Black or African American (Not Hispanic or Latino); Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Not Hispanic or Latino); Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino); American Indian or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino); Two or More Races (Not Hispanic or Latino).

In addition, part 1207 provides that the FHFA Director has broad enforcement authority in that he or she may enforce this regulation and standards issued under it in any manner and through any means within his or her authority, including through identifying matters requiring attention, corrective action orders, directives, or enforcement actions under 12 U.S.C. 4513b and 4514.7 To that end, the FHFA Director may conduct examinations of the activities of a regulated entity or the Office of Finance under and in compliance with this part 1207 pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4517.8

7 12 CFR 1207.24.

8Id.

C. The Bank System

The Bank System (System) was created by the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932 (Bank Act) to support mortgage lending and related community investment. It is currently composed of 12 Banks, Bank member financial institutions, and the System's fiscal agent, the Office of Finance. The Banks fulfill their statutory mission primarily through providing secured loans (advances) to their members.

The Office of Finance is a joint office of the Banks, the primary responsibility of which is to act as their agent in offering, issuing, and servicing the consolidated obligations that are issued to fund the operations of the Banks.9 The Office of Finance also prepares the combined financial reports for the System, functions as its fiscal agent, and performs certain duties relating to the Financing Corporation and Resolution Funding Corporation, respectively.10

9 12 CFR 1273.3(a).

10 12 CFR 1273.3(b)-(d).

The board of directors of the Office of Finance consists of 17 members; these include the 12 Bank presidents who serve ex officio and five independent directors.11 The independent directors must be United States citizens and not have any material relationship with a Bank or the Office of Finance. As a group, the independent directors must have substantial experience in financial and accounting matters. The Office of Finance's independent directors were initially appointed by FHFA. Once the terms of the independent directors expire or the positions otherwise become vacant, the succeeding independent directors will be elected by majority vote of the Office of Finance's board of directors subject to FHFA's review of, and non-objection to, each independent director.12

11 12 CFR 1273.7(a).

12 12 CFR 1273.7(d); See 75 FR 23163 (May 3, 2010).

Section 1202 of HERA altered the composition of the Banks' boards of directors by amending section 7 of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1427) to require the management of each Bank to be vested in a board of 13 directors, or such other number as the Director determines appropriate. In addition, each board must comprise both a majority of member directors and at least 40 percent of independent directors.13 Both member and independent directors are elected by a plurality vote of the members. All board members are required to be U.S. citizens.

13 Previously, section 7 of the Bank Act required each Bank's board of directors to be comprised of 14 directors, 8 of whom were elected by members and 6 of whom were appointed by the former Federal Housing Finance Board.

Each member director nominee is required to execute a director eligibility certification form prescribed by FHFA.14 A member director is a member of the board of directors of a Bank, who is a director or officer of a member institution located in the district in which the Bank is located.15

14 12 CFR 1261.7(c).

15 12 U.S.C. 1427(a)(4)(B).

Each independent director nominee is required to execute an independent director application form prescribed by FHFA that demonstrates the individual is eligible and has the qualifications to be an independent director.16 An independent director is a member of the board of directors of a Bank who is a bona fide resident of the district in which the Bank is located.17 Each independent director who is not a public interest director is required to have demonstrated knowledge of, or experience in, financial management, auditing and accounting, risk management practices, derivatives, project development, organizational management, or such other expertise as the Director may prescribe by regulation.18 FHFA regulations include the law as one of the areas in which an independent director may have knowledge of, or experience in, to qualify as an independent director.19 Before nominating any individual to be an independent director, each Bank is required to determine that such knowledge or experience of the nominee is commensurate with that needed to oversee a financial institution with a size and complexity that is comparable to that of the Bank.20 At least two of the independent directors are required to be public interest directors who shall have more than four years of experience in representing consumer or community interests on banking services, credit needs, housing, or consumer financial protection.21

16 12 CFR 1261.7(d).

17 12 U.S.C. 1427(a)(4)(A).

18 12 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3)(B)(i).

19 12 CFR 1261.7(e)(1).

20 12 CFR 1261.7(e)(1).

21 12 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3)(B)(ii); 12 CFR 1261.7(e)(2).

FHFA's regulations include specific actions the Banks may take when nominating and electing directors as well as limitations on the Banks' actions.22 For example, each Bank may conduct an annual assessment of the skills and experience of the members of its board of directors and may determine whether the capabilities of the board would be enhanced by the addition of individuals with particular qualifications, such as auditing and accounting, derivatives, financial management, organizational management, project development, risk management practices, or the law.23 If the Bank identifies such particular qualifications, it will inform the members as part of its announcement of elections.24

22 12 CFR 1261.9.

23 12 CFR 1261.9(a).

24 12 CFR 1261.9(a).

FHFA's regulations also set out the circumstances under which support may be provided for the nomination or election of an individual to a member or independent directorship.

Member Directors: A Bank director, officer, attorney, employee, or agent acting in his or her personal capacity, may support the nomination or election of any individual for a member directorship, provided no such individual shall purport to represent the views of the Bank in doing so.25

25 12 CFR 1261.9(b)(1).

Independent Directors: A Bank director, officer, attorney, employee, or agent and the board of directors and Advisory Council (and members of the Advisory Council) may support the candidacy of any individual nominated by the board of directors for election to an independent directorship.26

26 12 CFR 1261.9(b)(2).

Beyond these specific allowances for support, a Bank director, officer, attorney, employee, or agent is otherwise prohibited, directly or indirectly, from supporting or opposing the nomination or election of a particular individual for a member or independent director vacancy, or from taking any other action to influence the voting with respect to any particular individual.27

27 12 CFR 1261.9(c).

D. Proposed Minority and Women Inclusion Amendments

On June 25, 2014, FHFA published a proposed rule to amend its regulation on Minority and Women Inclusion to revise the existing reporting requirements.28 Proposed § 1207.23(b)(9)(i) would require each Bank and the Office of Finance to include in the contents of its annual report data showing for the reporting year by minority and gender classification, the number of individuals on the board of directors of each Bank and the Office of Finance.29 Proposed § 1207.23(b)(9)(i)(A) would require the Banks and the Office of Finance to use data collected through an information collection requesting each director's voluntary self-identification of his or her minority and gender classification without personally identifiable information.30 Proposed § 1207.23(b)(9)(i)(B) would require that the Banks and the Office of Finance use the same demographic classifications as those on the Form EEO-1.31 FHFA noted in the Federal Register explanation of the proposed rule that the aggregate board diversity data reported to FHFA would establish a baseline to analyze future trends, and could be used to assess the effectiveness of the strategies developed by the Banks and the Office of Finance related to promoting board diversity.32

28 79 FR 35960-35963 (June 25, 2014).

29See 79 FR 35963 (June 25, 2014).

30Id.

31Id.

32See 79 FR 35961-35962 (June 25, 2014).

The proposed rule would also add § 1207.23(b)(9)(ii), which would require the Banks and the Office of Finance to include a description of their outreach activities and strategies related to promoting diversity in nominating or soliciting nominees for positions on boards of directors.33 Finally, proposed § 1207.23(b)(10) would require a year-over-year comparison of the data reported in § 1207.23(b)(9) by the Banks and the Office of Finance.34

33See 79 FR 35963 (June 25, 2014).

34Id.

The proposed amendment to § 1207.22(c) would require the Banks and the Office of Finance to include the board demographic data and a description of related outreach activities and strategies in the contents of the annual report submitted to FHFA beginning with the report required on or before March 1, 2015.35

35Id.

The 60-day comment period closed on August 25, 2014. FHFA received three comment letters in response to the proposed rule. Nine Banks (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Des Moines, New York, Pittsburgh, Topeka, and Seattle) and the Office of Finance submitted consolidated comments in one letter. The Greenlining Institute, a non-profit organization, and a private citizen also submitted comment letters. The comments were thoughtful and discussed matters that were carefully considered by FHFA.

II. Final Rule

FHFA responds to specific concerns below as it explains aspects of the rule to which the comments pertain. After considering the comments received in response to the proposed rule, FHFA is adopting a final rule amending its minority and women inclusion regulations, which applies to the Banks and the Office of Finance.

A. Applicability of Amendments

A private citizen commented that the amendments should apply to the Enterprises as well as to the Banks and the Office of Finance. FHFA does not include the Enterprises in the final rule. As noted in the Federal Register explanation of the proposed rule, FHFA, in its role as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is involved in the selection of their board members.36 Therefore, FHFA maintains that under current circumstances, it is not necessary to consider promulgating regulations pertaining to the Enterprises with respect to the requirements of the final rule.

36See 79 FR 35961 (June 25, 2014).

B. Data Collection i. Method of Collection

The nine Banks and the Office of Finance commented that FHFA should include the voluntary self-identification request for board diversity demographic data in the Independent Director Annual Certification Form and the annual Member Director Eligibility Certification Form, which they believe would provide a “simple method” of collecting this information.

FHFA does not adopt this proposal in the final rule. These forms are used solely to collect information to determine whether each director meets the statutory and regulatory eligibility requirements.37 The demographic status of a director or candidate for director is not a requirement for eligibility. In addition, completion of the annual director certification forms is mandatory, whereas submission of minority and gender classification data is voluntary. The final rule adopts the proposed requirement that the Banks and the Office of Finance collect board demographic information by requesting each incumbent director to voluntarily self-identify his or her minority and gender classification, without personally identifiable information. The inclusion of the request for board diversity demographic data in the annual certification forms could imply that the information is mandatory and not voluntary. The inclusion of the request for board diversity demographic data in the annual director certification forms could also raise privacy concerns.

37 The Independent Director Annual Certification Form applies to each incumbent Bank director, and the Member Director Eligibility Certification Form applies to both candidates for and incumbents of member directorships.

The Greenlining Institute proposed mandating the use of the Form EEO-1 itself to collect the board member demographic information to standardize reporting metrics. FHFA does not adopt this proposal in the final rule. The Form EEO-1 is a compliance survey tool required to be completed by certain employers who are subject to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in accordance with the EEOC's implementing regulations.38 The Form EEO-1 categorizes a company's employment data by race and ethnicity, gender and job category. Part 1207 requires that the Banks and the Office of Finance report employment demographic information to FHFA using the Form EEO-1 or similar report. The Form EEO-1 does not include a job category for board members since they are not employees. Therefore, the final rule continues to leave to the discretion of the Banks and the Office of Finance the particular method of collection of the data as long as the Form EEO-1 diversity categories are used.

38See 29 CFR 1602.7.

The nine Banks and the Office of Finance also commented that it is not “necessary or appropriate” to follow the instructions of the Form EEO-1 with respect to the collection of the board demographic information, which allow employers to report observed diversity.39 The commenters requested that FHFA clarify that there is no requirement to report observed diversity in addition to the board members' voluntary demographic self-identification. FHFA agrees with this comment and reiterates that the Banks and the Office of Finance are expected to report aggregate data based only on the board members' voluntary demographic self-identification.

39See EEO-1 Instruction Booklet, Appendix, paragraph 4.

ii. Diversity Categories

The proposed rule requires the Banks and the Office of Finance to use the “same classifications as those on Form EEO-1,” referred to here as “diversity categories,” for the purpose of reporting minority and gender classifications of individuals on the boards of directors of the Banks and the Office of Finance. The nine Banks and the Office of Finance commented that following the diversity categories of the Form EEO-1 for boards of directors is “neither necessary nor appropriate” and requested that the minority categories as defined in part 1207 be used. The commenters propose that the Form EEO-1 diversity categories be replaced with the diversity categories found in § 1207.1, which defines “minority” as “any Black (or African) American, Native American (or American Indian), Hispanic (or Latino) American, or Asian American.” The commenters note that although it is reasonable for FHFA to require the Banks and the Office of Finance to report employee demographic information using the Form EEO-1 diversity categories to avoid duplicating reporting burdens and to ensure that the data reported is consistent with similar information reported to any other agency or regulator, they do not believe these categories are necessary or appropriate for board member demographic information. The commenters provide that there is no legal requirement to report board member demographics, and further note that the “[t]he small size of the reporting pool and greater visibility of each respondent necessitates heightened sensitivity.”

FHFA does not adopt the request to require the use of the minority categories as defined in part 1207. The definition of “minority” in part 1207 is consistent with that in section 1204(c) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, which is referenced by section 1319A of the Safety and Soundness Act, as amended by HERA.40 The Form EEO-1 includes six diversity categories (i.e., Hispanic or Latino; Black or African American (not Hispanic or Latino); Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (not Hispanic or Latino); Asian (not Hispanic or Latino); American Indian or Alaska Native (not Hispanic or Latino); or Two or More Races (not Hispanic or Latino)). Part 1207 requires that the regulated entities use the Form EEO-1 to report their demographic workforce data. Use of the same minority categories to collect board diversity data will provide consistency of reporting and enhance the comparability of the Banks' and the Office of Finance's board composition to that of their workforces. In addition, use of the Form EEO-1's broader diversity categories will provide a board member with more choices should he or she choose to self-identify.

40 12 U.S.C. 4520(b).

iii. Collection of Additional Data

The nine Banks and the Office of Finance proposed that FHFA include a category for individuals with disabilities in the board demographic self-reporting request. FHFA does not adopt this proposal in the final rule. The requirement for the regulated entities to report data related to persons with disabilities is limited in part 1207 due to medical privacy concerns.41 In addition, disability status is not included as a category on the Form EEO-1, and therefore, is not reported as part of the workforce demographic data. For privacy reasons and for comparability of reporting, FHFA does not include a category for individuals with disabilities in the final rule requirements related to board diversity reporting.

41See 75 FR 81396 (December 28, 2010).

The commenters noted that some Banks have Equal Employment Opportunity statements that include diversity categories beyond the required protected classes. The commenters also highlighted their efforts to recruit, hire, and retain employees within the additional diversity categories. To that end, FHFA affirms that the Banks and the Office of Finance have the flexibility to collect demographic status information beyond the gender and minority categories on the Form EEO-1, but FHFA does not require the Banks and the Office of Finance to collect or report information beyond the requirements of the final rule.

The Greenlining Institute proposed that FHFA collect additional information about the board members, including their professional backgrounds, ages, and board turnover data (including time served on the board). The commenter believes that the additional information will better inform FHFA about the composition of the Banks' and the Office of Finance's respective boards. FHFA does not adopt this proposal in the final rule. Board members are required to meet specific statutory and regulatory eligibility requirements, and information related to these requirements is collected on the pertinent director certification forms. The Banks already report information about their board members' professional backgrounds, time served on the board, and ages in their annual Form 10-K reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which are publicly available. The Office of Finance provides similar information about its directors in the annual Federal Home Loan Bank Combined Financial Report, which also is publicly available. As a result, it is not necessary to include in the final rule a reporting requirement for these types of data.

The Greenlining Institute also proposed that FHFA collect additional data by use of qualitative inquiries on recruitment activities and other information related to board members and applicants. FHFA does not adopt this proposal in the final rule. The final rule requires the Banks and the Office of Finance to include a description of their outreach activities and strategies executed during the preceding year to promote diversity in nominating or soliciting nominees for positions on their respective boards of directors. Such descriptions could include recruiting events. The additional data collection could lead to the attribution of personally identifiable information due to the small number of board member positions.

C. Outreach Activities i. Broad View of Diversity

The nine Banks and the Office of Finance requested that FHFA take a broad view of diversity for the purpose of proposed § 1207.23(b)(9)(ii), which would require reporting “the outreach activities and strategies executed during the preceding year to promote diversity in nominating or soliciting nominees for positions on boards of directors of the Banks and the Office of Finance.” The commenters proposed that the minority and women inclusion amendments allow a regulated entity to define diversity for the purpose of describing their outreach activities and strategies. The commenters noted FHFA's Federal Register explanation of the final rule on the Bank boards of directors eligibility and elections, which states that “diversity among the members of each board of directors of the Banks would be beneficial to the Banks, and thus [FHFA] encourages the Banks to consider the diversity of their boards . . . as it requests nominees for member directorships from its members and as it goes through the process of nominating candidates for independent directorships.” 42 However, the eligibility and elections final rule pertaining to the Banks' boards of directors does not include any provisions that address diversity.

42 74 FR 51453 (October 7, 2009).

FHFA does not include a definition of “diversity” in this final rule and maintains that the Banks and the Office of Finance have the flexibility to conduct their outreach activities and strategies to promote board diversity beyond that contemplated by the rule. However, FHFA expects the Banks and the Office of Finance to report on their outreach activities and strategies that promote minority and women inclusion for the purpose of satisfying the reporting requirements of § 1207.23(b)(9)(ii). FHFA intends to develop guidance that will further elaborate on the agency's expectations related to outreach activities and strategies for the Banks' and the Office of Finance's boards of directors.

ii. Interplay With Director Nomination and Election Process

Also related to the outreach reporting requirement, the nine Banks and the Office of Finance commented that the rule should acknowledge aspects of the director nomination and election process, including the geographic limitations, eligibility requirements and nomination procedures, and that a Bank director, officer, attorney, employee, or agent is restricted by 12 CFR 1261.9 from taking certain actions to influence director nominations and elections.

The nine Banks and the Office of Finance noted that the election regulations at § 1261.9(c) prohibit a Bank director, officer, attorney, employee or agent from communicating in any manner that he or she directly or indirectly supports or opposes the nomination or election of a particular individual for a directorship or from taking any other action to influence the voting with respect to any particular individual. The commenters also noted that the election regulations provide exceptions to the prohibitions when the actions taken meet the following criteria:

• The actions are part of a skills and experience assessment and statement, as permitted by § 1261.9(a);

• The actions taken are in his or her personal capacity, to support the nomination or election of any individual for a member directorship, provided that he or she does not purport to represent the views of the Bank or its board of directors in doing so, as permitted by § 1261.9(b)(1); or

The actions support the candidacy of any individual nominated by the board of directors for election to an independent directorship, as permitted by § 1261.9(b)(2).

The commenters expressed concern that the regulatory restrictions on communication could limit a Bank's ability to address gender or minority identification in the election process, particularly with respect to member directorships. The commenters provided several examples of general outreach and education efforts to promote diversity on their respective boards of directors that they believe are consistent with the terms of § 1261.9. The examples included the following actions for promoting board diversity:

• Engaging in general outreach to encourage a diverse pool of nominations for member directorships and applications for independent directorships;

• including a statement about EEO in member director nomination, independent director application, and election materials;

• encouraging trade associations to consider diverse candidates for member director nominations, or encouraging a Bank's Advisory Council to encourage applications from diverse candidates for an independent directorship; and

• providing information about Bank directorships and the election process through general outreach to professional affinity groups to which officers and directors of member institutions may belong.

FHFA agrees that the scenarios provided by the Banks are permissible under, and consistent with, the existing election regulations at 12 CFR 1261.9.

In addition, the commenters requested clarification on whether more direct actions would be permissible, such as a Bank identifying specific individuals as potential nominees and encouraging the nomination of an individual for a member directorship.

Member Directors: With respect to identifying and supporting specific individuals for nomination or election, the regulations permit a Bank director, officer, attorney, employee or agent, acting in his or her personal capacity, to support the nomination or election of any individual for a member directorship. The term “ `personal capacity' is intended to preclude the use of a director's official title, position, or authority associated with the position of Bank director, such as through use of Bank stationery, to endorse a candidate.” 43 While the regulations allow such support, they provide that no Bank director, officer, attorney, employee or agent may purport to represent the views of the Bank or its board of directors.44 Thus, support for the nomination or election of individual member directors, including considerations of diversity, may be made by Bank directors, officers, attorneys, employees or agents acting only in a personal capacity.

43 When proposing the predecessor regulation, the Federal Housing Finance Board explained the term “personal capacity” as quoted above. See 63 FR 26536 (May 13, 1998).

44 12 CFR 1261.9(b)(1).

Independent Directors: Although not addressed by the commenters, FHFA notes that nothing in the existing nomination and election regulations prohibits board members and others from discussing the importance of diversity when nominating, or considering the nomination of, individuals for independent directorships. For example, Board members may introduce the topic and discuss the role diversity plays in the solicitation and nomination processes for independent directorships.

FHFA has also addressed the commenters' concerns in the final rule. FHFA acknowledges this “interplay” between the outreach requirements in the minority and women inclusion regulations and the Bank board of directors nomination and election regulations and further clarifies it by adding a reference to § 1261.9 in § 1207.23(b)(9)(ii) in the final rule to require that the Banks conduct their outreach activities and strategies consistent with the restrictions in the director nomination and election regulations. Since these restrictions apply only to the Banks, FHFA included the phrase “consistent with 12 CFR 1261.9” as a parenthetical after “Banks” in § 1207.23(b)(9)(ii), and not at the end of that section as proposed by the commenters.

D. Reports i. Due Date for Initial Data Submission

FHFA did not receive any comments regarding the proposed rule's requirement to submit the demographic board data concurrent with the March 1, 2015, minority and women inclusion report. Since publication of the final rule follows that date, FHFA has extended the timeframe for initially submitting the board diversity data and outreach activities and strategies executed in order to afford the Banks and the Office of Finance a reasonable opportunity from the effective date of the final rule to collect and submit this data. Therefore, the final rule amends § 1207.22(c) to require the first submission of board demographic data and outreach activities and strategies to FHFA no later than September 30, 2015, and thereafter with the annual report.

ii. Timeline for Reporting Comparative Data

The nine Banks and the Office of Finance requested that the comparison of board diversity data be voluntary for the first annual report following the effective date of the regulation. The commenters requested that the first mandatory year-over-year comparison be required in the 2015 annual report, which will be filed in March 2016. FHFA agrees with these requests and does not expect the Banks and the Office of Finance to submit a comparative report until March 2016.

The Federal Register explanation of the proposed rule stated that the initial aggregate demographic data reported would provide a baseline to analyze future trends.45 The Banks and the Office of Finance will be able to use the baseline data submitted by September 30, 2015, to compare with the data submitted in the March 1, 2016 report. Although not required, a Bank or the Office of Finance may voluntarily submit and compare any historical board demographic data it has to date collected and submitted in the report due by September 30, 2015. FHFA determined that this clarification did not require a change to the final rule.

45See 79 FR 35961-35962 (June 25, 2014).

iii. Use of Data

The Greenlining Institute recommended that FHFA make the annual minority and women inclusion reports of the Banks and the Office of Finance available to the public. The commenter believes that the public's confidence in the progress of the respective OMWIs of the Banks and the Office of Finance in advancing diversity will be limited until the annual reports are made public.

FHFA does not adopt this recommendation in the final rule. FHFA reiterates its position as stated in the Federal Register explanation of the final part 1207 regulations:

FHFA considers the reports and data to be related to examinations and examination, operation, or conditions reports. In general, FHFA will consider all the information and the data attributed to a particular regulated entity to be non-public, subject to the Freedom of Information Act Exemption (b)(8) and to the examination privilege. The agency does not intend to make attributed information public. However, FHFA intends to use the information and data arrayed or aggregated in a variety of ways, without attribution to specific institutions, in order to identify trends, success or lack of success, or best practices each regulated entity can use to assess or improve its own programs. Additionally, FHFA may use such unattributed information in various formats to inform the public on such trends, success, lack of success and best practices among the regulated entities.46

46 75 FR 81400 (December 28, 2010).

The commenter also noted that it is standard practice for FHFA, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury to make reports on their respective minority and women inclusion activities available to the public. The commenter appears to be referring to the agency statutory reporting requirements under section 342(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank), which apply to most federal financial regulatory agencies.47 Such reports are required to be submitted to Congress and include certain information related to the agencies' minority and women inclusion programs.48 FHFA also makes public its agency annual minority and women inclusion report. However, the statutory reporting requirements under section 1319A of the Safety and Soundness Act apply only to entities regulated by FHFA.49 Since there are no comparable reporting requirements for the regulated entities of the other financial regulatory agencies, those agencies do not receive minority and women inclusion reports from their regulated entities. FHFA will consider including aggregated data related to its regulated entities in the annual minority and women inclusion report it prepares in accordance with section 342(e) of Dodd-Frank.

47 Section 342(e) of Public Law 111-203, July 21, 2010, 12 U.S.C. 5452(e).

48Id.

49 12 U.S.C. 4520(d).

III. Consideration of Differences Between the Banks and the Enterprises

Section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act, as amended by section 1201 of HERA, requires the Director, when promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability. The Director may also consider any other differences that are deemed appropriate. In preparing this final rule, the Director has considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to the above factors and has determined that the rule would not adversely affect any of the above factors.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) requires that FHFA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public.50 Under the PRA and the implementing regulations of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, or impose an information collection requirement, unless it displays a currently valid control number assigned by OMB.51 This final rule contains a new information collection requirement, which is described below.

50See 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and (d).

51See 44 U.S.C. 3512(a); 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi).

As required by the PRA, FHFA requested comments on the new collection of information in the proposed rule.52 The agency received no comments on that issue. As is also required by the PRA, FHFA submitted an analysis of the new collection of information to OMB for review in conjunction with the publication of the proposed rule.53 OMB assigned to this collection of information control number 2590-0014, but has not yet approved the collection; however, FHFA expects OMB will do so by the effective date of the final rule.

52See 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D); 5 CFR 1320.11(a).

53See 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)(1)(A); 5 CFR 1320.11(b).

Summary: Under § 1207.23(b)(9)(i), each Bank and the Office of Finance are required to request annually that each member of its board of directors provide, on a voluntary basis, self-identification of his or her demographic classification (using the same minority and gender classifications as those used on the Form EEO-1), without including personally identifiable information. Sections 1207.23(b)(9) and 1207.22(c) require that each Bank and the Office of Finance submit the baseline board demographic information collected to FHFA no later than September 30, 2015, and thereafter the information be included as part of the annual reports they are already required to submit under existing part 1207.

Use: FHFA will use the information collected under § 1207.23(b)(9)(i) to assess the effectiveness of the policies and procedures that each of the Banks and the Office of Finance is required to implement to promote diversity in all of its business and activities “at all levels” and, specifically, to encourage diversity in the nomination and solicitation of nominees for members of its boards of directors. FHFA will also use the information to establish a baseline to analyze future trends relating to the diversity of the boards of directors of the Banks and the Office of Finance.

Respondents: Respondents will be the approximately 210 individuals serving on the boards of directors of the Banks and the Office of Finance in any given year.

Frequency: The information will be collected annually.

Annual Burden Estimate: FHFA estimates the total annualized hour burden for all respondents to the proposed information collection to be 21 hours. FHFA estimates that an average of 210 board directors will provide information annually and that each response will take approximately 0.1 hours on average (210 respondents × 0.1 hours per response = 21 hours). There will be no annualized cost to the Federal government.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a regulation that has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, small businesses, or small organizations include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the regulation's impact on small entities. Such an analysis need not be undertaken if the agency has certified that the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). FHFA has considered the impact of the final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The General Counsel of FHFA certifies that the final rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation is applicable only to the Banks and the Office of Finance, which are not small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1207

Discrimination, Diversity, Equal employment opportunity, Minority businesses, Office of Finance, Outreach, Regulated entities.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4526, FHFA amends part 1207 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1207—MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION 1. The authority citation for part 1207 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 4520 and 4526; 12 U.S.C. 1833e; E.O. 11478.

Subpart C—Minority and Women Inclusion and Diversity at Regulated Entities and the Office of Finance 2. Amend § 1207.22 by adding a new sentence at the end of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 1207.22 Regulated entity and Office of Finance reports.

(c) * * * The data required to be reported by § 1207.23(b)(9) shall be submitted no later than September 30, 2015, and thereafter included in each annual report.

3. Amend § 1207.23 as follows: a. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(9) through (19) as paragraphs (b)(10) through (20); and b. Add new paragraph (b)(9) and revise newly redesignated paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:
§ 1207.23 Annual reports—format and contents.

(b) * * *

(9)(i) Data showing for the reporting year by minority and gender classification, the number of individuals on the board of directors of each Bank and the Office of Finance—

(A) Using data collected by each Bank and the Office of Finance through an information collection requesting each director's voluntary self-identification of his or her minority and gender classification without personally identifiable information;

(B) Using the same classifications as those on the Form EEO-1; and

(ii) A description of the outreach activities and strategies executed during the preceding year to promote diversity in nominating or soliciting nominees for positions on boards of directors of the Banks (consistent with 12 CFR 1261.9) and the Office of Finance;

(10) A comparison of the data reported by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section, and by the Banks and the Office of Finance under paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this section, to such data as reported in the previous year together with a narrative analysis;

Dated: April 28, 2015. Melvin L. Watt, Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-10374 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 121 and 135 [Docket No. FAA-2011-1136; Amdt. Nos. 121-371A and 135-132A] RIN 2120-AJ33 Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements; Correction AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is correcting a final rule published on March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11537). In that rule, the FAA amended its maintenance regulations for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations, and for commuter and on-demand operations for aircraft type certificated with a passenger seating configuration of 10 seats or more (excluding any pilot seat). The FAA originally proposed to make the effective date of the rule one year after its publication date to give affected operators time to come into compliance with the new requirements, and to allow the FAA time to review information submitted by the operators under the rule. However, in the final rule, the FAA inadvertently overlooked the proposed one-year compliance time, and included an effective date of 60 days after publication. This document corrects the effective date of that document.

DATES:

This correction is effective on May 4, 2015. The effective date of the final rule published March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11537), is corrected to March 4, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this action, contact Wende T. DiMuro, AFS-330, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-1685; email [email protected]

For legal questions concerning this action, contact Edmund Averman, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3147, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On March 4, 2015, the FAA published a final rule entitled, “Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements” (80 FR 11537).

In that final rule, the FAA revised its maintenance regulations for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations, and for commuter and on-demand operations for aircraft type certificated with a passenger seating configuration of 10 seats or more (excluding any pilot seat). The new rules require affected air carriers and operators to develop policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for performing contract maintenance that are acceptable to the FAA, and to include them in their maintenance manuals. The rules also require the air carriers and operators to provide a list to the FAA of all persons with whom they contract their maintenance, which also must include the physical address where the work will be carried out and a description of the type of work that is to be carried out at each location.

In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (77 FR 67584; Nov. 13, 2012), the FAA proposed to make the effective date one year after the publication of the final rule. The stated reason for this was that the agency recognized that the affected operators would need time to fully develop the policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for contract maintenance and to provide them in an acceptable format to the FAA. We also noted that operators would need time to prepare the list with the required information of their contract maintenance providers and to provide them in an acceptable format to their Certificate Holding District Offices (77 FR 67587). The FAA also noted that it would need time to review the information submitted by the operators. In publishing the final rule, the FAA inadvertently overlooked this proposed one-year compliance time, and included an effective date of 60 days after publication. This document corrects that oversight so that the effective date is one year after the publication of the final rule, or March 4, 2016.

Correction

In FR Doc. 2015-04179, beginning on page 11537 in the Federal Register of March 4, 2015, make the following corrections:

Correction

1. On page 11537, in the second column, in the paragraph entitled “DATES:”, correct “May 4, 2015” to read “March 4, 2016.”

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2015. John Barbagallo, Acting Director, Flight Standards Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-10423 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1120 [CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2014-0024] Substantial Product Hazard List: Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) is issuing a final rule to specify that seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not contain any one of three readily observable characteristics (minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, or overcurrent protection), as addressed in a voluntary standard, are deemed a substantial product hazard under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”). Additionally, the Commission is making a technical amendment to reformat incorporations by reference in this part.

DATES:

Effective date: The rule takes effect on June 3, 2015. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 3, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Kroh, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-987-7886; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Statutory Authority A. Statutory Authority

Section 223 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”), amended section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064, to add a new subsection (j). Section 15(j) of the CPSA provides the Commission with the authority to specify, by rule, for any consumer product or class of consumer products, characteristics whose existence or absence are deemed a substantial product hazard under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA. Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA defines a “substantial product hazard,” in relevant part, as a product defect which (because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective products distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or otherwise) creates a substantial risk of injury to the public. A rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA (a “15(j) rule”) is not a consumer product safety rule that imposes performance or labeling requirements for newly manufactured products. Rather, a 15(j) rule is a Commission determination of a product defect based upon noncompliance with specific product characteristics that are addressed in an effective voluntary standard. For the Commission to issue a 15(j) rule, the product characteristics involved must be “readily observable” and have been addressed by a voluntary standard. Moreover, the voluntary standard must be effective in reducing the risk of injury associated with the consumer products, and there must be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard.

B. Background

On October 16, 2014, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) in the Federal Register to amend the substantial product hazard list in 16 CFR part 1120 (“part 1120”) to add seasonal and decorative lighting products that lack certain readily observable safety characteristics addressed by a voluntary standard because such products pose a risk of electrical shock or fire. 79 FR 62081. The comment period on the proposed rule closed on December 30, 2014. As detailed in section II of this preamble, the Commission received 62 comments on the proposed rule.

The Commission is now issuing a final rule to amend part 1120 by adding three readily observable characteristics of seasonal and decorative lighting products: (1) Minimum wire size; (2) sufficient strain relief; and (3) overcurrent protection. After reviewing the comments, the Commission made two clarifications in the final rule to define more clearly products that do not fall within the scope of the rule. Additionally, based on the comments, the Commission has corrected a citation to Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”), Standard for Safety for Seasonal and Holiday Decorative Products, UL 588, 18th Edition, approved on August 21, 2000 (“UL 588”), in the final rule. As of the effective date of this rule, seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not contain any one of these three readily observable characteristics, as set forth in UL 588, are deemed to create a substantial product hazard under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA.

C. Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products

The final rule uses the phrase “seasonal and decorative lighting products” to identify the lighting products that are within the scope of the rule. The final rule defines “seasonal and decorative lighting products” consistent with the description of products subject to UL 588, as set forth in section 1 of UL 588. “Seasonal and decorative lighting products” are portable, plug-connected, temporary-use lighting products and accessories that have a nominal 120-volt input voltage rating. Lighting products within the scope of the rule are factory-assembled with push-in, midget- or miniature-screw base lampholders connected in series or with candelabra- or intermediate-screw base lampholders connected in parallel, directly across the 120 volt input. Such lighting products include lighted decorative outfits, such as stars, wreathes, candles without shades, light sculptures, blow-molded (plastic) figures, and animated figures. Lighting products outside the scope of the rule include: Battery-operated products; solar-powered products; products that operate from a transformer or low-voltage power supply; flexible lighting products incorporating non-replaceable series and series/parallel-connected lamps enclosed within a flexible polymeric tube or extrusion; and portable electric lamps that are used to illuminate seasonal decorations.

This definition of “seasonal and decorative lighting products” is adapted from descriptions of lighting products defined in section 1 of UL 588. All in-scope products are covered by UL 588. Lighting products within the scope of the rule are typically used seasonally and provide only decorative lumination. The products typically are displayed for a relatively short period of time and are then removed and stored until needed again. UL 588 section 2.43 defines the term “seasonal (holiday) product” as: “[a] product painted in colors to suggest a holiday theme or a snow covering, a figure in a holiday costume, or any decoration associated with a holiday or particular season of the year.” UL 588 defines “decorative light products” (decorative outfits) as factory-assembled, electrically powered units providing a seasonal or holiday decorative display having illumination or other decorative effects. A decorative product may contain a lighting string as part of the decorative illumination. A lighting string provided with decorative covers over the lamps is a decorative outfit. If not constructed properly, lighting powered by 120 volts can be damaged easily and can pose a risk of electrical shock or fire.

Lighting products that are excluded from the scope of the rule are subject to different voluntary standards or do not present the same risk of injury. Based on the comments to the proposed rule, the final rule clarifies that “solar-powered products” are not within the scope of the rule because solar-powered seasonal lights are not connected to a 120-volt branch circuit and do not present the same risk of injury due to shock and fire. Additionally, the final rule clarifies the type of tube lighting that is not within the scope of the rule. The proposed rule used the phrase “flexible tube lighting strings of lights intended for illumination.” The final rule replaces this phrase with: “flexible lighting products incorporating non-replaceable series and series/parallel connected lamps enclosed within a flexible polymeric tube or extrusion.” The description of tube lighting was revised to clarify that such tube lighting is not covered by UL 588 but is covered by another UL standard, UL 2388 Flexible Lighting Products. This clarification is not intended to alter the scope of products covered by the rule; the revision is intended to clarify that flexible lighting products covered by UL 2388 are not within the scope of the rule. Staff Briefing Package: Final Rule to Amend 16 CFR part 1120 to Add Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products, dated April 22, 2015 (“Staff Final Rule Briefing Package”) at 3, available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/Final-Rule-to-Amend-Substantial-Product-Hazard-List-to-Include-Seasonal-and-Decorative-Lighting-Products.pdf.

D. Applicable Voluntary Standard

UL 588-2000 is the current voluntary standard applicable to seasonal and decorative lighting products. UL 588 has been updated over the years to address various safety issues to make seasonal and decorative lighting products safer, see 79 FR 62083; Staff's Briefing Package on Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products, dated October 2, 2014 (“Staff NPR Briefing Package”), Tab B, Abbreviated History of Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products and the Associated UL Standard, at: http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/ProposedRuletoAmendSubstantialProductHazardListtoIncludeSeasonalandDecorativeLightingProducts.pdf. Specifically, UL 588, made effective on January 1, 1997, set forth the current requirements for overcurrent protection and minimum wire size; and the current strain relief requirement has been in effect since 1994.

Table 2 in the preamble to the NPR, at 79 FR at 62083, summarized the readily observable characteristics for seasonal and decorative lighting products. Table 2 was intended to present a summary of the relevant provisions of UL 588. As one commenter noted, the “strain relief” column shown in Table 2 in the preamble to the NPR cited SB16 of UL 588, instead of section SB15, and showed the strain relief load as 24 lbs. instead of 20 lbs. Table 1, below, is a revised version of Table 2 from the preamble to the NPR. Table 1 shows the correct citation to section SB15 of UL 588 and the correct strain relief loads. Staff Final Rule Briefing Package at 3-4.

Table 1—Readily Observable Characteristics for Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products Seasonal and decorative lighting products Readily observable characteristics Minimum wire size (AWG)
  • UL 588 Section 6
  • Sufficient strain relief (load weight) Plugs/load fittings
  • UL 588 Sections 15 and 71
  • Lampholders UL 588
  • Sections 79
  • and SB15
  • Overcurrent protection qty. UL 588
  • Section 7
  • Series-connected lighting product: With Load Fitting 20 (Polarized Plug)
  • 22 (Non-Polarized Plug)
  • 20 lbs (smaller than 18 AWG)
  • 20
  • 8
  • 1
  • 2
  • Without Load Fitting 22 (Polarized Plug)
  • 22 (Non-Polarized Plug
  • 8
  • 8
  • 1
  • 2
  • Parallel-connected light product: With or Without Load Fitting 20 (XTW), 18 (all others)
  • All Polarized Plugs
  • 20 lbs. (20 AWG)
  • 30 lbs. (18 AWG).
  • 20 1
    E. Risk of Injury 1. Electrocution and Fire Hazards

    The preamble to the NPR explained that consumers can be seriously injured or killed by electrical shocks or fires if seasonal and decorative lighting products are not made using minimum wire size, sufficient strain reliefs, or overcurrent protection. 79 FR at 62083-84. Lighting products that conform to the minimum wire size requirement in UL 588 will support the product's electrical load without causing overheating. Additionally, lighting products that conform to the minimum wire size requirement provide the necessary mechanical strength to endure handling and other forces imposed on a seasonal lighting product during expected use of the product. Likewise, lighting products that conform to the strain relief requirements in UL 588 will endure use, including pulling and twisting the product, without mechanical damage to the electrical connections. Damaged electrical connections, such as broken strands of copper conductor inside the insulated wiring, could cause overheating (leading to a fire), despite overcurrent protection, or separation of wires from their terminal connections, which could expose bare energized conductors leading to electrical shock. Finally, UL 588's requirements for overcurrent protection prevent products from overheating and melting due to faults, damage, or excessive loads. Such failures carry a potential risk of fire.

    2. Incident Data

    For the NPR, CPSC staff conducted a search of the Injury or Potential Injury Database (“IPII”), National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (“NEISS”), and the Death Certificate Database (“DTHS”) for incidents that involved seasonal and decorative lighting products reported between 1980 and May 2014. CPSC staff has updated this data and found a total of 133 fatal incidents causing 258 deaths, and 1,405 nonfatal incidents that involved seasonal and decorative lighting products that were in-scope and that occurred between 1980 and 2013.1 For the final rule, staff searched for in-scope incidents reported from January 2014 through March 2015. CPSC staff found an additional 25 in-scope incidents that occurred in 2014, and staff identified seven incidents that occurred in 2015. All of the 25 incidents in 2014 were nonfatal incidents. One of the seven incidents in 2015 was a fatal incident that caused one death.

    1 Staff has updated incident data from 1980 to 2013 to include retailer reports.

    Table 2 shows the annual average number of incidents for five different periods for each of the fatal incidents, deaths, and nonfatal incidents. The 35-year period is broken up into five, 7-year periods. Reporting may not be complete for the most recent period because sometimes CPSC receives reports of incidents years after they have occurred. Note that the average number of incidents and deaths has declined over the 35-year period represented in Table 2. See Tab E of Staff Final Rule Briefing Package.

    Table 2—Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Product Annual Average of Fatal Incidents, Deaths, and Nonfatal Incidents From 1980-2014 Years Fatal incidents Deaths Nonfatal
  • incidents
  • 1980-1986 6.7 12.6 54.1 1987-1993 6.3 13.6 40.9 1994-2000 2.9 5.9 37.4 2001-2007 2.3 3.9 38.6 2008-2014 0.9 1.0 33.3
    F. Compliance Efforts To Address the Hazard

    As noted in the preamble to the NPR, in numerous instances, CPSC staff has considered the absence of one or more of three readily observable characteristics (minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, and overcurrent protection) to present a substantial product hazard and has sought appropriate corrective action to prevent injury to the public. 79 FR at 62084. Since the Commission published the NPR (from September 2014 to February 2015), CPSC has not conducted any recalls of seasonal and decorative lighting products, and identified 11 shipments at import involving a total of approximately 37,000 lighting units, where the seasonal and decorative lighting products may not comply with UL 588. See Tab D of Staff Final Rule Briefing Package.

    II. Summary of Comments on the Proposed Rule and CPSC's Responses

    The Commission received 62 comments and questions in response to the NPR. Substantive comments from several manufacturers expressed general support for the proposed rule, while the consumer commenters were generally opposed to the NPR. Commenters who opposed the rule often appeared to misunderstand the nature of the rulemaking, the Commission's authority to issue such a rule, and the effect of such a rule on industry and consumers. The Commission received one comment that addressed technical issues associated with UL 588. We summarize the comments and the Commission's responses below. Three clarifications were made in the final rule based on the comments, described in sections I.C and I.D of this preamble, and in responses to comments 14, 15, and 18.

    A. General Comments

    Comment 1: Many commenters argued that the proposed rule represents government waste, government overreach, or would result in a “waste of money” because the incident data do not demonstrate a relationship between the incident data and gaps in the UL standard.

    Response 1: The Commission disagrees with these commenters. The CPSC's mission is to protect consumers from unreasonable risks of injury or death from consumer products. The rule would further this mission by allowing staff to remove more effectively seasonal and decorative lighting products from commerce if these products present a risk of fire or electrical shock to consumers. The rule will not result in waste, nor will the rule increase costs. In fact, the rule should decrease CPSC's costs associated with an existing practice of determining that seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not conform to UL 588 present a defect that rises to a substantial product hazard.

    Currently, when CPSC staff encounters seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not appear to meet the requirements of UL 588, field and import staff must collect samples of the products and send them to CPSC's National Product Testing and Evaluation Center (“NPTEC”) for further testing. CPSC engineers evaluate and test the samples and provide their assessment to Compliance staff. Compliance staff, relying on CPSC technical staff's assessment, makes a preliminary determination of whether the product presents a substantial product hazard. If Compliance staff makes a preliminary determination of a substantial product hazard, CPSC staff informs the manufacturer or importer of the defective products. Compliance staff then proceeds to negotiate seizure, destruction, or a recall (or some combination of actions) with the firm. Firms may dispute CPSC staff's preliminary determination of a substantial product hazard for failure to conform to UL 588, which can add delay in removing defective products from the market and increase CPSC staff's costs related to supporting a finding of a substantial product hazard.

    When nonconforming seasonal and decorative lighting products are identified, CPSC staff must address with each manufacturer or importer the missing safety requirements from UL 588 that staff determined created a substantial product hazard. This process can be time-consuming and resource intensive. Congress has provided the Commission with the ability to streamline the administrative process of substantial product hazard determinations if certain criteria are met. Section 15(j) of the CPSA allows the Commission through a rulemaking to specify for consumer products, or a class of consumer products, characteristics whose presence or absence shall be deemed a substantial product hazard under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA. A “substantial product hazard” is a defined term in our statute. Failure to comply with a consumer product safety rule is one way a product can present a substantial product hazard under section 15(a)(1) of the CPSA. A hazard addressed under section 15(j) is deemed to be “a product defect which (because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective product distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or otherwise) creates a substantial risk of injury to the public” under section 15(a)(2).

    A rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA is not a consumer product safety rule. Further, the Commission is not defining mandatory requirements for seasonal and decorative lighting products that must be tested and certified to a regulation, as a rule issued under sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA would require. The Commission is not required to provide incident data for a rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA to demonstrate “gaps” in the UL standard, because the rule will not impose additional requirements on seasonal and decorative lighting products beyond the identified three readily observable characteristics embodied in UL 588. Instead, the Commission is determining that seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not conform to three elements of the voluntary standard, UL 588, have a product defect that presents a substantial risk of injury to the public. A substantial product hazard determination under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA seeks to remove already-manufactured defective products from the stream of commerce.

    The Commission can only determine that products that do not conform to a voluntary standard present a substantial product hazard under section 15(j) of the CPSA if four criteria are met:

    • The characteristics involved must be “readily observable”;

    • the characteristics must be addressed by a voluntary standard;

    • the voluntary standard must be effective in reducing the risk of injury associated with the consumer products; and

    • there must be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard.

    Essentially, when a voluntary standard is working effectively to reduce a risk of injury to the public, the Commission can rely on the voluntary standard and take enforcement action to remove products from the stream of commerce when products do not comply with that voluntary standard. The purpose of the NPR was to provide notice to the public that the Commission believes that UL 588 is an effective voluntary standard. When CPSC staff finds products in the stream of commerce that do not comply with one or more of three readily observable safety characteristics, which are defined in UL 588, the Commission believes that those products are defective and present a substantial risk of injury, fire and electrical shock.

    Codifying that the absence of any of three safety characteristics for seasonal and decorative lighting products constitutes a substantial product hazard should streamline CPSC's enforcement efforts. Once the rule is final, CPSC will no longer need to rely on a staff preliminary determination of a substantial product hazard, and re-address this issue with each importer or manufacturer in each instance. Instead, CPSC can rely on the Commission's determination of a substantial product hazard for seasonal and decorative lighting products that are missing any of three readily observable characteristics, and then staff can proceed directly to negotiating a recall or seizure of the products without delay. Finally, when noncompliant lighting products are found at the ports, CPSC can rely on the rule to request that Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) seize the defective products through its authority under the Tariff Act. This streamlined process should reduce Commission staff and the monetary resources required to prevent defective products from entering the market.

    Comment 2: Many commenters stated that existing standards, such as UL standards, are sufficient in “regulating” seasonal lights and that the agency did not provide a rational basis for selecting seasonal and decorative lighting products for regulation. Another commenter opposed codifying the UL standard, arguing that codifying the standard would “ossify” the voluntary standards process and make the UL standard “rigid,” more difficult to improve, and ultimately make the public less safe.

    Response 2: This proceeding concerns a rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA and would not codify UL 588 or any other standard. Rather, under the rule, seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not have specified characteristics that conform to UL 588 would be considered to present a substantial product hazard. This means that such products could be stopped at the ports or otherwise prevented from distribution in the United States. The rule would not replace UL 588 or “ossify” the standard; rather, the rule would work in tandem with the UL standard to help provide safer products to consumers. If UL revises the referenced provisions of UL 588 in the future, the Commission can revise the rule to reference the updated version. Pages 62083 and 62084 of the NPR provided a rational basis for selecting seasonal and decorative lighting products. Lighting products that lack minimum safety characteristics pose a substantial risk of injury to consumers, and the Commission has the authority and obligation to remove such defective products from the stream of commerce.

    Comment 3: One commenter stated that the NPR violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and was “on its face arbitrary and capricious and without any reasonable foundation” because no rational basis was described in the proposed rule for a new federal regulation on seasonal and decorative lighting products. Many commenters indicated that they considered the rule unnecessary, when CPSC's own data demonstrate that the UL standard appears to be effective at reducing the risk of injury associated with seasonal and decorative lighting products. Some commenters stated that the proposed rule does not describe a “substantial product hazard” that needs to be addressed by a regulation, noting that the UL standard has already addressed the hazards associated with seasonal and decorative lighting products.

    Response 3: The commenters appear to misunderstand the nature and purpose of the NPR, as well as the Commission's authority to issue a rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA. The Commission disagrees that the NPR violated the APA and is arbitrary and capricious. The NPR provides adequate rationale for the proposed rule and meets the requirements of section 553(b) of the APA, which requires that a proposed rule:

    • Be published in the Federal Register;

    • provide a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings;

    • reference the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and

    • provide either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.

    As discussed in the NPR, seasonal and decorative lighting products have a history of causing deaths and injury. However, the Commission agrees with the commenters that UL 588 effectively addresses the risks caused by insufficient wire size, inadequate strain relief, and lack of overcurrent protection. UL 588 addresses these issues because the absence of these minimum safety characteristics poses a risk of injury, fire, and electric shock to consumers. The Commission's 15(j) rule recognizes that products that do not conform to UL 588 regarding minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, and overcurrent protection, present a substantial product hazard.

    A rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA is not a consumer product safety rule, but rather, is a Commission determination of a substantial product hazard. No injury data are required to find that a product presents a substantial product hazard under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA. Instead, under section 15(a)(2), products are evaluated for defects that have the potential to cause a substantial risk of injury to the public. Even if the Commission has no reported injuries, the Commission could still find that a product has a defect which creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.

    Comment 4: One commenter stated that CPSC misused the data cited in the proposed rule, making three fundamental errors:

    • Implicitly assuming that no older versions of lighting products manufactured before 2000 are in use, which CPSC allegedly uses to show that UL is only partially effective. The commenter asserts that lighting products are used for many years;

    • failing to show any recent deaths or injuries since 2000 when UL was allegedly last updated; and

    • failing to show that any deaths associated with lighting products were caused by product defects related to the three properties that the UL standards address (safe wire size, safety fuse, and strain protection).

    The commenter stated that the proposed rule provides no rational basis for assuming that any residual hazard related to the UL standards exists.

    Response 4: This commenter also seems to misunderstand the 15(j) rule. The data presented in the NPR are intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of the voluntary standard, UL 588, not that additional regulation is necessary because UL 588 is only partially effective.

    Comment 5: One commenter requested confirmation that current certification markings from UL, Intertek Co (“ETL”), or the CSA Group, or products carrying a listing, are considered to be in conformance with these requirements and the proposed rule does not require any paperwork, such as certificates or permits.

    Response 5: The Commission agrees that, unless an importer or retailer has reason to believe that UL, ETL, or CSA certification markings are counterfeit, such marks should indicate compliance with UL 588. Because a rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA is not a consumer product safety rule, a final rule will not impose additional paperwork such as certificates of compliance on importers or manufacturers.

    Comment 6: One commenter questioned the definition of “readily observable,” and two commenters questioned whether all three readily observable characteristics need to be met.

    Response 6: All three readily observable characteristics on a seasonal and decorative lighting product must be in conformance with UL 588. Under the rule, if one or more characteristics are missing, the product presents a substantial product hazard under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA.

    The Commission has not defined the term “readily observable,” preferring instead to evaluate the concept on a case-by-case basis. The proposed rule states:

    The Commission did not define a “readily observable” characteristic in either [previous] rule. In the proposed drawstring rule (75 FR 27497, 27499, May 17, 2010), the Commission found that the requirements detailed in the relevant voluntary standard could be evaluated with “simple manipulations of the garment, simple measurements of portions of the garments, and unimpeded visual observation.” The Commission stated: “more complicated or difficult actions to determine the presence or absence of defined product characteristics also may be consistent with `readily observable.' ” Finally, the Commission stated its intent to evaluate “readily observable” characteristics on a case-by-case basis.

    75 FR at 27499. The Commission considers the three characteristics of seasonal and decorative lighting products described in the rule to be readily observable, consistent with the Commission's previous statement.

    Comment 7: One commenter questioned how CPSC will enforce the requirements for imported products that are proposed in the NPR.

    Response 7: The Commission anticipates continuing the existing enforcement policy at ports of entry and at retail outlets, at least in the near future. Currently, CPSC identifies seasonal lighting products that lack certification marks or that appear to have irregular or counterfeit certification marks or that have other characteristics that might suggest noncompliance with applicable standards. After adoption of the rule, CPSC would evaluate such products to assess whether the products meet all three readily observable safety characteristics. If the products do not meet every one of the three readily observable safety characteristics, CPSC generally anticipates requesting that CBP detain the product if offered for importation. Additionally, CPSC practice is to inform the manufacturer or importer of the defect. Depending on the facts and circumstances, other legally-authorized measures may be taken.

    Comment 8: One commenter asked whether the readily observable characteristics apply to both indoor and outdoor seasonal and decorative lighting products.

    Response 8: The rule applies to both indoor and outdoor seasonal and decorative lighting products. The three readily observable characteristics are independent of the environment for which the products are rated.

    Comment 9: Some commenters generally opposed the NPR, stating reasons such as the “lie of global warming,” limiting electrical power consumption by consumers, or that CPSC should regulate other types of products.

    Response 9: These comments are out of scope for this rulemaking.

    B. Comments on Economic Issues

    Comment 10: To demonstrate the potential safety benefits of the proposal, one commenter who supported the NPR suggested that the CPSC estimate the societal costs of fires and electrocutions associated with holiday and seasonal lights. Several commenters opposing the proposed rule stated that the likely safety benefits of the proposal would be small.

    Response 10: The estimated numbers and societal costs of deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with seasonal and decorative lighting-related fires and electrocutions are very small, and generally, the numbers have declined to near zero in recent years, consistent with safety improvements made over time to the voluntary standard, UL 588. The rule is not designed to yield further safety benefits; rather, the rule would maintain the current high level of safety and help prevent distribution of nonconforming, seasonal and decorative lighting products that present a substantial product hazard.

    Comment 11: Eleven consumer commenters opposing the proposed rule stated that the rule could impose compliance costs on industry, and that any such costs should be weighed against the minimal likely safety benefits of a rule. One commenter stated that the proposed rule failed to adequately address the full scope of the legal and financial impacts of the regulation. Four commenters suggested that cost increases would result in retail price increases. One commenter asked whether the CPSC could justify “millions of dollars” in costs.

    Response 11: The final rule does not impose any new design, manufacturing, testing, certification, reporting, labeling, or other cost burdens on industry. Rather than add “millions of dollars,” as the commenter posited, because the rule is predicated on an existing voluntary standard, the cost of the rule should be essentially zero. In the NPR, the Commission estimated that the level of conformance to the existing voluntary standard is well in excess of 90 percent. The Commission has identified very few nonconforming seasonal and decorative lighting products on the market, even among the lowest-priced products. Thus, no significant wholesale or retail price increases are likely to occur as a result of finalizing the rule. To the extent that any importers market nonconforming seasonal and decorative lighting products, these firms could incur minimal costs of up to a few cents per typical 50-light string to incorporate the correct wire size, proper strain relief, and overcurrent protection. Nonconforming goods, however, are already subject to CPSC enforcement action, including recall, seizure, or forfeiture upon importation. Thus, because no changes to products or importation practices will be needed, the rule will likely have little, if any, impact on costs or consumer choice.

    As noted previously, the final rule will create efficiencies for the agency's enforcement programs.

    Comment 12: One commenter opposed to the NPR asserted that a CPSC rule would be duplicative of other existing regulations (presumably referring to the voluntary standard), thereby impacting costs and consumer choices.

    Response 12: The final rule designates as a substantial product hazard any seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not conform to three elements of the existing voluntary standard, UL 588. This is consistent with current CPSC enforcement practice. The rule will impose no new requirements or cost burdens on industry. Similarly, because no products will have to be discontinued or withdrawn from the market, the final rule will not affect consumer choice.

    Comment 13: One commenter opposed to the NPR questioned whether the proposed rule would maintain “fair and equitable market access for trade partners,” and whether the Commission had explored less restrictive regulatory alternatives.

    Response 13: The final rule is not expected to deny or restrict market access in any way. All known products subject to a final rule are imported. Because virtually all such products are estimated to conform to the voluntary standard already, no new restrictions on importation into the United States will occur. Any noncomplying products will be subject to CPSC enforcement action. This has been the case in the past, and this will continue to be the CPSC's practice even without the rule. No regulatory alternatives exist that would be less restrictive to industry. Under the rule, business practices will not have to change, and therefore, no restrictions on trade will result.

    C. Technical Comments

    Comment 14: One commenter asked the Commission to affirm that the proposed rule would not apply to the following:

    • Battery-operated products.

    • Solar-powered products (either direct powered solar, or one with a storage system that is used when the sun is not out, such as a rechargeable battery to power the lights).

    • Transformer or low-voltage power supplied products, such as adaptor-powered products that use a low voltage Class 2 power source or ITE power source, that are third party certified by an NRTL lab.

    • Flexible Lighting Products, as covered in the scope of UL 2388 (described as “Flexible Tube Lighting Strings” in the proposed rule).

    Response 14: The Commission agrees with the commenter that the scope of the rule is not intended to include the types of products listed above. Section 1120.2(d) of the final rule already states that battery-operated products, products that operate from a transformer or low-voltage power supply; flexible tube lighting [clarified in response 15 below] intended for illumination; and portable electric lamps that are used to illuminate seasonal decorations are all outside the scope the rule. Products listed as out of scope are excluded because they are not subject to the same types of hazards as products within the scope of the rule; or, such products are not subject to UL 588, but rather, are subject to a different voluntary standard. The definition in § 1120.2(d) of the final rule has been clarified to state that solar-powered lights are not within the scope of the rule because solar-powered seasonal lights are not connected to a 120 volt branch circuit and do not present the same risk of injury of shock and fire. Thus, § 1120.2(d) of the final rule now lists “solar-powered products” as outside the scope of the final rule.

    Comment 15: One commenter stated that the proposed rule should clarify which products are addressed by the term “flexible tube lighting strings” because CPSC could be excluding products that should fall within the scope of the rule, as they are addressed in UL 588. The commenter stated that use of the term “flexible tube lighting strings” could describe a UL 588-covered product connected directly across a 120V supply that uses a standard string of lights placed inside a rigid or flexible tube. The commenter suggested changing the term “flexible tube lighting strings” to “flexible lighting products,” in accordance with the scope of ANSI/UL 2388, Sections 1.1 and 1.2 and add “Flexible Lighting Products that conform with the ANSI/UL 2388 scope and definitions” to the “Rope, tube, . . ..” listing in- “out-of-scope” products.

    Response 15: The Commission agrees that the term “flexible tube lighting strings” could be misconstrued to exempt some products that are covered by UL 588. Accordingly, the definition of “seasonal and decorative lighting products” in § 1120.2(d) of the final rule has been changed from the phrase “flexible tube lighting strings of lights intended for illumination” to the phrase “flexible lighting products incorporating non-replaceable series and series/parallel connected lamps enclosed within a flexible polymeric tube or extrusion” to describe out-of-scope lighting products. The Commission believes that this language, taken from UL 2388, the voluntary standard that applies to flexible lighting, will clarify that flexible lighting products subject to UL 2388 are not within the scope of the rule. This clarification is not intended to alter the scope of products covered by the rule; the revision merely clarifies that flexible tube lighting products covered by UL 2388 are not within the scope of the rule.

    Comment 16: One commenter asked for confirmation that seasonal and decorative lighting products that are third party certified to ANSI/UL 588 by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (“NRTL”), such as UL, CSA, or ETL, “would be considered in compliance with this rule and would not require further review.” Additionally, the commenter requested confirmation that products such as a pre-lit artificial tree, or a pre-lit artificial wreath, as long as the decorative lighting (for example, a 120V cord connected incandescent or LED light string that is series or parallel connected and has push in, screw in or non-replaceable bulbs) is third party certified by an NRTL (such as UL, CSA, or ETL) to ANSI/UL 588, are considered to be in compliance with the proposed rule and would not require further review, even if the entire pre-lit artificial tree or wreath, as a whole with lights, is not UL, CSA, or ETL certified.

    Response 16: According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”), an NRTL is a private sector organization recognized by OSHA to perform required product certification to electrical standard requirements:

    Each NRTL has a scope of test standards that they are recognized for, and each NRTL uses its own unique registered certification mark(s) to designate product conformance to the applicable product safety test standards. After certifying a product, the NRTL authorizes the manufacturer to apply a registered certification mark to the product. If the certification is done under the NRTL program, this mark signifies that the NRTL tested and certified the product, and that the product complies with the requirements of one or more appropriate product safety test standards. Users of the product can generally rely on the mark as evidence that the product complies with the applicable OSHA approval requirement(s) and is safe for use in the workplace. OSHA's Web site as of February 23, 2015 (https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/).

    The Commission interprets the comment to suggest that if a product has a mark indicating certification by an NRTL, CPSC should consider the product to be compliant with the applicable provisions of UL 588 and not conduct any further review of the product. The Commission believes that products that are legitimately listed to UL 588 by an NRTL are likely to be in compliance with UL 588 and not likely to present a substantial product hazard. However, because such marks are sometimes counterfeit, CPSC will use product labeling as but one factor in its decision process when determining which products to investigate for compliance.

    Regardless of labeling, CPSC may evaluate any electrical product for whether it poses a substantial product hazard. For example, CPSC staff's existing practice is to evaluate products at the ports to assess whether they present a substantial product hazard, and non-compliance to a relevant voluntary standard may provide evidence of a hazard. Even if electrical products are not subject to a rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA, CPSC field staff can collect samples of non-conforming products and send them to CPSC's lab, NPTEC, for further testing and evaluation.

    Comment 17: The commenter asked why “unlighted ornaments that replace a push-in mini-bulb” are exempt from this rule, suggesting that these ornaments have the same fire and shock hazard as ornaments that are lighted, have the same strain relief and wire gauge requirements as lighted ornaments in UL 588, and should be treated as in-scope. He added that the only difference between lighted and unlighted ornaments of this type is that they are not required by UL 588 to have fusing.

    Response 17: Table 1 in the NPR provided a non-exhaustive list of examples of lighting products that fall within, and outside of, the scope of the proposed rule. Ornaments that replace a push-in mini-bulb do not fall within the definition of products in § 1120.2(d) of the rule because these products do not have 120 volt input ratings. Additionally, in the experience of CPSC staff, ornaments, regardless of whether they are lighted or unlighted (including motorized and electronic items), have not presented the same hazard as products within the scope of the rule. In fact, CPSC has not found any such products in its archives to present a substantial product hazard.

    Comment 18: One commenter pointed out a typographical error in section II of the NPR, item 2, on page 62085, “Sufficient Strain Relief,” of the preamble. The commenter states the correct reference for the method of strain relief testing demonstrated in the NPR should be section SB15 instead of section SB16, which also changes the strain relief load cited in Table 2 from 24 lb. weight to a 20 lb. weight. The commenter also suggested changing the reference of section 79 to paragraph 79.2 in section II of the NPR, item 2, on page 62085 because of the method of testing demonstrated in the NPR. In addition, the commenter noted that the testing method in section II of the NPR, item 2, on page 62085, “Sufficient Strain Relief,” is vague and unrepeatable by specifying that wire is not allowed to “stretch,” as the wire will normally stretch in this test. UL 588 specifies that the wire not stretch more than 1/16″ at the entry point of the wire to the lampholder, not that the wire below that point cannot stretch.

    Response 18: The Commission agrees with the commenter with regard to the correct citation for strain relief requirements, and has revised the citation to UL 588 in § 1120.3(c)(2) regarding strain relief in the final rule to incorporate section SB15 of UL 588, instead of section SB16. We have also published a corrected version of the Table summarizing requirements from UL 588 in the preamble to the final rule, Table 1 in section I.D of this preamble. Table 1 updates the strain relief load from 24 lbs. to 20 lbs. and references SB15 instead of SB16. The Commission declines to revise the Table 1 to include paragraph 79.2, because the strain relief method called out in section 79 of UL 588 includes paragraph 79.2.

    In the NPR, the Commission summarized the failure criteria for strain relief to demonstrate that strain relief is readily observable by hanging the appropriate weight and evaluating the results. However, the regulation text adopts the specific requirements for strain relief in UL 588. Section 1120.3(c)(2) specifies that sufficient strain relief requirements are according to UL 588 sections 15, 71, 79, and SB15 (changed from SB16 to SB 15). Although the cord is allowed to “stretch” within limits as permitted by UL 588 during the strain relief test, CPSC staff's experience in observing non-conforming seasonal and decorative lighting products is that such non-complying products, in an overwhelming majority of observations, tend to be constructed in a way that they fail catastrophically—the conductors shred apart, with individual strands stretching to their breaking points.

    Comment 19: One commenter stated that, in Section II of the NPR, the measurement of wire size (“AWG”) as shown in Picture 3 is not a very accurate method of measurement and is intended for solid core wire, not stranded as required to be used in decorative lighting strings covered by UL 588. The commenter is concerned that using a wire gauge with stranded wire can give false positives for undersized wire, or false negatives for properly sized wires, depending on twisting and other relevant factors. The commenter states that the ANSI UL wire standard uses a different method of determining wire size by measuring the circular mil area. While the wire gauge method may be sufficient to determine the initial need for further examination, the commenter states, it should not be used as the final determination for undersize wiring.

    Response 19: The final rule incorporates by reference the minimum wire size requirements in section 6 of UL 588. Section 6 of UL 588 does not state a method for determining or measuring the wire size. Accordingly, the rule does not require any particular test; it requires compliance with section 6 of UL 588 with regard to minimum wire size. The NPR provided an example of one method for measuring wire size.

    The purpose of providing a picture of measuring minimum wire size in the NPR was not to favor one method of measuring wire size over another, but to demonstrate that wire size is readily observable through a direct measurement of the wire. The Commission acknowledges that other methods of directly measuring wire size exist that also can be done quickly and easily. The Commission notes that CPSC staff's experience in observing nonconforming seasonal and decorative lighting products demonstrates that such products typically fall short of conformance to wire size by a large margin, regardless of the method used to determine compliance with section 6 of UL 588.

    III. Information Supporting Substantial Product Hazard Determination A. Defined Characteristics Are Readily Observable and Addressed by UL 588

    Sections 6, 7, 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588 set forth the requirements for the three readily observable characteristics in the final rule: minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, and overcurrent protection. Table 1 in section I.D of this preamble summarizes the technical requirements for the three readily observable characteristics in UL 588. The final rule deems the absence of any one of these characteristics to be a substantial product hazard under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA. The preamble to the NPR set forth information to support a finding that minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, and overcurrent protection, are readily observable characteristics from UL 588. See 79 FR 62084-86. We summarize and update that information here.

    1. Minimum Wire Size

    Section 6 of UL 588 requires that series-connected lighting products have a minimum wire size of 20 or 22 AWG, depending on whether the lighting product has a load fitting, and whether the plug is polarized. Minimum wire size, as required in section 6 of UL 588, is a readily observable characteristic of seasonal and decorative lighting products that can be observed visually by taking a measurement of the product's bare wire. 79 FR 62084-85.

    2. Sufficient Strain Relief

    Sections 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588 set forth the requirements for sufficient strain relief in seasonal and decorative lighting products. Strain relief is observed in several locations: At the plugs and load fittings, as well as at the lampholders. Sufficient strain relief, as required in sections 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588, is a readily observable characteristic of seasonal and decorative lighting products that can be determined by suspending the applicable load from the plug, load fitting, or lampholder, and by observing for conformance with SB15 of UL 588. 79 FR at 62085-86.

    3. Overcurrent Protection

    Section 7 of UL 588 specifies overcurrent protection for every seasonal and decorative lighting product. Lighting products must contain at least one fuse if the plug is polarized (parallel-connected strings must have a polarized plug) or two fuses if the plug is not polarized. Overcurrent protection, as required in section 7 of UL 588, is a readily observable characteristic of seasonal and decorative lighting products that can be determined by a visual observation of whether the lighting product has a fuse holder containing the correct number of fuses. 79 FR at 62086.

    B. Conformance to UL 588 Has Been Effective in Reducing the Risk of Injury

    Conformance to sections 6, 7, 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588, as summarized in Table 1 in section I.D of this preamble, has been effective in reducing the risk of injury from shock and fire associated with below-minimum wire size, insufficient strain relief, and lack of overcurrent protection. CPSC's incident data demonstrate that conformance to UL 588 has coincided with, and may have contributed to, a decline in the risk of injury associated with seasonal and decorative lighting products.

    The preamble to the NPR reviewed the reported death and nonfatal incident data from 1980 through 2013, which demonstrated a decline during that period. See 79 FR at 62086-87. On January 1, 1997, UL 588's requirements for overcurrent protection and minimum wire size took effect; and the current strain relief requirement has been in effect since 1994. Table 3 lists the incidents associated with seasonal and decorative lighting products for the periods 1980-1996 and 2000-2014. The years from 1997 to 1999 would have been transitional years, where older products in consumer homes were being replaced with light strings incorporating the January 1, 1997 changes (minimum wire size and overcurrent protection) in the UL standard. The average number of deaths per year and the average number of nonfatal incidents per year were higher before 1997, and the numbers dropped after 1999. See Tab E of Staff Final Rule Briefing Package.

    Table 3—Incidents Associated With Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products Period 1980-1996 2000-2014 Deaths 202 45 Nonfatal Incidents 762 545 Average Deaths per year 11.9 3.0 Average Nonfatal Incidents per year 44.8 36.3 C. Lighting Products Substantially Comply With UL 588

    The Commission has not articulated a bright-line rule for substantial compliance. Rather, in the rulemaking context, the Commission has stated that the determination of substantial compliance should be made on a case-by-case basis. Seasonal and decorative lighting products' compliance with UL 588 is “substantial,” as that term is used in section 15(j) of the CPSA. The Commission estimates that a majority of seasonal and decorative lighting products, well in excess of 90 percent, sold for consumer use in the United States, likely conforms to UL 588. See 79 FR at 62088. Since issuing the NPR, CPSC has not received any information in the comments, or otherwise, that would change the estimated level of compliance with UL 588.

    IV. Description of the Rule

    The rule regarding seasonal and decorative lighting products creates two new paragraphs in part 1120: one defines the products covered by the rule and the other states the characteristics that must be present for the products not to present a substantial product hazard.

    Definition. Section 1120.2(d) defines a “seasonal and decorative lighting product” as portable, plug-connected, temporary-use lighting products and accessories that have a nominal 120 volt input voltage rating. Lighting products within the scope of the rule are factory-assembled with push-in, midget- or miniature-screw base lampholders connected in series or with candelabra- or intermediate-screw base lampholders connected in parallel, directly across the 120 volt input. Such lighting products include lighted decorative outfits, such as stars, wreathes, candles without shades, light sculptures, blow-molded (plastic) figures, and animated figures. Lighting products outside the scope of the rule include: battery-operated products; solar-powered products; products that operate from a transformer or low-voltage power supply; flexible lighting products incorporating non-replaceable series and series/parallel connected lamps enclosed within a flexible polymeric tube or extrusion; and portable electric lamps that are used to illuminate seasonal decorations.

    This definition is adapted from descriptions of lighting products defined in section 1 of UL 588. Lighting products within the scope of the rule are typically used seasonally (temporarily) and provide only decorative lumination. The products typically are displayed for a relatively short period of time, and then the lighting products are removed and stored until needed again. Lighting products that are excluded from the scope of the rule are subject to different voluntary standards or do not present the same risk of injury.

    Substantial product hazard list. Section 1120.3(c) states that seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not conform to one or more of the following characteristics required in sections 6, 7, 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588 are deemed substantial product hazards under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA:

    (1) Minimum wire size requirements in section 6 of UL 588;

    (2) sufficient strain relief requirements in sections 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588; or

    (3) overcurrent protection requirements in section 7 of UL 588.

    Standards incorporated by reference. Additionally, at the request of the Office of the Federal Register (“OFR”), the Commission is making a technical amendment to part 1120. This technical amendment adds a new section, 1120.4, listing all of the incorporations by reference (“IBR”) for products added to the substantial product hazard list. Thus, the IBR for hand-supported hair dryers and draw strings on children's upper outwear is moved from § 1120.3 to the new § 1120.4. No substantive change is being made to the rule regarding hand-supported hair dryers or drawstrings on children's upper outerwear. The IBR for seasonal and decorative lighting products is also included in the new § 1120.4.

    Incorporation by reference. The OFR has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR recently revised these regulations to require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss, in the preamble of the rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, this preamble summarizes the relevant provisions of UL 588. Table 1 in section I.D of this preamble summarizes the requirements of UL 588. Interested persons may purchase a copy of UL 588 from UL either through UL's Web site, www.UL.com, or by mail at the address provided in the rule. A copy of the standard also can be inspected at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or at NARA, as provided in the rule.

    V. Commission Determination That Seasonal and Decorative Lighting Products That Lack Any One of Three Readily Observable Characteristics Present a Substantial Product Hazard

    To place a product (or class of products) on the list of substantial product hazards pursuant to section 15(j) of the CPSA, the Commission must determine that: (1) The characteristics involved are “readily observable”; (2) the characteristics are addressed by a voluntary standard; (3) the voluntary standard is effective in reducing the risk of injury associated with the consumer products; and (4) products are in substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. Accordingly, based on the information provided in this preamble, for seasonal and decorative lighting products, the Commission determines that:

    • Minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, and overcurrent protection are all readily observable characteristics of seasonal and decorative lighting products. Measurement of minimum wire size and sufficient strain relief can be visually observed, and the presence of overcurrent protection can be visually observed;

    • minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, and overcurrent protection in seasonal and decorative lighting products are addressed by a voluntary standard, UL 588. Minimum wire size is addressed in section 6 of UL 588. Sufficient strain relief is addressed in sections 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588. Overcurrent protection is addressed in section 7 of UL 588;

    • conformance to UL 588 has been effective in reducing the risk of injury from shock and fire associated with seasonal and decorative lighting products. From 1980 to 1996, the reported average number of deaths per year was 11.9, and the reported average number of nonfatal incidents per year was 44.8. After changes to the UL standard, from 2000 to 2014, the reported average number of deaths dropped to 3.0, and the reported average number of nonfatal incidents per year dropped to 36.3. Although decreasing numbers of death and injury may be a result of several factors, conformance with UL 588 coincided with, and likely contributed to, the decline in deaths and injuries associated with seasonal and decorative lighting products; and

    • seasonal and decorative lighting products sold in the United States substantially comply with UL 588. We estimate that more than 90 percent of seasonal and decorative lighting products for sale in the United States comply with the minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, and overcurrent protection provisions in UL 588.

    VI. Effect of the 15(j) Rule

    Section 15(j) of the CPSA allows the Commission to issue a rule specifying that a consumer product or class of consumer products has characteristics whose presence or absence creates a substantial product hazard. A rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA is not a consumer product safety rule, and thus, does not create a mandatory standard that triggers testing or certification requirements under section 14(a) of the CPSA.

    Although a rule issued under section 15(j) of the CPSA is not a consumer product safety rule, placing a consumer product on the substantial product hazard list in 16 CFR part 1120 has some ramifications. A product that is or has a substantial product hazard is subject to the reporting requirements of section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). A manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer that fails to report a substantial product hazard to the Commission is subject to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, and possibly to criminal penalties under section 21 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2070.

    A product that is or contains a substantial product hazard is also subject to corrective action under sections 15(c) and (d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c) and (d). Thus, a rule issued under section 15(j) for seasonal and decorative lighting allows the Commission to order that a manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer of lighting products that do not contain one or more of the three readily observable characteristics to offer to repair or replace the product, or to refund the purchase price to the consumer.

    A product that is offered for import into the United States and is or contains a substantial product hazard shall be refused admission into the United States under section 17(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2066(a). Additionally, CBP has the authority to seize certain products offered for import under the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1595a) (“Tariff Act”), and to assess civil penalties that CBP, by law, is authorized to impose. Section 1595a(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act states that CBP may seize merchandise, and such merchandize may be forfeited if: “its importation or entry is subject to any restriction or prohibition which is imposed by law relating to health, safety, or conservation and the merchandise is not in compliance with the applicable rule, regulation, or statute.”

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires that proposed and final rules be reviewed for the potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. 5 U.S.C. 601-612. In the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR at 62089) the Commission stated that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This statement was based on CPSC staff's review of the roughly 500 companies that import seasonal and decorative lighting products into the United States, finding that a very high percentage, probably in excess of 90 percent of lighting products sold in the United States, already conform to UL 588. Although the Commission received comments stating that a rule would increase costs for manufacturers and consumers, none of the commenters included any data to support their contention. CPSC has not found any data that would alter the analysis provided in the NPR. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

    VIII. Environmental Considerations

    Generally, the Commission's regulations are considered to have little or no potential for affecting the human environment, and environmental assessments and impact statements are not usually required. See 16 CFR 1021.5(a). The final rule to deem seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not contain one or more of three readily observable characteristics to be a substantial product hazard will not have an adverse impact on the environment and is considered to fall within the “categorical exclusion” for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. 16 CFR 1021.5(c).

    IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not require any stakeholder to create, maintain, or disclose information. Thus, no paperwork burden is associated with this final rule, and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) does not apply.

    X. Preemption

    A rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA does not establish a consumer product safety rule. Accordingly, the preemption provisions in section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), do not apply to this rule.

    XI. Effective Date

    The preamble to the proposed rule stated that a final rule deeming that any seasonal and decorative lighting product that does not conform to sections 6, 7, 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588 with regard to minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief, and overcurrent protection is a substantial product hazard would take effect 30 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register. We received no comments on the effective date. Accordingly, the final rule will apply to seasonal and decorative lighting products imported or introduced into commerce on June 3, 2015.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1120

    Administrative practice and procedure, Clothing, Consumer protection, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Lighting.

    For the reasons stated above, and under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 2064(j), 5 U.S.C. 553, and section 3 of Public Law 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008), the Consumer Product Safety Commission amends 16 CFR part 1120 to read as follows:

    PART 1120—SUBSTANTIAL PRODUCT HAZARD LIST 1. The authority citation for part 1120 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2064(j).

    2. In § 1120.2, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 1120.2 Definitions.

    (d) Seasonal and decorative lighting product means portable, plug-connected, temporary-use lighting products and accessories that have a nominal 120 volt input voltage rating. Lighting products within the scope of the rule are factory-assembled with push-in, midget- or miniature-screw base lampholders connected in series or with candelabra- or intermediate-screw base lampholders connected in parallel, directly across the 120 volt input. Such lighting products include lighted decorative outfits, such as stars, wreathes, candles without shades, light sculptures, blow-molded (plastic) figures, and animated figures. Lighting products outside the scope of the rule include: Battery-operated products; solar-powered products; products that operate from a transformer or low-voltage power supply; flexible lighting products incorporating non-replaceable series and series/parallel connected lamps enclosed within a flexible polymeric tube or extrusion; and portable electric lamps that are used to illuminate seasonal decorations.

    3. In § 1120.3, republish the introductory text, revise paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), and add paragraph (c), to read as follows:
    § 1120.3 Products deemed to be substantial product hazards.

    The following products or class of products shall be deemed to be substantial product hazards under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA:

    (a) Hand-supported hair dryers that do not provide integral immersion protection in compliance with the requirements of section 5 of UL 859, or section 6 of UL 1727 (incorporated by reference, see § 1120.4).

    (b)(1) Children's upper outerwear in sizes 2T to 16 or the equivalent, and having one or more drawstrings, that is subject to, but not in conformance with, the requirements of ASTM F 1816-97 (incorporated by reference, see § 1120.4).

    (c) Seasonal and decorative lighting products that lack one or more of the following characteristics in conformance with requirements in sections 6, 7, 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588 (incorporated by reference, see § 1120.4):

    (1) Minimum wire size requirements in section 6 of UL 588;

    (2) Sufficient strain relief requirements in sections 15, 71, 79, and SB15 of UL 588; or

    (3) Overcurrent protection requirements in section 7 of UL 588.

    4. Add § 1120.4 to read as follows:
    § 1120.4 Standards incorporated by reference.

    (a) The standards required in this part are incorporated by reference (“IBR”) into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect all approved material at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    (b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA, telephone: 610-832-9585; http://www2.astm.org/.

    (1) ASTM F 1816-97, Standard Safety Specification for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear, approved June 10, 1997, published August 1998 (“ASTM F 1816-97”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(b).

    (2) [Reserved]

    (c) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc (“UL”), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062 or through UL's Web site: www.UL.com.

    (1) UL 588, Standard for Safety for Seasonal and Holiday Decorative Products, 18th Edition, approved August 21, 2000 (“UL 588”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(c).

    (2) UL 859, Standard for Safety for Household Electric Personal Grooming Appliances, 10th Edition, approved August 30, 2002, and revised through June 3, 2010 (“UL 859”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(a).

    (3) UL 1727, Standard for Safety for Commercial Electric Personal Grooming Appliances, 4th Edition, approved March 25, 1999, and revised through June 25, 2010 (“UL 1727”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(a).

    Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10342 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 890 [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1903] Medical Devices; Physical Medicine Devices; Classification of the Powered Lower Extremity Exoskeleton; Republication AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order; republication.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is republishing in its entirety a final order entitled “Medical Devices; Physical Medicine Devices; Classification of the Powered Lower Extremity Exoskeleton” that published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2015. FDA is republishing to correct an inadvertent omission of information. FDA is classifying the powered lower extremity exoskeleton into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the powered lower extremity exoskeleton's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

    DATES:

    This order is effective May 4, 2015. The classification was applicable on June 26, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Hoffmann, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1434, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6476, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

    Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

    In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

    On June 22, 2013, Argo Medical Technologies, Inc., submitted a request for classification of the ReWalk under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

    In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Therefore, on June 26, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 890.3480.

    Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a powered lower extremity exoskeleton will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The device is assigned the generic name powered lower extremity exoskeleton, and it is identified as a prescription device that is composed of an external, powered, motorized orthosis that is placed over a person's paralyzed or weakened limbs for medical purposes.

    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device, as well as the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

    Table 1—Powered Lower Extremity Exoskeleton Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measure Instability, falls, and associated injuries Clinical testing Training Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis Wireless testing Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and electromagnetic interference (EMI) testing Electrical safety testing Design characteristics Non-clinical performance testing Water/particle ingress testing Durability testing Battery testing Labeling Bruising, skin abrasion, pressure sores, soft tissue injury Clinical testing Training Labeling Diastolic hypertension and changes in blood pressure, and heart rate Clinical testing Training Labeling Adverse tissue reaction Biocompatibility assessment Premature battery failure Battery testing Labeling Interference with other electrical equipment/devices EMC/EMI testing Labeling Burns, electrical shock Electrical safety testing Thermal testing Labeling Device malfunction resulting in unanticipated operation (e.g., device stoppage, unintended movement) Clinical testing Non-clinical performance testing Training Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis Electrical safety testing Battery testing Water/particle ingress testing Wireless testing EMC/EMI testing Flammability testing Labeling Use error Clinical testing Training Labeling

    FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness:

    • Elements of the device materials that may contact the patient must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    • Appropriate analysis/testing must validate electronic compatibility/interference (EMC/EMI), electrical safety, thermal safety, mechanical safety, battery performance and safety, and wireless performance, if applicable.

    • Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    • Design characteristics must ensure geometry and materials composition are consistent with intended use.

    • Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Performance testing must include:

    ○ Mechanical bench testing (including durability testing) to demonstrate that the device will withstand forces, conditions, and environments encountered during use;

    ○ simulated use testing (i.e., cyclic loading testing) to demonstrate performance of device commands and safeguard under worst case conditions and after durability testing;

    ○ verification and validation of manual override controls are necessary, if present;

    ○ the accuracy of device features and safeguards; and

    ○ device functionality in terms of flame retardant materials, liquid/particle ingress prevention, sensor and actuator performance, and motor performance.

    • Clinical testing must demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safe and effective use and capture any adverse events observed during clinical use when used under the proposed conditions of use, which must include considerations for:

    ○ Level of supervision necessary and

    ○ environment of use (e.g., indoors and/or outdoors), including obstacles and terrain representative of the intended use environment.

    • A training program must be included with sufficient educational elements so that upon completion of training program, the clinician, user, and companion can:

    ○ Identify the safe environments for device use,

    ○ use all safety features of device, and

    ○ operate the device in simulated or actual use environments representative of indicated environments and use.

    • Labeling for the Physician and User must include the following:

    ○ Appropriate instructions, warning, cautions, limitations, and information related to the necessary safeguards of the device, including warning against activities and environments that may put the user at greater risk;

    ○ specific instructions and the clinical training needed for the safe use of the device, which includes:

    Instructions on assembling the device in all available configurations;

    instructions on fitting the patient;

    instructions and explanations of all available programs and how to program the device;

    instructions and explanation of all controls, input, and outputs;

    instructions on all available modes or states of the device;

    instructions on all safety features of the device; and

    instructions for properly maintaining the device;

    ○ Information on the patient population for which the device has been demonstrated to have a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness;

    ○ pertinent non-clinical testing information (e.g., EMC, battery longevity); and

    ○ a detailed summary of the clinical testing including:

    Adverse events encountered under use conditions,

    summary of study outcomes and endpoints, and

    information pertinent to use of the device including the conditions under which the device was studied (e.g., level of supervision or assistance, and environment of use (e.g., indoors and/or outdoors) including obstacles and terrain).

    Powered lower extremity exoskeleton devices are restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the powered lower extremity exoskeleton they intend to market.

    II. Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    IV. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. K131798: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2) from Argo Medical Technologies, Inc., dated June 22, 2013. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 890

    Medical devices, Physical medicine devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 890 is amended as follows:

    PART 890—PHYSICAL MEDICINE DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 890 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

    2. Revise § 890.3480 to read as follows:
    § 890.3480 Powered lower extremity exoskeleton.

    (a) Identification. A powered lower extremity exoskeleton is a prescription device that is composed of an external, powered, motorized orthosis that is placed over a person's paralyzed or weakened limbs for medical purposes.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) Elements of the device materials that may contact the patient must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    (2) Appropriate analysis/testing must validate electromagnetic compatibility/interference (EMC/EMI), electrical safety, thermal safety, mechanical safety, battery performance and safety, and wireless performance, if applicable.

    (3) Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    (4) Design characteristics must ensure geometry and materials composition are consistent with intended use.

    (5) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Performance testing must include:

    (i) Mechanical bench testing (including durability testing) to demonstrate that the device will withstand forces, conditions, and environments encountered during use;

    (ii) Simulated use testing (i.e., cyclic loading testing) to demonstrate performance of device commands and safeguard under worst case conditions and after durability testing;

    (iii) Verification and validation of manual override controls are necessary, if present;

    (iv) The accuracy of device features and safeguards; and

    (v) Device functionality in terms of flame retardant materials, liquid/particle ingress prevention, sensor and actuator performance, and motor performance.

    (6) Clinical testing must demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safe and effective use and capture any adverse events observed during clinical use when used under the proposed conditions of use, which must include considerations for:

    (i) Level of supervision necessary, and

    (ii) Environment of use (e.g., indoors and/or outdoors) including obstacles and terrain representative of the intended use environment.

    (7) A training program must be included with sufficient educational elements so that upon completion of training program, the clinician, user, and companion can:

    (i) Identify the safe environments for device use,

    (ii) Use all safety features of device, and

    (iii) Operate the device in simulated or actual use environments representative of indicated environments and use.

    (8) Labeling for the Physician and User must include the following:

    (i) Appropriate instructions, warning, cautions, limitations, and information related to the necessary safeguards of the device, including warning against activities and environments that may put the user at greater risk.

    (ii) Specific instructions and the clinical training needed for the safe use of the device, which includes:

    (A) Instructions on assembling the device in all available configurations;

    (B) Instructions on fitting the patient;

    (C) Instructions and explanations of all available programs and how to program the device;

    (D) Instructions and explanation of all controls, input, and outputs;

    (E) Instructions on all available modes or states of the device;

    (F) Instructions on all safety features of the device; and

    (G) Instructions for properly maintaining the device.

    (iii) Information on the patient population for which the device has been demonstrated to have a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

    (iv) Pertinent non-clinical testing information (e.g., EMC, battery longevity).

    (v) A detailed summary of the clinical testing including:

    (A) Adverse events encountered under use conditions,

    (B) Summary of study outcomes and endpoints, and

    (C) Information pertinent to use of the device including the conditions under which the device was studied (e.g., level of supervision or assistance, and environment of use (e.g., indoors and/or outdoors) including obstacles and terrain).

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10332 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9708] RIN 1545-BK57; RIN 1545-BL30; RIN 1545-BL58 Additional Requirements for Charitable Hospitals; Community Health Needs Assessments for Charitable; Requirements of a Section 4959 Excise Tax Return and Time for Filing the Return; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9708) that were published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2014 (79 FR 78954). The final regulations provide guidance regarding the requirements for charitable hospital organizations added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective on May 4, 2015 and applicable beginning December 31, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy F. Giuliano, Amber L. MacKenzie, or Stephanie N. Robbins at (202) 317-5800 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The final regulations (TD 9708) that are the subject of this correction is under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations (TD 9708) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.6033-2 is amended by revising paragraph (k)(4) to read as follows:
    § 1.6033-2 Return by exempt organizations (taxable years beginning after December 31, 1969) and returns by certain nonexempt organizations (taxable years beginning after December 31, 1980).

    (k) * * *

    (4) The applicability of paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(l) of this section shall be limited to returns filed for taxable years ending after December 29, 2014.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-10340 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1, 53, and 602 [TD 9708] RIN 1545-BK57; RIN 1545-BL30; RIN 1545-BL58 Additional Requirements for Charitable Hospitals; Community Health Needs Assessments for Charitable; Requirements of a Section 4959 Excise Tax Return and Time for Filing the Return; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9708) that were published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2014 (79 FR 78954). The final regulations provide guidance regarding the requirements for charitable hospital organizations added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective on May 4, 2015 and applicable beginning December 31, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy F. Giuliano, Amber L. MacKenzie, or Stephanie N. Robbins at (202) 317-5800 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The final regulations (TD 9708) that are the subject of this correction are under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations (TD 9708) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9708), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2014-30525, are corrected as follows:

    1. On page 78996, in the preamble, the first column, under the paragraph heading “Effective/Applicability Dates”, the second line from the bottom of the third full paragraph, the language “6033 apply to returns filed on or after” is corrected to read “6033 apply to returns filed for taxable years ending after”.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-10341 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 320 [Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0068] Privacy Act; Implementation AGENCY:

    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is updating the NGA Privacy Act Program by adding the (k)(2) and (k)(5) exemptions to accurately describe the basis for exempting the records in the system of records notice NGA-010, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Security Financial Disclosure Reporting Records System. In this rulemaking, the NGA proposes to exempt portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil and administrative enforcement requirements.

    DATES:

    The rule will be effective on July 13, 2015 unless adverse comments are received by July 6, 2015. If adverse comment is received, the Department of Defense will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth James, Acting Branch Chief, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Financial Disclosure Program Manager, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150 or by calling 571-557-0110.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This direct final rule makes non-substantive changes to the NGA rules. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD's program by ensuring the integrity of the security and counterintelligence records by the NGA and the Department of Defense.

    This rule is being published as a direct final rule as the Department of Defense does not expect to receive any adverse comments, and so a proposed rule is unnecessary.

    Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments

    DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

    Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

    It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. This rule does not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive orders.

    Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

    Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Section 202, Public Law 104-4, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that this rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not have federalism implications. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 320

    Privacy.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 320 is amended as follows:

    PART 320—NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (NGA) 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 320 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5 U.S.C. 552a).

    2. In § 320.12, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 320.12 Exemptions.

    (f) System identifier and name: NGA-010, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Security Financial Disclosure Reporting Records System.

    (1) Exemptions: Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access to the information exempt to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source. When claimed, this exemption allows limited protection of investigative reports maintained in a system of records used in personnel or administrative actions. Investigative material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

    (2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5).

    (3) Reasons: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), and (k)(5) the Director of NGA has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitation set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

    (i) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of NGA as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process. Analyst case notes will be kept separate from the individual's data submission. Those case notes will contain investigative case leads and summaries, sensitive processes, evidence gathered from external sources and potential referrals to law enforcement agencies.

    (ii) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of NGA or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.

    (iii) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

    (iv) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore NGA is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10061 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0293] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Henry Ford Avenue railroad drawbridge across Cerritos Channel, mile 4.8, at Long Beach, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform an annual bridge inspection. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from May 4, 2015 to 6 p.m. on May 6, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on April 27, 2015, until May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0293], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Port of Los Angeles has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Henry Ford Avenue railroad drawbridge, mile 4.8, over Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides 7 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.147(b), the drawspan is maintained in the fully open position, except when a train is crossing or for maintenance. When the draw is in the closed position, it opens on signal. Navigation on the waterway is mainly commercial traffic, servicing ships entering and leaving the port.

    The Port of Los Angeles has requested the drawbridge be allowed to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 27, April 28, and May 6, 2015, so they can perform the annual bridge inspection, looking for cracks or damage. Mariners will need to contact the bridge tender to inquire as to the status of the drawbridge when transiting through. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. There is an alternative route, transiting around the south side of Terminal Island, for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will inform waterway users of this temporary deviation via our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, to minimize resulting navigational impacts.

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

    Dated: April 24, 2015. D.H. Sulouff, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10377 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0241] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Alameda, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Alameda County highway drawbridge at Park Street across the Oakland Inner Harbor, mile 5.2, at Alameda, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to make necessary repairs and rehabilitation of the bridge. This deviation allows single leaf operation of the double leaf, bascule-style drawbridge during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8:30 p.m. on May 11, 2015 to 5 a.m. on August 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0241], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Alameda County has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Alameda County highway bridge at Park Street, mile 5.2, over Oakland Inner Harbor, at Alameda, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides horizontal clearance of 241 feet between pier fenders. During single leaf operation, horizontal clearance is reduced to approximately 100 feet. The drawbridge provides a vertical clearance of 15 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position. As required by 33 CFR 117.181, the draw opens on signal; except that, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels. However, the draw shall open during the above closed periods for vessels which must for reasons of safety, move on a tide or slack water, if at least two hours notice is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial, recreational, emergency and law enforcement vessels.

    During the deviation period, the drawspan will be operated with only one leaf between 8:30 p.m. and 5 a.m., Sunday through Thursday, while the opposite leaf will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position for rehabilitation. A two hour advance notice will be required from vessel operators for a double leaf opening. At night and on weekends, the drawbridge will resume the normal double leaf operation, when work is not being performed on the bridge. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for larger vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the waterway users via our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: April 24, 2015. D.H. Sulouff, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10373 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 77 RIN 2900-AP07 Grants for Adaptive Sports Programs for Disabled Veterans and Disabled Members of the Armed Forces AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations to establish a new program to provide grants to eligible entities to provide adaptive sports activities to disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces. This rulemaking is necessary to implement a change in the law that authorizes VA to make grants to entities other than the United States Olympic Committee for adaptive sports programs. It establishes procedures for evaluating grant applications under this grant program, and otherwise administering the grant program. This rule implements section 5 of the VA Expiring Authorities Extension Act of 2013.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This final rule is effective May 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael F. Welch, Program Specialist, Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events (002C), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7136. (This is not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    VA is required by 38 U.S.C. 521A to “carry out a program under which the Secretary may make grants to eligible entities for planning, developing, managing, and implementing programs to provide adaptive sports opportunities for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces.” On July 1, 2014, VA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register, 79 FR 37211, establishing regulations for conducting the grant program including evaluation of grant applications and otherwise administering the grant program in accordance with the law.

    Interested persons were invited to submit written comments on or before September 2, 2014. We received two comments on the interim final rule from two individuals. One commenter praised the adaptive sports programs described in the interim final rule, noting that they “would be beneficial in so many ways” for disabled veterans, and stated that taking care of veterans “should be one of the highest, if not the highest, priorities of our government.” We agree that these programs are very beneficial to disabled veterans and appreciate the comment.

    Another commenter also stated that adaptive sports programs would be beneficial for disabled veterans and urged the Federal government to “provide ways for these people to enjoy live [sic] to their fullest.” The commenter noted that these programs will help them reintegrate into society. We agree with the commenter these programs are beneficial and VA will continue to explore ways to improve the lives of disabled veterans. However, VA does not make any changes based on the submitted comments.

    We are making a minor technical correction. The interim final rule text failed to include an authority citation. Therefore, we are adding the authority citation in this final rule.

    For the reasons stated above, the interim final rule is adopted with change.

    Effect of Rulemaking

    The Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this rulemaking, represents the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures will be authorized. All VA guidance will be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance will be superseded by this rulemaking.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    In the interim final rule, 79 FR 37211, 37216, VA cited section 5 of Public Law 113-59 (December 20, 2013) as the authority to issue the rulemaking without prior notice and opportunity to comment. As previously discussed, VA received two comments. Before issuing this final rule, VA considered both of the comments which supported the rulemaking and did not warrant any change to the rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507) requires VA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi).

    This final rule contains approved information collections that are within the scope of OMB control numbers 4040-0004 (formerly 0348-0043) for Standard Form 424 and 4040-0008 (formerly 0348-0041) for Standard Form 424C. The final rule also contains provisions that constitute a new information collection. We summarized and sought public comment on these provisions, found in §§ 77.4, 77.8, 77.9, 77.13, 77.16, and 77.19, in the interim final rule published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2014. 79 FR 37211. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA submitted the collection to OMB for its review. OMB approved the new information collection and assigned OMB control number 2900-0820.

    This final rule updates §§ 77.4, 77.8, 77.9, 77.13, 77.16, and 77.19 by adding this new control number and updates §§ 77.4, 77.6, and 77.9 by removing the references to obsolete OMB control numbers 0348-0041 and 0348-0043 and inserting in their place OMB control numbers 4040-0008 and 4040-0004, respectively.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Due to demographic, economic, infrastructure, and many other factors, a large percentage of small adaptive sports entities do not have sufficient participants, programs and outreach to qualify as an eligible entity under Public Law 113-59. In regions where the disabled veteran population is small relative to participants needed in the entity's applicable adaptive sports areas of expertise, an adaptive sports entity faces constraints in developing a viable grant program. Therefore, the number of small adaptive sports entities involved will be few and their existing programs that meet threshold criteria for eligibility will indicate competence to conduct a viable adaptive sports grant program. There will be no economic impact on any of the eligible entities, as they are not required to provide matching funds to obtain the maximum grant allowance as established under 38 U.S.C. 521A. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 through FYTD.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.034, Grants for Adaptive Sports Programs for Disabled Veterans and Disabled Members of the Armed Forces.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 16, 2015, for publication.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 77

    Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.

    Dated: April 29, 2015 Jeffrey M. Martin, Program Manager, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 38 CFR chapter I by adding a new part 77 that was published at 79 FR 37211 on July 1, 2014, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

    PART 77—GRANTS FOR ADAPTIVE SPORTS PROGRAMS FOR DISABLED VETERANS AND DISABLED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 1. The authority citation is added to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501, 521A, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 77.4, revise the parenthetical at the end of the section to read as follows:
    § 77.4 Applications. (OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control numbers 2900-0820, 4040-0004 for Standard Form 424, and 4040-0008 for Standard Form 424C.)
    3. In § 77.6, revise the parenthetical at the end of the section to read as follows:
    § 77.6 Amendments to grant applications. (OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 4040-0004 for Standard Form 424 and 4040-0008 for Standard Form 424C.)
    4. In § 77.8, revise the parenthetical at the end of the section to read as follows:
    § 77.8 Additional requirements and procedures for applications. (OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0820.)
    5. In § 77.9, revise the parenthetical at the end of the section to read as follows:
    § 77.9 Use of pre-applications. (OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control numbers 2900-0820, 4040-0004 for Standard Form 424, and 4040-0008 for Standard Form 424C.)
    6. In § 77.13, revise the parenthetical at the end of the section to read as follows:
    § 77.13 Applications for noncompetitive adaptive sports grants. (OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0820.)
    7. In § 77.16, revise the parenthetical at the end of the section to read as follows:
    § 77.16 Grantee reporting requirements. (OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0820.)
    8. In § 77.19, revise the parenthetical at the end of the section to read as follows:
    § 77.19 Financial management. (OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0820.)
    [FR Doc. 2015-10358 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 450 [EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0884; FRL-9926-32-OW] Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category; Correcting Amendment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 6, 2014, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register revising effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the construction and development point source category. This correcting amendment corrects errors in the amendatory language of the March 6, 2014 final rule.

    DATES:

    The indefinite stay at 40 CFR 450.22(a) and (b) is lifted and this rule is effective on May 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jesse W. Pritts, Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Water (4303T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1038; fax number: 202-566-1053; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    EPA published a final rule on March 6, 2014 (79 FR 12661) to amend 40 CFR part 450. The amendatory instructions EPA provided in this final rule for the changes at 40 CFR 450.22(a) and (b) were incorrect. Since the provisions at § 450.22(a) and (b) had been previously indefinitely stayed by EPA, the amendatory instructions should have included a lift of the stay so that the CFR could reflect that those provisions had been amended. EPA did not include language lifting the stay in the March 6, 2014 amendatory instructions. This action provides corrected amendatory instructions so that the amendments promulgated on March 6, 2014 can be incorporated into the CFR.

    EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is unnecessary because this action only incorporates previously promulgated regulatory changes into the CFR. EPA inadvertently provided incorrect instructions to incorporate those changes into the CFR. EPA can identify no reason why the public would be interested in having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior to this action being finalized since this action does not alter any regulatory requirements.

    EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA 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.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) 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 alter any regulatory requirements, and thus there are no affected parties as explained above. Rather, this action merely corrects inadvertent errors in the amendatory language for the CFR. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

    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.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action corrects an inadvertent error in the amendatory instructions of EPA's March 6, 2014, final rule regarding the construction and development point source category and imposes no information collection burden on the industry because it does not contain any information collection activities.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Administrator certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action corrects an inadvertent error in the amendatory instructions of EPA's March 6, 2014, final rule regarding the construction and development point source category and imposes no additional requirements on the industry.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it does not concern or affect human health or environmental risk.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule, as discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble, which includes the basis for that finding.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 450

    Environmental protection, Construction industry, Land development, Water pollution control.

    Dated: April 24, 2015. Kenneth J. Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

    In rule FR Doc. 2014-04612 published on March 6, 2014, (79 FR 12661), make the following correction:

    On page 12667, in the second column, revise amendatory instruction number 4. to read as follows:

    § 450.22 [Corrected]
    4. Amend § 450.22 by: a. Lifting the indefinite stay on paragraphs (a) and (b); and b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (b).
    [FR Doc. 2015-10362 Filed 5-1-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 85 Monday, May 4, 2015 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I [NRC-2014-0044] RIN 3150-AJ38 Reactor Effluents AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to obtain input from stakeholders on the development of a regulatory basis for the NRC's regulations governing radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants. The regulatory basis would support potential changes to better align the NRC regulations governing dose assessments for radioactive effluents from nuclear power plant operations with the most recent terminology and dose-related methodology published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) contained in the ICRP Publication 103 (2007). The NRC has identified specific questions and issues with respect to a possible revision of the NRC's current regulations and guidance governing radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents from nuclear power plants. The NRC seeks public and other stakeholder input on these questions and issues in order to develop the regulatory basis.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by September 1, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0044. 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.

    Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Lauron, telephone: 301-415-2736, email: [email protected]; or Nishka Devaser, telephone: 301-415-5196, email: [email protected] Both of the Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0044 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-2014-0044.

    • 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 ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is referenced in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are also 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.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0044 in the subject line of your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    The requirements of appendix I of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) were first published in 1975 (40 FR 19439; May 5, 1975) and are based on the terminology and methodology for dose assessment described in ICRP Publication 2 (1959).1 The requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, apply to persons who hold NRC licenses to operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50 or 10 CFR part 52. Specifically, 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, prescribes the design and performance of equipment used to control radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents to the environment and doses to members of the public from nuclear power plants during normal operations and expected operational occurrences. The 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations provide guidance to licensees for developing technical specifications, as required by 10 CFR 50.36a(a), to keep levels of radioactive materials in effluents released in unrestricted areas “As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA).2

    1 ICRP Publication 2 (1959), “Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation.” The condensed ICRP reference formats used in this document are “ICRP Publication 103,” and “ICRP Publication 103 (2007).”

    2 The NRC's regulations (10 CFR 20.1003) define ALARA as “making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits in this part [10 CFR part 20] as is practical consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken . . . .”

    The ALARA requirements for equipment designed to control releases of radioactive materials are contained in various provisions in 10 CFR parts 50 and 52, and the design objectives are contained in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.3 The dose criteria are based on ICRP Publication 2 dosimetry (i.e., total body and critical organ dose concepts and models). Since its implementation in 1975, the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations were revised several times, but none of the amendments involved an alignment of the dosimetry basis with that of the NRC's general radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR part 20.

    3 The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.34a establish design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents. These releases are reported to the NRC in accordance with requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.36a. In addition, 10 CFR 52.47, 52.79, 52.137, and 52.157 provide that applications for design certification, combined license, design approval, or manufacturing license, respectively, shall include a description of the equipment and procedures for the control of gaseous and liquid effluents and for the maintenance and use of equipment installed in radioactive waste systems.

    In 1991, the NRC substantively amended its 10 CFR part 20 regulations (56 FR 23360; May 21, 1991). The purpose of the 1991 amendments was to adopt the basic tenets of the ICRP system of radiation dose limitation described in ICRP Publication 26 (1977), “Recommendations of the ICRP.” The 1991 amendments to 10 CFR part 20 were also based upon ICRP Publication 30 (1979-1988), “Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers,” including its four parts, four supplements and index, which were published during the period of 1979 through 1988. The concern with the current 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations, guidance, and software that supports the guidance is that they are based on dosimetry concepts issued in 1959 under the recommendations of ICRP Publication 2, and as such, no longer align with those used in 10 CFR part 20. In total, the ICRP has updated its terminology and methodology for dose assessments three times since 1959. The most recent terminology and methodology for dose assessments are described in ICRP Publication 103, which was published in 2007.4

    4 ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4).

    In response to the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations, the NRC staff prepared two papers for the Commission's review, SECY-08-0197, “Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” dated December 18, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091310193), and SECY-12-0064, “Recommendations for Policy and Technical Direction to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance,” dated April 25, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML121020108). Both papers considered potential revisions to the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The papers are publicly available and described in further detail below.5

    5 The NRC staff has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for its radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR part 20 (79 FR 43284; July 25, 2014). The 10 CFR part 20 ANPR described many potential revisions to the 10 CFR part 20 regulations, including a closer alignment with the ICRP Publication 103 dosimetry and terminology recommendations.

    The SECY-08-0197 paper described and evaluated the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations along with an NRC staff recommendation that the Commission approve a closer alignment of the NRC regulatory framework with the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103. The NRC staff identified a number of recommendations to achieve this alignment, including (1) the development of a technical basis, or the rationale, for revising radiation protection regulations and (2) outreach with stakeholders and interested parties to identify issues, options, and potential impacts. The NRC staff stated that it would provide the Commission with the results of the stakeholder and interested party interactions, the scope of any proposed rulemaking, regulatory analysis of costs and benefits, evaluation of necessary policy and implementation issues, the resources, and the projected rulemaking completion date, which would be dependent on the ICRP's development of essential technical information. At present, the ICRP is still developing this technical information and it is currently scheduled for publication in 2015.

    The Commission made findings and provided direction to the NRC staff in staff requirements memorandum (SRM), SRM-SECY-08-0197, “Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” dated April 2, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090920103). In SRM-SECY-08-0197, the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to “begin engagement with stakeholders and interested parties to initiate development of the technical basis for a possible revision of the NRC's radiation protection regulations, as appropriate and where scientifically justified, to achieve greater alignment with the 2007 recommendations . . . contained in ICRP Publication 103.” The Commission agreed with the NRC staff and the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) “that the current regulatory framework continues to provide adequate protection of the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment.” The Commission further stated, “[f]rom a safety regulation perspective, ICRP Publication 103 proposes measures that go beyond what is needed to provide for adequate protection,” and that “[t]his point should be emphasized when engaging stakeholders and interested parties, and thereby focus the discussion on discerning the benefits and burdens associated with revising the radiation protection regulatory framework,” which includes 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    In response to the Commission's direction in SRM-SECY-08-0197, the NRC staff engaged in extensive stakeholder outreach activities on the broad issues arising from a possible revision of the NRC's radiation protection framework. Three Federal Register notices (FRNs) were issued requesting public feedback and comments (74 FR 32198, July 7, 2009; 75 FR 59160, September 27, 2010; and 76 FR 53847, August 30, 2011). Presentations were made and discussions were held at a variety of professional societies, licensee organizations, public interest groups, and State organizations (e.g., Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and Agreement States). In the fall of 2010, the NRC staff conducted a series of facilitated roundtable workshops in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, CA, and Houston, TX. Each workshop included representatives from a broad range of users of radioactive material. This process provided an opportunity for various groups of stakeholders to have a more focused discussion. The October 2010 workshop in Washington, DC, focused on the nuclear power and fuel cycle industries, and the radiation protection programs of other Federal agencies, (e.g., U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Navy, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, and National Institutes of Health). Some of the participants at the Washington, DC, workshop indicated a general support for an integrated alignment of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations with the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103. Participants also urged a coordinated revision of the NRC's regulations with the requirements of EPA's 40 CFR part 190 because the NRC requires licensees to follow this EPA requirement through the NRC's regulation in 10 CFR 20.1301(e). Finally, some participants noted a concern as to the justification for any revision of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, as it is not a safety standard and speculated that such a revision would be costly to the industry. Transcripts of each workshop and all written comments received in response to the FRNs are publicly available through the NRC's public Web site on the page entitled, “Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance,” http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/potential-rulemaking/opt-revise.html.

    In addition to the national outreach described above, the NRC's staff participated in international outreach activities in response to the Commission's direction in SRM-SECY-08-0197. The NRC staff's activities during this time included participation in the revision of the International Basic Safety Standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), from 2009 through its completion in the second quarter of 2013, and observation of the revision of the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive in the European Union. The IAEA's and Euratom's revisions focused on aligning their requirements with the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103.

    In SECY-12-0064, the NRC staff recommended amending the NRC's regulatory framework, including 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, to better align with those ICRP Publication 103 recommendations concerning terminology and dose calculation methodologies for estimating radiation exposure and risk. The NRC staff cautioned, however, that the NRC should not initiate a rulemaking to better align with these ICRP Publication 103 recommendations until the ICRP publishes its updated dose coefficients and other supporting information, thereby allowing the NRC to engage in a single rulemaking effort. The NRC staff also recommended that it continue to engage in stakeholder outreach.

    In SRM-SECY-12-0064, “Recommendations for Policy and Technical Direction to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance,” dated December 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12352A133), the Commission directed the NRC staff to develop a regulatory basis for proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 20 and to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, in parallel, for the purpose of aligning each with the most recent methodology and terminology for dose assessment (namely, the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations). With respect to potential changes to the 10 CFR part 20 regulations, the NRC issued an ANPR on July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43284).6 The potential changes to the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations under consideration also involve a closer alignment of these regulations with the recommendations in ICRP Publication 103 concerning terminology and dose calculation methodologies for estimating radiation exposure and risk due to effluent releases. The NRC staff will coordinate the development of both regulatory bases together, including consideration of public comments (some of which have already been received) that raise matters common to both sets of regulations. If rulemaking is eventually promulgated, this approach would help ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations would be based on a common dosimetry basis, terminology, and dose calculation methodology. A closer alignment of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with ICRP Publication 103 would also modernize the NRC's design objectives, regulatory guidance, and supporting computer software.

    6 The 10 CFR part 20 ANPR is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2009-0279. On November 20, 2014 (79 FR 69065), the NRC extended the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR comment period to March 24, 2015. On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14033), the NRC extended the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR comment period a second time, to June 22, 2015.

    The EPA is also examining possible revisions to the “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,” 40 CFR part 190, which applies to the entire nuclear fuel cycle.7

    7 The 40 CFR part 190 ANPR was published by EPA on February 4, 2014 (79 FR 6509), and is available on www.regulations.gov under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0689.

    Section II of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, assigns design objectives for doses due to liquid and gaseous effluents. Under Section II.A of appendix I, the annual design objectives for liquid effluents from all pathways of exposure are 0.03 milliSievert (mSv) (3 millirem (mrem)) to the total body and 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) to any organ. Under Section II.B, the annual design objectives for noble gases in gaseous effluents are 0.1 milliGray (mGy) (10 millirad (mrad)) gamma-air dose and 0.2 mGy (20 mrad) beta-air dose, with provisions for increasing or decreasing the design objectives based on total body dose and skin dose. Under Section II.C of appendix I, the annual design objective for radioactive iodines and particulates in gaseous effluents is 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) to any organ.

    These design objectives are referenced to the total body and various organs of the human body in accordance with the 1959 recommendations of ICRP Publication 2. ICRP Publication 103 has a larger list of organs and suggests effective dose may be a good indicator of health risk for very low exposures, like those normally encountered with radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants. The design objectives apply to each reactor unit and to radioactive releases to unrestricted areas.

    Section II.D of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, concerns the use of cost-benefit ratios, to ensure facilities use radwaste treatment technology that can reduce the dose to the population within 50 miles of the reactor. The cost-benefit criteria are $1,000 per total body man-rem and $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem. The design objectives and cost benefit criteria may need to be revised to better align 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103. For example, the dose calculation methodologies in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I (based on ICRP Publication 2), result in a total body dose, while the dose calculation methodologies in ICRP Publication 103 result in an effective dose. Although both calculation methodologies result in an estimate of the dose to an individual, different assumptions are used in each calculation. As a result, the estimated doses to the individual will be different, but the differences are not expected to be significant with respect to radiological protection for members of the public. A more exact estimate of the differences in dose estimates between the two calculation methodologies will be available once all of the dose coefficients for ICRP Publication 103 are published, which is currently scheduled for 2015. A summary of the differences in the dose estimates between ICRP Publication 2 and ICRP Publication 103 methodologies is expected to be included in the regulatory basis document.

    Some of the design objectives in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, are stated in terms of organ dose. The ICRP Publication 103 indicates that the primary use of effective dose is for demonstrating compliance with dose limits. As a result, the NRC is interested in public comments on whether the concept of the organ dose, used in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives, should be replaced with effective dose. The ICRP Publication 103 indicates the effective dose is particularly suited to cases where the estimated doses are much less than the annual limit for a member of the public (i.e., 0.1 mSv or 100 mrem per 10 CFR 20.1301). Additionally, if the organ dose design objectives were to be eliminated, the NRC is interested in public comments on what new values may be assigned to the effective dose values that would replace the organ doses.

    In addition, 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, includes additional design objectives in Docket RM-50-2, “Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff, Guides on Design Objectives for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors” (February 20, 1974, pp. 25-30).8 For liquid or gaseous effluents, considering all release pathways, the design objective for the site is an annual dose to the total body or to any organ of an individual in an unrestricted area not to exceed 0.05 mSv (5 mrem). For gaseous effluents, as radioactive iodines and particulates in consideration of all release pathways, the design objective for the site is an annual dose to any organ of an individual in an unrestricted area not to exceed 0.15 mSv (15 mrem). The design objective for radioactivity in liquid effluents, excluding tritium and dissolved gases, is a calculated annual quantity not to exceed 5 Curies (Ci) (185 gigaBequerel (GBq)) per reactor unit. Additionally, the design objective for I-131 in gaseous effluents is a calculated annual quantity not to exceed 1 Ci (37 GBq) per reactor unit. The annual design objective for radioactive material above background in gaseous effluents is a calculated quantity not to exceed 0.1 mGy (10 mrad) gamma-air dose and 0.2 mGy (20 mrad) beta-air dose, with provisions for increasing or decreasing the design objectives based on total body dose and skin dose. The Docket RM-50-2 objectives and dose limits are applicable to reactor construction permit applications that were docketed on or after January 2, 1971, and prior to June 4, 1976. As a result, compliance with the Docket RM-50-2 criteria would relieve such applicants from the other cost-benefit provisions of Section II.D of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    8 The “Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff” in Docket RM-50-2 is attached as an annex to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    The dose calculation methodology used to demonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives is different than the dose methodology used for compliance with 10 CFR part 20. There are multiple methods of calculating dose. In 10 CFR part 20, dose is expressed as total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which incorporates a risk-based dose, weighted by tissues or organs, as outlined in ICRP Publication 26. Under this TEDE approach, the dose to the body is expressed in a single value. By contrast, 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, uses the recommendations of ICRP Publication 2 to express separate doses for the total body and critical organs. Other differences between 10 CFR part 20 dose constructs and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, dose constructs exist, such as the use of non-stochastic effects in limiting doses to specific organs in 10 CFR part 20. The ICRP Publication 2 approach used in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, does not make such distinctions among organs.

    The differences between the various dose calculation methodologies used in the NRC's current regulatory framework (i.e., 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I) and those recommended by the ICRP after ICRP Publication 30,9 have created challenges for the NRC and its licensees. The NRC staff described these challenges in its paper to the Commission, SECY-01-0148, “Processes for Revision of 10 CFR part 20 Regarding Adoption of ICRP Recommendations on Occupational Dose Limits and Dosimetric Models and Parameters,” dated August 2, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML011580363). Specifically, the challenges included licensees' requests to use dosimetry methods based upon the recommendations in the various ICRP publications issued after ICRP Publication 30 for both external (to the body) and internal (within the body) dose assessments; areas of non-alignment between the NRC and international regulatory bodies, including the differences in occupational exposure limits; and the use by some Federal agencies (e.g., DOE and EPA), of dosimetry models based upon ICRP recommendations that were either not incorporated in the NRC's 1991 10 CFR part 20 rulemaking or were published after that rulemaking. The reader is encouraged to review the parallel ANPR on the potential revisions to 10 CFR part 20 for more details related to SECY-01-0148.10

    9 These ICRP recommendations include those published in: ICRP Publication 60 (1991), “1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection;” ICRP Publication 61 (1991), “Annual Limits on Intake of Radionuclides by Workers Based on the 1990 Recommendations;” ICRP Publication 66 (1994), “Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection;” ICRP Publication 67 (1993), “Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides—Part 2 Ingestion Dose Coefficients;” ICRP Publication 68 (1994), “Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers;” ICRP Publication 69 (1995), “Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides—Part 3 Ingestion Dose Coefficients;” ICRP Publication 71 (1995), “Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides—Part 4 Inhalation Dose Coefficients;” ICRP Publication 72 (1995), “Age-dependent Doses to the Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides—Part 5 Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Coefficients;” and ICRP Publication 74 (1996), “Conversion Coefficients for use in Radiological Protection against External Radiation.”

    10 See 79 FR 43287.

    The 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives for plant systems are more restrictive than either the 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year dose limit for members of the public in 10 CFR 20.1301(a), or the effluent concentration limits (ECLs) in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2, “Effluent Concentrations,” which correspond to 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) per year.11 As stated in 10 CFR 50.34a(a), the design objectives of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, are not radiation protection standards, but are design criteria to ensure equipment designs maintain radioactive effluents ALARA. The NRC's regulation in 10 CFR 50.36a(b), which is referenced in Section IV of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, invokes compatibility in balancing the need for operational flexibility while still ensuring public health and safety. Releases of radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants are controlled by plant specific technical specifications to ensure that such releases are maintained: (1) ALARA using 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives and requirements; (2) a small fraction of the 10 CFR 20.1301 public dose limit; and (3) within the EPA's 40 CFR part 190 environmental dose standards for facilities that are part of the uranium fuel cycle,12 as required by 10 CFR 20.1301(e).13 As a result, the 10 CFR 20.1301 public dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year on radioactive effluents is rarely controlling in limiting radioactive releases from nuclear power plants as effluents typically are only a fraction of such dose limit or of the 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2 concentration limits.

    11 In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(i), each NRC licensee may demonstrate compliance with the public dose limit set forth in 10 CFR 20.1301(a) by showing that the “annual average concentrations of radioactive material released in gaseous and liquid effluents at the boundary of the unrestricted area do not exceed the values specified in table 2 of appendix B to part 20.”

    12 The EPA's regulation in 40 CFR 190.2 defines the uranium fuel cycle as “the operations of milling of uranium ore, chemical conversion of uranium, isotopic enrichment of uranium, fabrication of uranium fuel, generation of electricity by a light-water-cooled nuclear power plant using uranium fuel, and reprocessing of spent uranium fuel, to the extent that these directly support the production of electrical power for public use utilizing nuclear energy, but excludes mining operations, operations at waste disposal sites, transportation of any radioactive material in support of these operations, and the reuse of recovered non-uranium special nuclear and by-product materials from the cycle.”

    13 The NRC's regulation in 10 CFR 20.1301(e) states that a NRC licensee “subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR part 190 shall comply with those standards.” The primary 40 CFR part 190 requirement of concern to NRC nuclear reactor licensees is 40 CFR 190.10(a), which states that operations must be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance that “[t]he annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the public, as the result of exposures to planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its daughters excepted, to the general environment from uranium fuel cycle operations and to radiation from these operations.” It should be noted that the dose limits of this EPA standard are also based on ICRP Publication 2 dosimetry concepts and dose calculation methods.

    Inasmuch as the regulatory purpose of 10 CFR part 20 is not the same as 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, the difference in dosimetry concepts between 10 CFR part 20 (based on ICRP Publication 26) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I (based on ICRP Publication 2), does not preclude the NRC from having an effective regulatory framework. However, there are practical considerations, as discussed in SECY-08-0197, Enclosure 3, “Details of Technical Options for Revision of 10 CFR part 50 and Appendix I Regulations and Regulatory Guidance for Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors,” that the NRC should evaluate when determining whether to transition to a common dosimetry concept for both 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations, guidance, and supporting computer software. Enclosure 4, “Listing of NRC Guidance Potentially Subject for Update,” of SECY-08-0197 lists NRC documents and computer codes that would need to be reviewed and updated.

    In implementing the ALARA requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, the NRC published a series of regulatory guides to provide guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The regulatory guides address methods for estimating the activity released in gaseous and liquid effluents, dispersion of effluents in the atmosphere and water bodies, and calculating potential radiation doses to offsite members of the public (see Section VIII of this ANPR for the full title and availability of documents cited within this ANPR). The key guidance document is Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.109, “Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, Rev. 1,” which describes mathematical models and assumptions for estimating radiation doses to members of the public from radioactive effluents. Two separate guidance documents, NUREG/CR-4013, “LADTAP II-Technical Reference and Users Guide,” and NUREG/CR-4653, “GASPAR II-Technical Reference and Users Guide,” describe computer models that implement the guidance of RG 1.109 and therefore are acceptable methods in demonstrating compliance with the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, requirements.

    Regulatory Guide 1.109 contains tables of dose factors. As described in SECY-08-0197, a revised set of dose factors are a crucial step to any revision of the NRC's radiation protection framework for radioactive effluents. These dose factors provide a basis for calculating doses and determining design objectives in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. These dose factors would also provide the basis for revising the limits for radioactive effluents in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2, ECLs for a representative member of the public. These ECLs are calculated in one of two ways and contain factors to account for the exposure time, the breathing rate, the dose limit for members of the public, and the various age groups exposed. These dose conversion factors also provide a basis for the 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 3, “Releases to Sewers,” limits, which are calculated on a similar basis as 10 CFR part 20 appendix B, Table 2, but with different assumptions. The tables of dose factors in RG 1.109 should be revised as part of any effort to more closely align the NRC's regulations with ICRP Publication 103 recommendations.

    Besides the computer codes, RG 1.109 is supported by a series of related documents, including RG 1.110, “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors;” which provides methods to conduct cost-benefit analyses in evaluating the performance of radwaste systems used in light water reactors; RG 1.111, “Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors;” which describes mathematical models and assumptions for estimating atmospheric transport, dispersion, and deposition of airborne effluents during routine operation; RG 1.112, “Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors,” which describes methods for calculating radioactive source terms for evaluating radioactive waste treatment systems; RG 1.113, “Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I, Rev. 1,” which provides mathematical models and methods in estimating aquatic dispersion of both routine and accidental releases; and RG 1.21, “Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power, Rev. 2,” which provides guidance on how to measure, evaluate, and report to the NRC, plant-related radioactivity (excluding background radiation) in effluents. These documents should be revised as part of any effort to more closely align the NRC's regulations with ICRP Publication 103 recommendations.

    The NRC has issued several NUREGS that support RG 1.109 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. For example, NUREG-1301, “Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors,” NUREG-1302, “Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Boiling Water Reactors,” NUREG-0543, “Methods for Demonstrating LWR Compliance With the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR part 190),” and NUREG-0133, “Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants: A Guidance Manual for Users of Standard Technical Specifications,” present guidance on the format and contents of operational programs. The programs include the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, the radioactive effluent control program (previously known as Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications or RETS), and the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (or REMP).

    There are other regulatory guides, although not issued for the purpose of supporting RG 1.109, that are nonetheless linked to implementation of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. For example, RG 4.15, “Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Inception through Normal Operations to License Termination)—Effluent Streams and the Environment, Rev. 2,” addresses quality assurance for maintaining radiological effluent monitoring programs at or around reactor sites. Enclosure 4 of SECY-08-0197 presents an initial listing of NRC guidance (documents and computer codes) that would be reviewed and updated, as needed, in supporting the implementation of any potential revision to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    Even though the NRC's regulations on radioactive effluents are protective of the health and safety of the public, over the past decade there have been discussions with stakeholders about updating the basis of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives, the regulatory guidance documents, and the supporting computer software to be consistent with the dose methodology used in 10 CFR part 20. Some of the considerations identified by NRC staff are:

    (1) Updating 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, requirements and associated dose calculation methodology, which is based upon the recommendations of ICRP Publication 2 (1959), to reflect current scientific knowledge underlying radiation protection principles, such as those described in ICRP Publication 103 (2007);

    (2) Engaging in parallel revisions of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, for better alignment with ICRP Publication 103 terminology and methodology for dose assessments; as well as to ensure that any rulemaking amending 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, have a common effective or compliance date;

    (3) Updating the radiation protection principles because ICRP Publication 2 recommendations are no longer taught in current health physics university curricula and as a result, the NRC staff and industry need to instruct new employees about the implementation of ICRP Publication 2 in reviewing and preparing reactor license applications that rely upon NRC guidance and dose computer codes (e.g., the computer codes LADTAP and GASPAR which calculate doses for liquid effluents and gaseous effluents, respectively) based upon ICRP Publication 2; and

    (4) Whether amending 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, to more closely align with the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations substantially increases the overall protection of the public health and safety, and is cost-justified under a backfit or issue finality analysis, such that a revised 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, should be applied to existing 10 CFR part 50 licensees and to those persons who hold NRC licenses under 10 CFR part 52 (e.g., combined license holders and applicants, a holder of a standard design certification).

    Given these concerns, the NRC staff is considering more closely aligning the dose concepts of 10 CFR part 20 and the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, to the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations.

    III. Regulatory Objectives

    The NRC staff has identified the following objectives in any potential rulemaking to revise 10 CFR part 50, appendix I:

    1. Engage stakeholders in a discussion on ways to improve 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with particular emphasis on improving the terminology and methodology for dose assessments.

    2. Collect stakeholder comments, consider stakeholder input, and evaluate various options to achieve a better alignment between 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and the most recent terminology and methodology for dose assessments in ICRP Publication 103.

    3. Establish a technical basis for exceptions to the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103, to the extent these recommendations are considered by the NRC in a future proposed rulemaking.

    4. Prepare and submit a regulatory basis document to the Commission in accordance with the Commission's direction in SRM-SECY-12-0064.

    IV. Policy and Technical Issues

    Achieving a closer alignment between 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations would involve changing the underlying terminology and methodology for dose assessment in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. This closer alignment, if adopted by the NRC, would pose several challenges for the NRC, including the need to revise guidance documents and implementing procedures, and updating computer codes. Likewise, a closer alignment would require licensees to re-train workers to use a new dose assessment system, revise implementing procedures and programs, and revise record keeping and data reporting practices. Therefore, the NRC is seeking to understand the impacts of more closely aligning 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and associated guidance with the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations regarding terminology and methodology for dose assessments. The issues and options below are intended to elicit input from the public, the regulated community, and other stakeholders. This information will be used to support the development of a regulatory basis for a potential revision of the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations and associated guidance.

    A. Issue No. 1: Closer Alignment of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, With the Terminology and Methodology Recommendations of ICRP Publication 103

    The ICRP has published four primary sets of radiological protection recommendations, namely, ICRP Publication 2 (1959), ICRP Publication 26 (1977); ICRP Publication 60 (1990), and ICRP Publication 103 (2007). As noted earlier, the 10 CFR part 20 regulations are based on ICRP Publication 26, while the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, requirements are based on ICRP Publication 2. One important way the dose terminology used in 10 CFR part 20 deviates from the ICRP Publication 26 recommendations is by the use of the term “Total Effective Dose Equivalent.” This term was created by the NRC to describe the summation of internal and external exposure. The ICRP Publication 26 recommendations use the phrase “the sum of the dose-equivalent from external exposure” and “the committed effective dose equivalent from the intake of radionuclides.” The ICRP Publication 60 recommendations changed the way tissue and radiation weighting factors were defined and used. There was also a corresponding change in the terminology from quality factors to radiation weighting factors. The ICRP Publication 60 introduced the terms “Effective Dose” (ED) and “Total Effective Dose” (TED) to clearly represent the summation of the dose contributions from external exposure and the intake of radioactive material.

    The ICRP Publication 103 recommendations retained the terminology of effective dose and equivalent dose but made several revisions to the calculation of dose, including: (1) The modification of the modeling used for calculation of radiation exposures; (2) changes in tissue weighting factors and radiation weighting factors; and (3) modifications of the metabolic models used to represent the movement of radioactive material through the human body, by use of computer models. These revisions have resulted in the development of reference computational phantoms that are specific models for adult males and females, 15-year-old males and females, and for various other age groups, including infants and 1-year-old, 5-year-old, and 10-year-old children. The reference phantoms for the human body are described in general terms in ICRP Publication 103 and more specifically in ICRP Publication 110 (2009).14

    14 ICRP Publication 110 (2009), “Adult Reference Computational Phantoms.”

    The availability of new models for different age groups provides the opportunity to calculate the numeric values for public exposure to effluents in a more comprehensive manner as compared to the previous calculation methodology of basing assessments primarily on an adult member of the public. As part of the potential rulemaking to amend 10 CFR part 20, the NRC is considering the use of an age and gender weighted dose coefficient and revising the definition of the term “reference man” 15 to be used in environmental dose calculations. With respect to the implementation of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, RG 1.109 considers four age groups: Infant, child, teenager, and adults. The development of age-specific dose coefficients per unit intake of radioactivity (inhaled or ingested) is described in NUREG-0172, “Age-Specific Radiation Dose Commitment Factors for a One-Year Intake.” As part of this ANPR, the NRC is considering the use of an age and gender averaged approach in any revision to the 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    15 The NRC regulations use the term “Reference man,” which means a hypothetical aggregation of human physical and physiological characteristics arrived at by international consensus. These characteristics may be used by researchers and public health workers to standardize results of experiments and to relate biological insult to a common base (10 CFR 20.1003, definition of “Reference man”).

    The NRC staff, as part of its development of the regulatory basis, will consider revising the regulations in 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, as well as making conforming changes to other NRC regulations to incorporate the ICRP Publication 103 terms, equivalent dose, effective dose, and “Total Effective Dose.” The NRC staff recognizes the preference, from a regulatory stability standpoint, for retaining TEDE but will analyze, in the regulatory basis, the advantages and disadvantages of replacing TEDE with TED in the NRC regulations. The reader is encouraged to review the parallel ANPR (Docket ID NRC-2009-0279, 79 FR 43284) on the proposed revision to 10 CFR part 20 for more details.

    The following options and questions are intended to elicit information and initiate a dialog with the public, the regulated community, and other stakeholders in future workshops and meetings.

    Option 1a: Do not change the basis of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and continue to use the existing requirements and NRC guidance. This option is based on current NRC regulations continuing to adequately protect the public, although 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, are based on different methods of assessing dose. Licensee compliance with 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, will continue to demonstrate that radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas are ALARA. If the NRC selects this option, the NRC may make minor revisions to update supporting NRC guidance, as most of such guidance was published in the late 1970s.

    Option 1b: Revise the terminology and methodology for dose assessments in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, to more closely align with the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103, in parallel with any revisions made to the 10 CFR part 20 regulations.16 This approach would ensure a consistent application of regulatory criteria between 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. This option would offer the opportunity to use to a common regulatory basis for calculating and reporting doses.

    16 See the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR (Docket ID NRC-2009-0279), published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43284), for further details about potential revisions to 10 CFR part 20.

    Questions

    Question 1-1: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the NRC selecting option 1a?

    The following questions are based upon the NRC selecting option 1b:

    Question 1-2: What are the advantages and disadvantages of more closely aligning the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, terminology and methodology for dose assessments with those of the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations?

    Question 1-3: At this time, the NRC is contemplating a parallel rulemaking effort, one for 10 CFR part 20 and one for 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with a common effective or compliance date for both rules. What are the advantages or disadvantages of the NRC conducting such a parallel rulemaking effort?

    Question 1-4: What are the backfitting implications of applying option 1b to 10 CFR part 50 licensees? What are the issue finality implications of applying option 1b to those persons who hold NRC approvals under 10 CFR part 52 (e.g., combined license holders and applicants, a holder of a standard design certification)?

    Question 1-5: What cost savings would be realized over the life of the operational programs if dose calculation methods (for 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I) are standardized?

    Question 1-6: What operational impacts and costs (per reactor unit) would be incurred by licensees (e.g., in updating licensee programs, procedures, computer codes, training)?

    Question 1-7: Would licensee costs and the operational impacts of complying with a revised 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, be similar for both BWRs and PWRs?

    Question 1-8: Should all of the conforming changes to the dose based criteria in 10 CFR part 50 (e.g., the TEDE criteria in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii), 10 CFR 50.67, and appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” Criterion 19, “Control Room”) be changed coincident with the changes to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, or should conforming changes to other parts of the regulations be conducted in a separate, later rulemaking?

    Question 1-9: Should the NRC expand the number of age groups from 4 to 6 as recommended in ICRP Publication 103?

    B. Issue No. 2: Scope of Changes to NRC Guidance Documents Associated With 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I in Terms of Regulatory Guide 1.109

    In the event of a revision of the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations, the NRC would need to consider making revisions to several guidance documents associated with the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations. In Enclosure 3 of SECY-08-0197, the NRC staff examined a tiered approach reflecting increasing levels of complexity of a revision to the associated guidance documents. The discussion in SECY-08-0197 considered three options for revising those guidance documents associated with 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The NRC staff notes that the primary guidance document, RG 1.109, has not been updated since 1977.

    The following options and questions are intended to elicit information and initiate a dialog with the public, the regulated community, and other stakeholders in future workshops and meetings.

    Option 2a: Limited Scope Revision (no changes to the numerical values)—Under this option, the proposed revision would include very limited changes to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I (e.g., to change the design objectives for total body dose only), and would involve very limited changes to only one regulatory guide (e.g., the dose coefficients in R.G. 1.109, Table B-1, “Dose Factors for Exposure to a Semi-Infinite Cloud of Noble Gases,” and Tables E-6, “External Dose Factors for Standing on Contaminated Ground,” to E-14, “Ingestion Dose Factors for Infant,” only).

    Option 2b: Full Scope Revision—Under this option, the NRC would consider a complete revision to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and all NRC guidance documents, which would include a total of more than 30 regulatory guides, NUREGs, generic communications, and associated software programs. A full scope revision also involves evaluating new radwaste systems, updating dispersion models, new source terms, rewriting RG 1.109, RG 1.110, RG 1.111, and RG 1.112.

    Option 2c: Expanded Scope Revision—Under this option, the NRC would include more substantive changes to the regulations and applicable guidance documents than included in Option 2a and potentially substantially less than that listed in Option 2b.

    Questions

    Question 2-1: Which Option (i.e., what scope of changes to NRC guidance documents) seems most appropriate, and are other options available?

    Question 2-2: What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of the three options?

    C. Issue No. 3: Detailed Considerations for Revising 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I

    The questions in this section explore some of the specific technical details that may be associated with revising the design objectives. The NRC staff has identified the following options for potential revisions to the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. It should be noted that the various options below are not considered to be mutually exclusive; that is, the NRC may consider one or more of these options, or various combinations of these options:

    Option 3a: Maintain the numerical values of the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives—the NRC staff would keep the numerical values for design objectives, but change the units. For example, the annual design objective for liquid effluents, which is currently a total body dose of 3 mrem on an annual basis, would be changed to an effective dose of 3 mrem.

    Option 3b: Eliminate the use of organ dose as design objectives in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, for liquid and gaseous effluents—the NRC staff would provide a single effective dose based criterion in lieu of specific organ dose criteria (e.g. thyroid).

    Option 3c: Eliminate the use of annual gamma and beta-air doses for gaseous effluents—the NRC staff would eliminate annual gamma-air and beta-air doses for gaseous effluents or convert them to an effective dose.

    Option 3d: Update cost-benefit criteria in Section II.D of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I—the NRC staff would update the constant dollar basis in the cost-benefit criteria in Section II.D of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    Option 3e: Disposition of Docket RM-50-2, “Guides on Design Objectives for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors,” in the “Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff,” pp. 25-30 (February 20, 1974)—the NRC staff would remove Docket RM-50-2 from 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, Section V, if the NRC staff determines that it is no longer applicable to any pending applications.

    The following options for potential revisions to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, are unrelated to the alignment with the ICRP Publication 103 terminology and methodology but have some implications for associated NRC guidance.

    Option 3f: Light-water-cooled reactor provisions of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I—the NRC staff would expand scope of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, to include designs other than Light-Water-Cooled Reactors.

    Option 3g: Consolidation of NRC licensing guidance implementing 10 CFR part 50, appendix I—the NRC staff would consolidate some NRC guidance documents, if appropriate, and update the following RGs and NUREGs:

    a. RG 1.21 b. RG 1.109 c. RG 1.206 d. RG 4.15 e. NUREG-1301 f. NUREG-1302 g. NUREG-0133 h. NUREG-0543 i. NUREG/CR-4013—LADTAP j. NUREG/CR-4013—GASPAR k. NUREG-0800

    The following questions are intended to elicit information and initiate a dialog with the public, the regulated community, and other stakeholders in future workshops and meetings.

    Questions

    Question 3-1: Should the NRC focus on only those changes necessary to align 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with ICRP Publication 103 dose calculation methods (e.g., Issue 3, options 3a thru 3e) or should all of the specific changes identified in options 3a thru 3g be evaluated?

    Question 3-2: What significant impacts would be expected if 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, were revised to include all of the options (Issue 3, options 3a thru 3g)?

    Question 3-3: Given the scope of the regulatory and technical issues associated with making all of the specific changes identified in Issue 3, options 3a thru 3g, is there any merit in addressing selected options in future implementation phases of this rulemaking (or in separate rulemaking efforts)? If so, which of the options should be delayed?

    Question 3-4: Should licensees still report doses separately for organs, such as skin and thyroid, whenever airborne effluent releases are dominated by radioactive iodines and noble gases?

    Question 3-5: Should licensees continue to report skin doses, skin dose rates, total body dose rates, and organ doses (including thyroid doses) if organ doses are eliminated? Why or why not?

    Question 3-6: Should the categories of releases described in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I (liquid activity, noble gases in gaseous releases, radioactive iodines, tritium, other nuclides in gaseous releases), be expanded or otherwise revised?

    D. Issue No. 4: Metrication—Units of Radioactivity, Radiation Exposure, and Dose

    The current 10 CFR part 20 radiation protection regulations were promulgated approximately 1 year prior to the publication of the NRC's metrication policy (57 FR 46202; October 7, 1992). The metrication policy addresses the units to be used to express radioactivity, radiation exposure and dose. Therefore, regulations referencing dose limits and other measurements are formatted with the SI units in parentheses. Other NRC regulations have instances in which the SI units are listed first, with the traditional or “English” units in parentheses. Numerical values listed in the 10 CFR part 20 appendices are given only in the traditional units. In SRM-SECY-12-0064, the Commission disapproved the elimination of traditional units or “English” dose units from the NRC's regulations. The SRM further stated that both the traditional and SI units should be maintained.

    Pursuant to the NRC's 1992 metrication policy, the NRC supports and encourages the use of the metric system of measurement by the nuclear industry. The 1992 policy directed that the NRC, beginning in 1993, publish the following documents in dual units, with the SI units listed first followed by the English units in parentheses: New regulations, major amendments to existing regulations, regulatory guides, NUREG-series documents, policy statements, information notices, generic letters, bulletins, and all written communications directed to the public. The NRC's policy further directs that NRC documents specific to a licensee, such as inspection reports and docketed material concerning a particular licensee, will be in the system of units employed by the licensee. Furthermore, all event reporting and emergency response communications between licensees, the NRC, and State and local authorities will use the traditional system of measurement. In a 1996 review of its 1992 metrication policy, the Commission stated that it does not intend to revisit the 1992 policy unless it is shown to cause an undue burden or hardship (61 FR 31169-31171; June 19, 1996).

    The NRC has issued an ANPR concerning a potential revision to its radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR part 20. In its 10 CFR part 20 ANPR, the NRC staff is seeking input on how the Commission's metrication policy should be implemented, particularly with how the numerical values should be presented in appendix B of 10 CFR part 20. Appendix B of 10 CFR part 20 is set forth in a tabular format with nine columns providing each radionuclide's annual limits on intake (ALI) and derived air concentrations (DAC), effluent concentration limits for airborne and liquid releases to the general environment, and concentration limits for discharges to sanitary sewer systems in the traditional units of microcuries (µCi) or microcuries per milliliter (µCi/ml).

    The concerns identified in the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR, such as the use of dual units (SI and traditional) are also relevant to the guidance used in implementing 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. For example, RG 1.109, presents traditional units of radioactivity, dose coefficients, and dose conversion factors, specifically in Table A-1, “Bioaccumulation Factors to Be Used in the Absence of Site-Specific Data;” Table B-1, “Dose Factors for Exposure to a Semi-Infinite Cloud of Noble Gases;” Table E-6, “External Dose Factors for Standing on Contaminated Ground;” Tables E-7 to E-10, “Inhalation Dose Factors;” and Tables E-11 to E-14, “Ingestion Dose Factors.” As noted in the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR, the conversion of the unit of radioactivity from the traditional unit of µCi to the SI unit of becquerel (Bq) is not a whole number or an integer value. As a result, the number of significant digits will result in different values, with the difference determined by the rounding of the numerical values. For example, if rounded to one significant digit, using the standard rounding conventions, the value in SI unit would be smaller than the value in µCi, and would be more restrictive. Therefore, the NRC staff is seeking to explore the implications of presenting dose coefficients, dose conversions factors, and cost-benefit ratios in both SI and traditional units. Licensees are encouraged to review the technical and metrication policy issues described in the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR, as they are not repeated here for brevity.

    If 10 CFR part 20 and appendix B to 10 CFR part 20 were revised to include both SI and traditional units, then it would be necessary for consistency to also revise the numerical guides of Section II of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and guidance used to implement these requirements. Therefore, providing both sets of units may be perceived as resulting in a cumbersome set of regulatory criteria and tabulations in RG 1.109. Similarly, parallel revisions would need to be made to computer codes used to calculate doses such that dose results would be expressed in both units. One alternative could be to provide an expanded set of tables in the regulatory guide or a NUREG for the convenience of users. The use of traditional and SI units pose significant communication challenges given the potential for confusion when different sets of units are used. The NRC staff is interested in views of possible alternatives, and implications of alternatives on the format of regulations and guidance and impacts on plant operations in aligning any revisions to 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with the Commission's metrication policy.

    The following questions are intended to elicit information and initiate a dialog with the public, the regulated community, and other stakeholders in future workshops and meetings.

    Questions

    Question 4-1: Should the annual radioactive effluent release reports contain both metric and English units (e.g., metric units first, followed by English units in parentheses)? Would this be an undue burden or hardship, as identified in the Commission's 1996 review of the 1992 metrication policy (61 FR 31171; June 19, 1996)? Explain and provide examples.

    Question 4-2: What costs or other impacts to operational programs would be incurred if metrication was changed as described above?

    Question 4-3: Should the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2101(a) and the guidance of RGs 1.21 and 4.15 be revised and integrated with those in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, thereby allowing licensees to provide records and reports in SI units only?

    V. Public Meetings

    The NRC plans to conduct public meetings and participate in industry workshops and conferences for the purpose of discussing the issues identified in this ANPR. The public meetings will provide forums for the NRC staff to discuss the issues and questions identified in this ANPR with external stakeholders and to receive information to support development of a regulatory basis for a potential revision to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The meetings are not intended to be a formal solicitation of comments, but rather to encourage stakeholders to provide feedback in written form during the ANPR comment period. The NRC will post public meeting announcements at least 10 calendar days before the date of the meetings at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Stakeholders should monitor this NRC public meeting Web site for information about the meetings and issues specific to the potential revision of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations and guidance.

    VI. Cumulative Effects of Regulation

    The NRC has implemented a program to address the possible “Cumulative Effects of Regulation” (CER) in the development of regulatory bases for rulemakings. The CER recognizes the challenges that licensees or other impacted entities (such as Agreement States) may face while implementing new NRC or other agency regulatory requirements. The CER is an organizational effectiveness challenge that results from a licensee or other impacted entity implementing a number of complex positions, programs or requirements within a prescribed implementation period and with limited available resources, including the ability to access technical expertise to address a specific issue. The NRC is specifically requesting comments on the cumulative effects that may result from potential amendments to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and revisions to associated guidance documents. When developing comments on the possible cumulative effects of any future rulemaking to amend the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and associated guidance documents, please consider the following questions:

    Questions

    Question 5-1: If the NRC conducts a parallel rulemaking effort (amending its regulations in both 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I), should there be a separate, later compliance date (i.e., a period of time between the rules' effective date and a date when licensees must be in compliance with the rules)? If so, when should the compliance date be set, e.g., 1 year after the effective date? Two years? Another length of time? Please explain the rationale or justification for any such compliance date.

    Question 5-2: What actions could be taken to reduce or minimize the implementation time?

    Question 5-3: What other requirements, regulations, or orders, whether issued or promulgated by the NRC or another Federal agency, may compete with, or take priority over implementing any potential changes to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I? If so, what are the consequences, including associated costs, and how should they be addressed?

    Question 5-4: If 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, is amended, what unintended consequences, including associated costs, may arise that would negate the benefits to revising it? What could be done to minimize unintended consequences?

    In addition to responding to the questions above, please provide, if available, information on the costs and benefits of any potential revisions to the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations and associated guidance documents. This information will be used to support any regulatory analysis performed by the NRC.

    VII. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010, (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comments on this ANPR with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

    VIII. 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.

    Cited documents ADAMS Accession No. Proposed Revision to 10 CFR part 20, ANPR (79 FR 43284; July 25, 2014) ML14084A333 Extension of Comment Period for the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR (79 FR 69065; November 20, 2014) ML14325A519 Proposed Revision to 40 CFR part 190, ANPR (79 FR 6509; February 4, 2014) Not in ADAMS SECY-01-0148, “Processes For Revision of 10 CFR Part 20 Regarding Adoption Of ICRP Recommendations On Occupational Dose Limits And Dosimetric Models and Parameters,” August 2, 2001 ML011580363 SRM-SECY-01-0148, “Processes For Revision of 10 CFR Part 20 Regarding Adoption Of ICRP Recommendations On Occupational Dose Limits And Dosimetric Models And Parameters,” April 12, 2002 ML021050104 SECY-08-0197, “Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations And Guidance With Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of ICRP,” December 18, 2008 ML083360555 SRM-SECY-08-0197, “Options To Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance With Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of ICRP,” April 2, 2009 ML090920103 SECY-12-0064, “Recommendations For Policy and Technical Direction To Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance,” April 25, 2012 ML121020108 SRM-SECY-12-0064, “Recommendations For Policy And Technical Direction To Revise Radiation Protection Regulations And Guidance,” December 17, 2012 ML12352A133 Regulatory Guide 1.21, “Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power, Rev. 2,” June 2009 ML091170109 Regulatory Guide 1.109, “Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Rev. 1,” October 1977 ML003740384 Regulatory Guide 1.110, “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Rev. 1,” October 2013 ML13241A052 Regulatory Guide 1.111, “Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors, Rev. 1,” July 1977 ML003740354 Regulatory Guide 1.112, “Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Rev. 1,” March 2007 ML070320241 Regulatory Guide 1.113, “Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I, Rev. 1,” April 1977 ML003740390 Regulatory Guide 1.206, “Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),” June 2007 ML070720184 Regulatory Guide 4.15, “Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Inception through Normal Operations to License Termination)—Effluent Streams and the Environment, Rev. 2,” July 2007 ML071790506 Docket RM-50-2, “Guides on Design Objectives for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants” ML14071A275 NUREG-0133, “Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants: A Guidance Manual for Users of Standard Technical Specifications,” October 1978 ML091050057 NUREG-0172, “Age-Specific Radiation Dose Commitment Factors for a One-Year Intake,” November 1977 ML14083A242 NUREG-0543, “Methods for Demonstrating LWR Compliance With the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part 190),” February 1980 ML081360410 NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” March 2007 ML070660036 NUREG/CR-1276, “User's Manual for LADTAP II—A Computer Program for Calculating Radiation Exposure to Man from Routine Releases of Nuclear Reactor Liquid Effluents,” May 1980 Not In ADAMS 17 NUREG-1301, “Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors,” April 1991 ML091050061 NUREG-1302, “Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Boiling Water Reactors,” April 1991 ML091050059 NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan (with Supplement 1 for Operating Reactor License Renewal),” June 2013 ML12335A667 NUREG/CR-4013, “LADTAP II, “Technical Reference and User Guide,” April 1986 Not In ADAMS 18 NUREG/CR-4653, “GASPAR II—Technical Reference and User Guide,” March 1987 Not In ADAMS 19

    The NRC may post additional materials to the Federal rulemaking Web site at www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID NRC-2014-0044. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2014-0044), (2) click the “Email Alert” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    17 NUREG/CR-1276, NUREG/CR-4013, and NUREG/CR-4653 are available through the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center at https://rsicc.ornl.gov/Default.aspx.

    18 See footnote 17.

    19 See footnote 17.

    IX. Rulemaking Process

    The NRC will consider comments received or other information submitted in response to this ANPR in the development of the proposed draft regulatory basis or any other documents developed as a part of any potential revisions to the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations. The NRC, however, does not intend to provide responses to comments or other information submitted in response to this ANPR. If the NRC develops a regulatory basis sufficient to support a proposed rule, then there will be an opportunity for public comment when the proposed rule is published and the NRC will respond to such comments if and when it publishes a final rule. If the NRC develops draft supporting guidance or proposes revisions to existing guidance documents associated with the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I regulations, then the public, the regulated community, and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comment on the draft guidance. If NRC decides not to pursue a 10 CFR part 50, appendix I rulemaking, as described in this ANPR, the NRC will publish a document in the Federal Register that will generally address public comments and withdraw this ANPR.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of April, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Mark A. Satorius, Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10408 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0933; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-098-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a design review, which revealed that no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations inside the fuel tank or connected to the fuel tank wall; and no anti-spray cover is installed on the fuel shut-off valve (FSOV) in both wings. This proposed AD would require installing additional bonding provisions in the fuel tank, installing an anti-spray cover on the FSOV, and revising the airplane maintenance program by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. We are proposing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    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-2015-0933; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0933; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-098-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0099, dated April 30, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.

    The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker 27 design in response to these regulations revealed that no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations, inside the fuel tank or connected to the fuel tank wall, and no anti-spray cover is installed on the Fueling Shut-Off Valve (FSOV) in both wings.

    This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition source in the fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services developed a set of bonding modifications and anti-spray covers, introduced with Service Bulletin (SB) SBF27-28-071 Revision 1 (R1), that require opening of the fuel tank access panels. More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF27.043#03.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires installation of additional bonding provisions, and of anti-spray covers on the FSOV, that require opening of the fuel tank access panels.

    Required actions also include revising the airplane maintenance program by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0933.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Installation of bonding provisions, anti-spray cover, and maintenance program revision 70 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,950 $0 $5,950 $89,250
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0933; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-098-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 18, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review, which revealed that no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations inside the fuel tank or connected to the fuel tank wall; and no anti-spray cover is installed on the fuel shut-off valve (FSOV) in both wings. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation of Bonding Provisions and Anti-Spray Cover

    At the next scheduled opening of the fuel tanks after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 84 months after the effective date of this AD: Install additional bonding provisions at the applicable locations, and install an anti-spray cover on the FSOV in both wings, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA.

    (h) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after installing the bonding provisions and anti-spray cover specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA.

    (i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or CDCCLs

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch; ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1137. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (k) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0099, dated April 30, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0933.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 17, 2015. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10180 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0937; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-024-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-24-05, for certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-24-05 currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the hole(s) of the horizontal flange of the keel beam, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2011-24-05, a determination was made that the rototest inspection and applicable corrective actions of a certain fastener hole were inadvertently omitted from the requirements in that AD. This proposed AD would change the inspection compliance times, and, for certain airplanes, would add a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking at a certain fastener hole. This proposed AD would also provide optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fastener holes, which could result in rupture of the keel beam, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0937; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0937; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-024-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On November 7, 2011, we issued AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), for certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-24-05 requires actions intended to address the unsafe condition on the products listed above.

    Since we issued AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0010R1, dated May 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During A330 and A340 aeroplanes fatigue tests, cracks were detected on the RH [right-hand] and LH [left-hand] sides between the crossing area of the keel beam fitting and the front spar of the Centre Wing Box (CWB).

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to keel beam rupture which would affect the area structural integrity of the area.

    Prompted by this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2006-0315 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2006_0315.pdf/AD_2006-0315] (later revised to R1) to require repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI) [rotating probe inspection for cracking] on the horizontal flange of the keel beam in the area of first fastener hole aft of Frame (FR) 40 in order to maintain the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    After that [EASA] AD was issued, EASA issued AD 2010-0024 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)], retaining the inspection requirements of EASA AD 2006-0315R1 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2006_0315R1.pdf/AD_2006-0315R1], which was superseded, extending the applicability to aeroplanes with Airbus Mod 49202 embodied, and reducing the inspection thresholds and intervals.

    Since that [EASA] AD [2010-0024] was issued, a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation has been conducted by Airbus, which concluded that due to the aeroplane utilization, the current inspection threshold and intervals have to be modified.

    In addition, it was determined that the rototest inspection of fastener hole Nr 6, necessary to ensure that no crack was left unrepaired at the time of fastener hold cold working, was inadvertently not included in Revisions 01 and 02 of both Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-57-3098 and A340-57-4106.

    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued AD 2014-0010 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2014-0010.pdf/AD_2014-0010], retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0024, which was superseded, and redefined the inspection thresholds and intervals [by reducing certain compliance times], and added a one-time ultrasonic inspection of fastener hold Nr 6 in the junction keel beam fitting at FR40 on both LH and RH side[s].

    Following issuance of EASA AD 2014-0010, it was identified that there was a need for clarifications [of affected airplanes] * * *.

    The compliance times vary depending on airplane utilization and configuration. The earliest compliance time for the initial rotating probe inspections is the later of (1) before 10,400 total flight cycles or 67,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first; and (2) within 24 months or 14,590 flight cycles or 43,790 flight hours, whichever occurs first. The latest compliance time for the initial inspections is the later of (1) before 20,800 total flight cycles or 67,900 total flight hours, whichever occurs first; and (2) within 24 months or 21,180 flight cycles or 63,560 flight hours, whichever occurs first. The compliance times for the repetitive intervals range between 7,800 flight cycles or 50,900 flight hours and 10,700 flight cycles or 35,200 flight hours. The compliance times for the one-time ultrasonic inspection are the latest of (1) 21,000 flight cycles or 60,600 flight hours and within 2,400 flight cycles or 24 months; or the latest of (2) 22,100 flight cycles and 64,400 flight hours, or within 1,300 flight cycles or 24 months.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0937.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, dated August 30, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 02, June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated September 24, 2014.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3117, including Appendix 01, dated January 25, 2013.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, dated August 30, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated August 30, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated September 24, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4126, including Appendix 01, dated January 25, 2013.

    This service information describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the hole(s) of the horizontal flange of the keel beam, and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions. Additionally, this service information describes procedures for a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking at fastener hole “Nr 6,” and provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

    The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. 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.

    Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed AD for addressing widespread fatigue damage (WFD) was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions that are required by AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), and retained in this proposed AD take about 41 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $191 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2011-24-05 is $3,676 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 23 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $68,425, or $1,955 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0937; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-024-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 18, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011).

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this AD, certificated in any category, except as provided by paragraph (c)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 55306 or 55792 has been embodied in production.

    (ii) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 55306 or 55792 has been embodied in production.

    (2) This AD does not apply to Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes on which the repair specified in Airbus Repair Drawing R57115053, R57115051, or R57115047 (installation of titanium doubler on both sides) has been accomplished. AD 2007-12-08, Amendment 39-15086 (72 FR 31171, June 6, 2007), applies to these airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the keel beam fitting and the front spar of the center wing box. This AD was also prompted by a determination that the rototest inspection and applicable corrective actions of fastener hole Nr 6 were inadvertently omitted from the requirements in AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fastener holes, which could result in rupture of the keel beam, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Non-Destructive Test (NDT) Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), with new service information and revised credit for certain actions. At the applicable time in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do an NDT inspection of the hole(s) of the horizontal flange of the keel beam located on frame (FR) 40 datum on the right-hand (RH) and/or left-hand (LH) side of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), or (g)(6) of this AD. Accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.

    (1) For airplanes on which an inspection required by paragraph (h) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), has not been done as of January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05): At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD: Within the “Mandatory Threshold” (flight cycles or flight hours) specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable; or within 3 months after January 3, 2012 (the effective date AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)); whichever occurs later. The compliance times for configurations 02 through 06 specified in the “Mandatory Threshold” column in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” are total flight cycles and total flight hours.

    (ii) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, except those on which Airbus modification 49202 has been embodied in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090 has been embodied in service, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, except those on which Airbus modification 49202 has been embodied in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098 has been embodied in service, and except Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes on which the repair specified in Airbus Repair Drawing R57115053, R57115051, or R57115047 has been accomplished: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Within the “Mandatory Threshold” (flight cycles or flight hours) specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; depending on the configuration of the aircraft model; or within 3 months after September 13, 2007, whichever occurs later. The compliance times for Model A330 post-mod. 41652 and pre-mod. 44360, post-mod. 44360, and pre-mod. 49202 (specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006); and Model A340 post-mod. 41652, post-mod. 43500 and pre-mod. 44360, post-mod. 44360 and pre-mod. 49202, and weight variant 027 (specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006); specified in the “Mandatory Threshold” column in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” are total flight cycles and total flight hours.

    (B) Within the “Mandatory Threshold” (flight cycles or flight hours) specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable; or within 3 months after January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)); whichever occurs later. The compliance times for configurations 02 through 06 specified in the “Mandatory Threshold” column in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” are total flight cycles and total flight hours.

    (2) For airplanes on which an inspection required by paragraph (h) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), has been done as of January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05): At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Within the “Mandatory Intervals” given in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; as applicable.

    (ii) Within the applicable “Mandatory Interval” specified in table 1 of Paragraph 1.E.(2). of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011,; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable; or within 3 months after January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)); whichever occurs later.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 05, dated November 13, 2012.

    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012.

    (h) Retained Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011). If no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Before further flight: Install a new or oversized fastener, as applicable; seal the fastener; and do all other applicable actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), or (g)(6) of this AD.

    (2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the “Mandatory Intervals” specified in Paragraph 1.E.(2). of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 04, dated May 31, 2014; as applicable.

    (i) Retained Corrective Action and Optional Modification

    (1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), with revised method of compliance language. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (2) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (r) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), with new service information and revised method of compliance language. Modifying the fastener installation in the junction keel beam fitting at FR 40, as specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), (i)(2)(iii), or (i)(2)(iv) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD; except, for airplanes on which a crack was detected at hole 5 before oversizing of the keel beam, in accordance with step 3.B.(1)(b)3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, dated August 30, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, dated August 30, 2007; or in accordance with step 3.C.(2)(c) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated September 24, 2012, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated September 24, 2012; before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. In case of any crack finding during any modification specified in this paragraph: Where the service information specifies to contact Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (i) Modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, dated August 30, 2007, before January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)).

    (ii) Modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated September 24, 2012, before the effective date of this AD.

    (iii) Modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, dated August 30, 2007, before January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011)).

    (iv) Modification in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated September 24, 2012, before the effective date of this AD.

    (j) New Repetitive Rotating Probe Inspections

    At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD: Do a rotating probe inspection for cracking of the fastener hole(s) of the horizontal flange of the keel beam located on FR 40 datum on the RH and LH side of the fuselage, as applicable to airplane type and depending on airplane configuration and utilization, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed the “Mandatory Intervals” specified in Paragraph 1.E.(2)., of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable. Accomplishing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection before exceeding the applicable compliance times specified in the “mandatory threshold” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)., of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable; or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within the applicable compliance times specified in the “mandatory interval” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)., of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable; or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the initial rotating probe inspection that is part of the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (j)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Technical Disposition F57D03012810, Issue B, dated August 18, 2003.

    (ii) Airbus Technical Disposition 582.0651/2002, Issue A, dated October 17, 2002.

    (2) This paragraph restates the credit for the actions specified in paragraph (k) of AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), if those actions were performed before January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-24-05), using the service information specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(viii) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, dated October 30, 2003.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 01, dated May 18, 2004.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated January 24, 2006.

    (iv) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2009.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, dated October 30, 2003.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 01, dated March 2, 2004.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated January 24, 2006.

    (viii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2009.

    (l) New One-Time Ultrasonic Inspection

    For airplanes in Configuration 2, as defined in the applicable service information identified in paragraph (l)(3), (l)(4), (l)(5), or (l)(6) of this AD, on which the modification has been done as of the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (l)(3), (l)(4), (l)(5), or (l)(6) of this AD; as applicable to airplane type; and on which fastener hole “Nr 5” has been bushed before embodiment of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, as applicable; or on which a crack has been found on fastener hole “Nr 5” during embodiment of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, as applicable: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, do a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking at fastener hole “Nr 6” in the junction keel beam fitting at FR 40 LH and RH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3117, including Appendix 01, dated January 25, 2013; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4126, including Appendix 01, dated January 25, 2013; as applicable.

    (1) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.(2)., of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3117, including Appendix 01, dated January 25, 2013.

    (ii) Within 2,400 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.(2)., of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4126, including Appendix 01, dated January 25, 2013.

    (ii) Within 1,300 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 01, dated July 31, 2009.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 01, dated July 31, 2009.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (m) Corrective Actions

    (1) If no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, before further flight: Install new or oversized fastener, as applicable; seal the fastener; and do all other applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable. Thereafter, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD at intervals not to exceed the “Mandatory Intervals” specified in Paragraph 1.E.(2)., of the Accomplishment Timescale of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3081, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4089, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated November 13, 2012; as applicable.

    (2) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) or (l) of this AD; before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (n) Airplanes Excluded From Certain Requirements

    (1) For airplanes on which a rototest was done at fastener hole Nr 6 before cold working of the fastener hole during accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraph (n)(1)(i), (n)(1)(ii), (n)(1)(iii), or (n)(1)(iv) of this AD: The ultrasonic inspection specified in paragraph (l) of this AD is not required.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 01, dated July 31, 2009.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 01, dated June 31, 2009.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 02, dated June 15, 2011.

    (2) For airplanes that have been modified as of the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (n)(1)(i), (n)(1)(ii), (n)(1)(iii), or (n)(1)(iv) of this AD: No action is required by this paragraph, except as otherwise required by paragraph (l) of this AD and, provided that if any crack was found during any modification specified in this paragraph and the service information specified to contact Airbus, repair was done before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (o) Optional Terminating Actions

    (1) Modification of an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (o)(1)(i), (o)(1)(ii), (o)(1)(iii), (o)(1)(iv), (o)(1)(v), or (o)(1)(vi) of this AD; as applicable to airplane type and depending on airplane configuration; terminates the requirements of this AD, provided that in case of any crack finding during any modification specified in this paragraph, and the service information specifies to contact Airbus, repair is done before further flight, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090, dated March 27, 2006.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3090, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3098, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated September 24, 2012.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098, dated March 27, 2006.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4098, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2011.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4106, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated September 24, 2012.

    (2) Accomplishment of the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD and all applicable corrective actions required by paragraph (m) of this AD terminates the requirements of this AD for those airplanes.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2011-24-05, Amendment 39-16869 (76 FR 73496, November 29, 2011), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0010R1, dated May 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0937.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10177 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0934; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-030-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of defective fire extinguisher tubes. It was determined the defects were caused by corrosion. This proposed AD would require repetitive general visual inspections of the fire extinguisher tubes for cracking and corrosion, and replacement of any cracked tube with a serviceable tube, if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking and corrosion in the fire extinguisher tubes, which could impact the capability to extinguish an engine fire, and possibly result in damage to the airplane and injury to the passengers.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    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-2015-0934; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0934; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-030-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2013-0299, dated December 19, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several defective extinguisher tubes have been reported on certain Dassault Aviation Fan Jet Falcon aeroplanes. The results of the investigations concluded that these occurrences were caused by corrosion.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could impact the capability to extinguish an engine fire, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive [general visual] inspections [for cracking and corrosion] of the fire extinguisher tubes and, depending on findings, the replacement of an affected part with a serviceable part (improved fire extinguisher tube). It also proposes the replacement of those tubes with the “old Part Number” (P/N) with a serviceable part with the new P/N as a terminating action. In addition, this [EASA] AD prohibits installation of an affected tube on an aeroplane.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0934.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 170 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $57,800, or $340 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2015-0934; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-030-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 18, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of defective fire extinguisher tubes. It was determined the defects were caused by corrosion. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking and corrosion in the fire extinguisher tubes, which could impact the capability to extinguish an engine fire, and possibly result in damage to the airplane and injury to the passengers.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Within 13 months or 450 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the fire extinguisher tubes for cracking and corrosion, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 13 months.

    (1) Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes and Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes, equipped with any fire extinguisher tubes having part numbers MY20791-101, MY20791-101-1, MY20791-102, MY20791-102-1, MY20791-117, and MY20791-112.

    (2) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes equipped with any fire extinguisher tubes having part numbers M20H791000210B1 and M20H791000240B1.

    (3) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes equipped with any fire extinguisher tubes having part numbers M20R791101, M20R791101A1, and M20R791102.

    (h) Corrective Action

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any cracking or corrosion is found, before further flight, replace the tube with a serviceable tube having a part number specified in Table 1 of paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable.

    Table 1 of Paragraph (h) of this AD—Serviceable Fire Extinguisher Tubes For model— Equipped with
  • affected pin—
  • Replace with
  • serviceable pin—
  • FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes MY20791-101 MY20791-101-2 FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes MY20791-101-1 MY20791-101-2 FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes MY20791-102 MY20791-102-2 FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes MY20791-102-1 MY20791-102-2 FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes MY20791-117 MY20791-117-1 FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes MY20791-112 MY20791-112-1 MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes M20H791000210B1 M20H791000210B2 MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes M20H791000240B1 M20H791000240B2 MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes M20R791101 M20R791101A2 MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes M20R791101A1 M20R791101A3 MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes M20R791102 M20R791102A2
    (i) Terminating Action for the Repetitive Inspections

    Replacement of an affected tube with a serviceable tube, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, constitutes a terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a tube having a part number identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, on any airplane.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (l) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0299, dated December 19, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0934.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 17, 2015. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10179 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 147 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0248] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; NOBLE DISCOVERER, Outer Continental Shelf Drillship, Chukchi Sea, Alaska AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone that extends 500 meters from the outer edge of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER, as well as 500 meters from those points, suitably marked by a buoy, where the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER's mooring spread meets the ocean's surface. This safety zone would be in effect both when the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER is anchored and when deploying and recovering moorings. As a result, the size and shape of the safety zone will vary, depending on how far from the vessel the mooring spread is deployed, which is expected to be no more than 1,000 meters. This safety zone would be in effect when the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER is on location in order to drill exploratory wells at various prospects located in the Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, from 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2015. Lawful demonstrations may be conducted outside of the safety zone.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0248 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LCDR Jason Boyle, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi); telephone 907-463-2821, [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2015-0248), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0248] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2015-0248” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box, insert USCG-2015-0248 and click “Search.” Click the “open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column.

    You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one by using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    Shell Exploration & Production Company has proposed and received permits for drill sites within the Burger prospects, Chukchi Sea, Alaska.

    During the 2015 timeframe, Shell Exploration & Production Company has proposed drilling exploration wells at various Chukchi Sea prospects depending on favorable ice conditions, weather, sea state, and any other pertinent factors. Each of these drill sites will be permitted for drilling in 2015 to allow for operational flexibility in the event sea ice conditions prevent access to one of the locations. The number of actual wells that will be drilled will depend on ice conditions and the length of time available for the 2015 drilling season. The predicted “average” drilling season, constrained by prevailing ice conditions and regulatory restrictions, is long enough for two to three typical exploration wells to be drilled.

    The actual order of drilling activities will be controlled by an interplay between actual ice conditions immediately prior to a rig move, ice forecasts, any regulatory restrictions with respect to the dates of allowed operating windows, whether the planned drilling activity involves only drilling the shallow non-objective section or penetrating potential hydrocarbon zones, the availability of permitted sites having approved shallow hazards clearance, the anticipated duration of each contemplated drilling activity, the results of preceding wells and Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation plan requirements.

    The DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER has a “persons on board” capacity of 124, and it is expected to be at capacity for most of its operating period. The DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER's personnel will include its crew, as well as Shell employees, third party contractors, Alaska Native Marine Mammal Observers and possibly Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) personnel.

    While conducting exploration drilling operations, the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER will be anchored using an anchoring system consisting of an 8-point anchored mooring spread attached to the onboard turret and could have a maximum anchor radius of 3,600 ft (1,100 m). The center point of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER will be positioned within the prospect location in the Chukchi Sea.

    The DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER will move into the Chukchi Sea on or about July 1, 2015 and onto a prospect location when ice allows. Drilling will conclude on or before October 31, 2015. The drillship and support vessels will depart the Chukchi Sea at the conclusion of the 2015 drilling season.

    Shell Exploration & Production Company made a request that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone around the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER due to safety concerns for both the personnel aboard the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER and the environment. Shell Exploration & Production Company indicated that it is highly likely that any allision or inability to identify, monitor or mitigate any risks or threats, including ice-related hazards that might be encountered, may result in a catastrophic event. Incursions into the areas near the drilling vessels by unapproved vessels could degrade the ability to monitor and mitigate such risks.

    In evaluating the request for a safety zone, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including but not limited to: (1) The level of shipping activity around the operation; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessel; (3) concerns for the environment given the sensitivity of the environmental and the importance of fishing and hunting to the indigenous population; (4) the lack of any established shipping fairways, and fueling and supply storage/operations which increase the likelihood that an allision would result in a catastrophic event; (5) the recent and potential future maritime traffic in the vicinity of the proposed areas; (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the proposed area; (7) the structural configuration of the vessel, and (8) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations without endangering the safe operation of the vessel.

    Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the establishment of the proposed temporary safety zone. The proposed regulation would significantly reduce the threat of allisions that could result in oil spills, and other releases. Furthermore, the proposed regulation would increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Chukchi Sea by prohibiting entry into the zone unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, or a designated representative. Due to the remote location and the need to protect the environment, the Coast Guard may use criminal sanctions to enforce the safety zone as appropriate.

    The purpose of the temporary safety zone is to protect the drillship from vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways. Placing a safety zone around the drillship will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, which could result in oil spills and releases of natural gas, and thereby protects the safety of life, property, and the environment.

    C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    For the reasons described above, the Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone around the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells in various locations in the Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska from July 1 to October 31, 2015.

    The proposed temporary safety zone would encompass the area that extends 500 meters from the outer edge of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER, as well as 500 meters from those points, suitably marked by a buoy, where the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER's mooring spread meets the ocean's surface. This safety zone will be in effect both when the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER is anchored and when deploying and recovering moorings. As a result, the size and shape of the safety zone will vary, depending on how far from the vessel the mooring spread is deployed, which is expected to be no more than 1,000 meters. No vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in this proposed safety zone except the following: An attending vessel or a vessel authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16 or by telephone at 907-463-2000.

    For any group intending to conduct lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of the rig, these demonstrations must be conducted outside the safety zone.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER on the Outer Continental Shelf and its distance from both land and safety fairways. Vessels traversing waters near the proposed safety zone will be able to safely travel around the zone without incurring additional costs.

    2. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard has considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the Burger Prospects of the Chukchi Sea.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact or a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will enforce a safety zone around a drilling unit facility that is in areas of the Chukchi Sea not frequented by vessel traffic and is not in close proximity to a safety fairway. Further, vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone without incurring additional costs.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LCDR Jason Boyle, Coast Guard Seventeenth District, Office of Prevention; telephone 907-463-2821, [email protected] The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000.00 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

    The Coast Guard analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

    PART 147—SAFETY ZONES 1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 147.T17-0248 to read as follows:
    § 147.T17-0248 Safety Zone; DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER, Outer Continental Shelf Drillship, Chukchi Sea, Alaska.

    (a)(1) Description. The DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER will be engaged in exploratory drilling operations at various locations in the Chukchi Sea from July 1, 2015 through October 31, 2015. The DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER will be anchored while conducting exploratory drilling operations with the center point of the vessel located at the coordinates listed in Table 1.

    (2) Safety Zone. The area that extends 500 meters from the outer edge of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER, as well as 500 meters from those points, suitably marked by a buoy, where the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER's mooring spread meets the ocean's surface is a safety zone. Lawful demonstrations may be conducted outside of the safety zone.

    (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except the following:

    (1) An attending vessel; or

    (2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, or a designated representative.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Daniel B. Abel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10376 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 98 [Docket No. ACF-2013-0001-0001] RIN 0970-AC53 Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program AGENCY:

    Office of Child Care (OCC), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Child Care (OCC) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is withdrawing a previously published notice of proposed rulemaking that solicited public comment on reforms to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) program.

    DATES:

    The notice of proposed rulemaking published at 78 FR 29442, May 20, 2013, is withdrawn, effective immediately.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Williams, Director, Office of Child Care Policy Division, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447; 202-401-4795 (this is not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 20, 2013, HHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to the regulations at 45 CFR part 98 for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) program at 78 FR 29442. Subsequently, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, which governs the CCDF program, was reauthorized in November 2014 (Public Law 113-186). In light of this statutory change, HHS is hereby withdrawing the May 2013 NPRM, and will begin a new regulatory process with a proposed rule based on the new law.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Approved: April 27, 2015. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10351 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 391 [Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23151] RIN 2126-AA95 Qualifications of Drivers; Diabetes Standard AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA proposes to permit drivers with stable, well-controlled insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) to be qualified to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. Currently, drivers with ITDM are prohibited from driving CMVs in interstate commerce unless they obtain an exemption from FMCSA. This NPRM would enable individuals with ITDM to obtain a Medical Examiner's Certificate (MEC), from a medical examiner (ME) at least annually in order to operate in interstate commerce if the treating clinician (TC) who is the healthcare professional responsible for prescribing insulin for the driver's diabetes, provides documentation to the ME that the condition is stable and well-controlled.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number FMCSA-2005-23151 using any one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Docket Services (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions regarding submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rule, contact Ms. Linda Phillips, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington DC 20590-0001, by telephone at 202-366-4001, or by email at [email protected] If you have questions about viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Services, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents for Preamble I. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions B. Benefits and Costs II. Public Participation and Request for Comments A. Submitting Comments B. Viewing Comments and Documents C. Privacy Act III. Abbreviations and Acronyms IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking V. Background A. Diabetes B. Brief History of Physical Qualification Standards for CMV Drivers With ITDM C. Current Exemption Program VI. Reasons for the Proposed Changes A. Expert Guidance and Studies Concerning Risks for Drivers With Diabetes B. What FMCSA Is Proposing and Why VII. Section-By-Section Analysis A. Section 391.41 Physical Qualifications for Drivers B. Section 391.45 Persons Who Must Be Medically Examined and Certified C. Section 391.46 Physical Qualification Standards for a Person With Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Summary of Major Provisions

    Under the current regulations, a driver with ITDM may not operate a CMV in interstate commerce unless the driver obtains an exemption from FMCSA, which must be renewed at least every 2 years. FMCSA proposes to allow individuals with well-controlled ITDM to drive CMVs in interstate commerce if they are examined at least annually by an ME who is listed in the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry), have received the MEC from the ME, and are otherwise physically qualified. FMCSA believes that this procedure will adequately ensure that drivers with ITDM manage the condition so that it is stable and well-controlled, and that such a regulatory provision creates a clearer, equally effective and more consistent framework than a program based entirely on exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b).

    FMCSA evidence reports, ADA studies, and MRB conclusions and recommendations indicate that drivers with ITDM are as safe as other drivers when their condition is well-controlled. In order to determine if a driver with ITDM meets FMCSA's physical qualification standards and is able to obtain a MEC, the driver must be evaluated at least annually by his or her TC. The evaluation by the TC would ensure that the driver is complying with an appropriate standard of care for individuals with ITDM and would allow the TC to monitor for any of the progressive conditions associated with diabetes (e.g., nerve damage to the extremities, diabetic retinopathy, cataracts and hypoglycemia unawareness). The ME must obtain information from the TC to demonstrate the driver's condition is stable and well-controlled.

    B. Benefits and Costs

    FMCSA believes that this rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact. Compared to other CMV drivers, drivers with ITDM will incur costs for an additional Department of Transportation (DOT) medical examination of $151 annually; however, they will have the ability to earn a living without the inconvenience and added costs of obtaining and maintaining an exemption. The increased monitoring of the driver with ITDM could lead to better driver health while ensuring that the physical condition of CMV drivers enables them to operate CMVs safely. The total annual cost of medically qualifying drivers with ITDM would increase in comparison to the cost of the current exemption program based on a projected increase in the population of drivers who would seek medical certification, as shown in Table 1 below for ITDM drivers:

    Table 1—Total Annual Costs [In millions of $] Current exemption program Proposed rule
  • (100% ITDM-qualified drivers
  • (209,664 drivers) 1
  • Proposed rule
  • (66.7% ITDM-qualified drivers
  • (139,846 drivers)
  • Proposed rule
  • (33.3% ITDM-qualified drivers
  • (69,818 drivers)
  • Cost of Visits to Endocrinologist ($m) $0.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cost of Annual Exam of Eye Specialist ($m) 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cost of Issuing Annual Medical Certificates ($m) 0.13 16.35 10.91 5.45 Cost of Applying for Exemption ($m) 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Driver Time Costs of Medical Exams ($m) 0.06 7.55 5.03 2.51 Cost to Government ($m) 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Costs ($m) 1.79 23.90 15.94 7.96

    As the Agency lacks data to project the affected population changes in subsequent years, the analysis projects this rule's total annual costs to remain constant in real terms during each of the ten years from the initial compliance date. Therefore, for this rule a separate discussion of the annualized costs at the 7% discount rate is unnecessary, as the annualized costs are identical to the corresponding discounted annual costs.

    1 “ITDM-qualified drivers” are those the Agency believes would qualify under this proposed rule to receive medical examiner's certificates enabling them to operate CMVs in interstate commerce were they to undergo a DOT medical examination. The derivation of the estimated number of ITDM-qualified drivers at the three participation rates evaluated is shown in section 2.4.1 of the regulatory evaluation.

    II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. Where possible, we would like you to provide scientific, peer-reviewed data to support your comments. On March 17, 2006, the Agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the diabetes standard (71 FR 13810). In this NPRM, the Agency does not respond to comments submitted in response to the ANPRM. If you believe your previous comments are relevant to today's proposed rule, please reference them in your new comments to the docket FMCSA-2005-23151.

    A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (FMCSA-2005-23151), indicate the heading of the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov, type the docket number, “FMCSA-2005-23151” in the “Keyword” box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party, and click “Submit.” 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.

    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments.

    B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments and any document mentioned in this preamble, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number, “FMCSA-2005-23151” in the “Keyword” box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Services 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. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    III. Abbreviations and Acronyms ADA American Diabetes Association ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking CAA Clean Air Act CE Categorical Exclusion CDL Commercial Driver's License CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle DOT U.S. Department of Transportation E.O. Executive Order FHWA Federal Highway Administration's FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FR Federal Register FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations ICR Information Collection Request ITDM Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus LFC Licencia Federal de Conductor ME Certified Medical Examiner MEC Medical Examiner's Certificate MRB Medical Review Board NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget PIA Privacy Impact Assessment PRA Paper Reduction Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SORN System of Records Notice TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TC Treating Clinician IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a) and 31502(b)—delegated to the Agency by 49 CFR 1.87(f) and (i), respectively—to establish minimum qualifications, including medical and physical qualifications, for CMV drivers operating in interstate commerce. Section 31136(a)(3) requires that the Agency's safety regulations ensure that the physical conditions of CMV drivers enable them to operate their vehicles safely, and that MEs trained in physical and medical examination standards perform the physical examinations required of such operators.

    In 2005, Congress authorized the creation of the Medical Review Board (MRB) composed of experts “in a variety of medical specialties relevant to the driver fitness requirements” to provide advice and recommendations on qualification standards [49 U.S.C. 31149(a)]. The position of Chief Medical Officer was authorized at the same time [49 U.S.C. 31149(b)]. Under section 31149(c)(1), the Agency, with the advice of the MRB and Chief Medical Officer, is directed to “establish, review and revise . . . medical standards for operators of commercial motor vehicles that will ensure that the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely.” As discussed below in this proposed rule, the Agency, in conjunction with the Chief Medical Officer, asked the MRB to review and report on the current diabetes standard. The Board's recommendations and the Agency's responses are described elsewhere in this NPRM.

    In addition to the statutory requirements specific to the physical qualifications of CMV drivers [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)], FMCSA's regulations must also ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded and operated safely [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)]; that the responsibilities imposed on CMV drivers do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)]; that the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the drivers [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(4)]; and that drivers are not coerced by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs), 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 (which authorizes the hazardous materials regulations) or 49 U.S.C. chapter 313 (the authority for the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) regulations and the related drug and alcohol testing requirements) [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)].

    This proposed rule is based on 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and 31149(c), but does not deal with 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), (2), or (4). FMCSA believes that coercion of drivers with ITDM to violate the current rule preventing them from operating in interstate commerce—which is prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)—does not and will not occur. On the contrary, motor carriers have generally been reluctant to employ such drivers at all. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) original exemption program in the 1990s and FMCSA's subsequent program under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) allowed selected individuals with ITDM to drive legally for the first time, while also generating data showing that their safety records were at least as good as those of non-ITDM drivers.

    Section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1742, Aug. 10, 2005], in paragraphs (a) through (c), directed the Agency to relax certain requirements of its exemption program for drivers with ITDM.2 The last paragraph of section 4129 provides that insulin-treated individuals may not be held by the Secretary to a higher standard of physical qualification in order to operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce than other individuals applying to operate, or operating, a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce; except to the extent that limited operating, monitoring, and medical requirements are deemed medically necessary under regulations issued by the Secretary.3

    2 The exemption requirements were changed in a notice issued November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777).

    3 See http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-119/pdf/STATUTE-119-Pg1144.pdf (pages 599-600 of the 835 page PDF).

    FMCSA believes that this proposed rule would satisfy the purposes of section 4129(d), by imposing appropriate requirements on such drivers as contemplated by that provision and maintaining current levels of highway safety.

    Finally, prior to prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must consider their “costs and benefits” [49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)]. Those factors are discussed in the Rulemaking Analyses and Notices section of this NPRM.

    V. Background A. Diabetes

    Diabetes is a disorder of metabolism—the way the body uses digested food for growth and energy.4 The body breaks down most food into glucose. After digestion, glucose passes into the bloodstream, where cells use it for growth and energy. For glucose to enter cells, insulin, a hormone produced by the pancreas, must be present. Normally, the pancreas produces the right amount of insulin automatically to move glucose from blood into the cells. In people with diabetes, however, either the pancreas produces little or no insulin or the cells do not respond appropriately to the insulin that is produced. Glucose builds up in the blood, overflows into the urine, and passes out of the body in the urine. Thus, the body loses its main source of fuel although the blood contains large amounts of glucose. The excess glucose in the blood (called hyperglycemia) plays an important role in disease-related complications.

    4 See the source document for this discussion at http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/DiabetesOverview_508.pdf.

    Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks and destroys the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. The pancreas then produces little or no insulin. A person who has Type 1 diabetes must take insulin daily to live. Type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5 percent of all diagnosed cases of diabetes in the United States and is usually diagnosed in children and young adults.

    In Type 2 diabetes, the pancreas is usually producing enough insulin, but the body cannot use the insulin effectively, a condition called insulin resistance. After several years, insulin production decreases. The result is the same as for Type 1 diabetes—glucose builds up in the blood and the body cannot make efficient use of its main source of fuel. Type 2 diabetes can be treated through diet, with insulin, or with medications other than insulin. The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes increases with age. Type 2 diabetes accounts for about 95 percent of diagnosed diabetes in adults in the United States.

    Over time, people with the disease have a heightened potential of developing other problematic medical conditions. These conditions include proliferative diabetic retinopathy,5 cataracts and glaucoma, high blood pressure and other cardiovascular problems, kidney disease, and circulation issues for the extremities, which can cause numbness and decreased functionality, particularly with feet and legs.

    5 Between 40 and 45 percent of Americans diagnosed with diabetes have some stage of diabetic retinopathy. The four stages of diabetic retinopathy, from mild, non-proliferative to proliferative, are described by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health at: http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/diabetic/retinopathy.asp. Web site accessed on March 20, 2015.

    Of particular concern for drivers, however, are the immediate symptoms of severe hypoglycemia—a condition where insulin treatment may cause blood glucose to drop to a dangerously low concentration.6 A person experiencing hypoglycemia may have one or more of the following symptoms: Double vision or blurry vision; shaking or trembling; tiredness or weakness; unclear thinking; fainting; seizures; or coma.7 If any of these symptoms of severe hypoglycemia occurs while someone is driving, there is the potential for a crash.

    6 According to the ADA Web site, “Hypoglycemia is a condition characterized by abnormally low blood glucose (blood sugar) levels, usually less than 70 mg/dl.” http://www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/treatment-and-care/blood-glucose-control/hypoglycemia-low-blood.html. Web site accessed on March 20, 2015.

    7http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000386.htm. Web site accessed on March 20, 2015.

    Some people with blood glucose readings at concentrations below optimal levels perceive no symptoms and no early warning signs of low blood glucose—a condition called hypoglycemia unawareness. This condition occurs most often in people with Type 1 diabetes, but it can occur in people with Type 2 diabetes. Note, however, that impairments associated with diabetes mellitus can be abated through proper disease management and monitoring to stabilize and control the condition.

    B. Brief History of Physical Qualification Standards for CMV Drivers With ITDM 8

    8 A more complete history of the Federal regulation of drivers with ITDM is available in the ANPRM published March 17, 2006 (71 FR 13802), which readers can find in the docket for this rulemaking.

    From 1940 until 1971, one of FMCSA's predecessors recommended that CMV drivers have urine glucose tests as part of medical examinations for determining whether persons are physically qualified to drive CMVs in interstate or foreign commerce (4 FR 2294, June 7, 1939, effective date January 1, 1940). In 1971, FHWA, FMCSA's predecessor agency, established the current standard for drivers with ITDM (35 FR 6458, April 22, 1970, effective date January 1, 1971), which includes testing urine for glucose. That standard states that a “person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.” 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). However, beginning in 1993, CMV drivers with ITDM had the opportunity to apply to FHWA for a waiver until a 1994 Federal court decision invalidated the waiver program.

    In 1998, section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 413-4 (TEA-21) (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31305) directed the Secretary to determine the feasibility of developing “a practicable and cost-effective screening, operating and monitoring protocol” for allowing drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. This protocol “would ensure a level of safety equal to or greater than that achieved with the current prohibition on individuals with insulin treated diabetes mellitus driving such vehicles.”

    As directed by section 4018, FHWA compiled and evaluated the available research and information. It assembled a panel of medical experts in the treatment of diabetes to investigate and report about the issues concerned with the treatment, medical screening, and monitoring of ITDM individuals in the context of operating CMVs. In July 2000, FMCSA 9 submitted a report to Congress titled, “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate Commercial Motor Vehicles in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century” (TEA-21 Report to Congress).10 This Report to Congress concluded that it was feasible to establish a safe and practicable protocol containing three components allowing some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs. The three components were: (1) Screening of qualified ITDM commercial drivers, (2) establishing operational requirements to ensure proper disease management by such drivers, and (3) monitoring safe driving behavior and proper disease management.

    9 The motor carrier regulatory functions of the FHWA were transferred to FMCSA in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, Dec. 9, 1999.

    10 The TEA-21 Report to Congress can be accessed in the docket for this rulemaking. For a detailed discussion of the report's findings and conclusions, see 66 FR 39548 (July 31, 2001).

    On July 31, 2001, because of the conclusions found in the TEA-21 Report to Congress, FMCSA published a notice proposing to issue exemptions from the FMCSRs allowing drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. 66 FR 39548. After receiving and considering comments, FMCSA issued a Notice of Final Disposition (“2003 Notice”) establishing the procedures and protocols for implementing the exemptions for drivers with ITDM. 68 FR 52441 (Sept. 3, 2003). So beginning again in 2003, CMV drivers with ITDM could apply to FMCSA for an exemption from this prohibition.

    To obtain an exemption, a CMV driver with ITDM had to meet the specific conditions and comply with the requirements set out in the final disposition. The driver had to follow the application process set out in 49 CFR part 381, subpart C, and FMCSA could not grant an exemption unless a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption would be maintained. 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 49 CFR 381.305(a).

    In conformity with the conclusions of the TEA-21 Report to Congress, the 2003 Notice implemented the three protocol components recommended in the report, with a few modifications.

    C. Current Exemption Program

    FMCSA administers an exemption program for individuals with ITDM who wish to become qualified or maintain their physical qualifications as CMV drivers. The Agency administers this exemption program under 49 CFR part 381 subpart C according to directives in notices of disposition published in 2003 (68 FR 52441, Sept. 3, 2003) and 2005 (70 FR 67777, Nov. 8, 2005).

    To apply for an exemption under the current program administered by FMCSA, the driver must submit a letter application with medical documentation showing the following: 11

    11 This list of requirements to apply for and maintain an ITDM exemption is not inclusive.

    (1) The driver has been examined by a board-certified or board-eligible endocrinologist who has conducted a comprehensive evaluation including (i) one measure of glycosylated hemoglobin within a range of ≥7 percent and ≤10 percent, and (ii) a signed statement regarding the doctor's determinations;

    (2) The driver has obtained a signed statement from an ophthalmologist or optometrist that the driver has been examined, has no unstable proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and meets the vision standard in § 391.41(b)(10); and

    (3) The driver has obtained a signed copy of an ME's Medical Evaluation Report and of a Medical Examiner's Certificate issued showing that the driver meets all other standards in § 391.41(b).

    FMCSA does not conduct exams of any of the drivers in the exemption program. We accept the paperwork from the MEs and the TCs and make our decision based on the paperwork. To maintain the exemption, the driver must meet certain conditions, which include the following:

    (1) Yearly medical re-certification by an ME;

    (2) Quarterly reports submitted by an endocrinologist to FMCSA including blood glucose logs, insulin regimen changes and hypoglycemic events, if any, that the driver has experienced;

    (3) Annual comprehensive medical evaluation by an endocrinologist;

    (4) An annual vision evaluation confirming no evidence of unstable proliferative diabetic retinopathy and meeting the vision standard for CMV drivers;

    (5) Maintaining appropriate medical supplies for glucose management, including a monitor, insulin, and an amount of rapidly absorbable glucose in the vehicle to be used as necessary;

    (6) Following a protocol to monitor and maintain blood glucose levels; and

    (7) Reporting all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes, and any involvement in a crash or adverse event to the Agency.

    According to the annual report for the diabetes exemption program, FMCSA received 858 applications in 2012, continuing the growth trend of the preceding six years.12 Before granting a request for an exemption, FMCSA must publish a notice in the Federal Register for each exemption requested, explaining that the request has been filed, and providing the public an opportunity to inspect the safety analysis and any other relevant information known to the Agency and to comment on the request. The notice also must identify the person or class of persons who will receive the exemption, the provisions from which the person will be exempt, the effective period, and all terms and conditions of the exemption. In addition, the Agency must monitor the implementation of each exemption to ensure compliance with its terms and conditions.

    12 Annual Report for the FMCSA Diabetes Exemption Program, December 31, 2012.

    After the comment period, as part of the approval process, FMCSA must publish a notice of its decision to approve or deny the request. A driver must reapply for an exemption every 2 years. However, FMCSA may revoke an exemption immediately under standards set out in § 381.330.

    Should this proposal become a final rule, CMV drivers with ITDM could meet physical qualification standards under the new rule without applying for or receiving exemptions.

    VI. Reasons for the Proposed Changes

    This section of the preamble is divided into two major subsections. The first section discusses data reflected in evidence reports and American Diabetes Association (ADA) studies examining risks associated with diabetes and driving in general, and the association between hypoglycemia and ITDM in particular. It also discusses MRB findings and conclusions based on evidence reports. The second section explains why FMCSA is proposing to eliminate the exemption program and establish a medical qualification standard for drivers with ITDM, including relating the proposed rule elements to the current exemption program, MRB recommendations, and findings from the ADA studies.

    A. Expert Guidance and Studies Medical Review Board Guidance

    FMCSA uses an evidence-based systematic review process and consultation with the MRB and the Chief Medical Officer to revise or develop medical standards and guidelines for commercial drivers. In its deliberations concerning commercial drivers with ITDM, the MRB reviewed the analysis of a 2006 evidence-based report and a 2010 update of that report.13 Both reports focused primarily on the risks to driver safety from the acute risks associated with diabetes mellitus (e.g., hypoglycemia), but did not address driver safety issues related to chronic complications of diabetes (e.g., diabetic nephropathy, neuropathy, retinopathy, and/or cardiovascular conditions resulting from the long-term complications of diabetes). Both the evidence reports and ADA studies, discussed in the next section, show that hypoglycemia is the chief safety concern for drivers with the disease. Further, the 2010 Update studies show use of insulin, a long duration on insulin, and impaired hypoglycemic awareness as among the factors “repeatedly shown to be associated with an increased incidence of severe hypoglycemia.” 14

    13 The 2006 ITDM evidence report is Tregear, SJ, Rizzo M, Tiller M, et al., “Evidence Report: Diabetes and Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,” September 8, 2006. Accessed on May 20, 2015, at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30100/30117/Final_Diabetes_Evidence_Report.pdf. The 2010 update report is Bieber-Tregear, M.; Funmilayo, D; Amana, A.; Connor, D; Tregear, S.; and Tiller, M., “Evidence Report: 2010 Update: Diabetes and Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,” May 27, 2011. Accessed on May 20, 2015, at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/39000/39400/39416/2010_Diabetes_Update_Final_May_27_2011.pdf, (2010 Update).

    14 2010 Update Page 10.

    After considering the findings in the evidence-based reports, the MRB members agreed unanimously that hypoglycemia among individuals with diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for motor vehicle crashes and approved a set of recommendations to FMCSA for CMV drivers with diabetes mellitus intended to reduce the likelihood of their operating when impaired by hypoglycemic conditions. The MRB recommended that FMCSA allow individuals with ITDM to drive CMVs if they are free of severe hypoglycemic reactions, have no altered mental status or unawareness of hypoglycemia, and manage their diabetes mellitus properly to keep blood sugar levels in the appropriate ranges. The MRB also recommended that all drivers diagnosed with diabetes mellitus be required to obtain at least annual recertification by a ME who is a licensed physician, regardless of whether they are insulin-treated. However, the MRB recommended maintaining a restriction on medical qualification of drivers with ITDM from passenger and hazardous materials transportation.

    American Diabetes Association Position Paper

    In a 2012 peer-reviewed position paper titled, “Diabetes and Driving,” the ADA provided “an overview of existing (drivers) licensing rules for people with diabetes, address[ing] the factors that impact driving for this population, and identify[ing] general guidelines for assessing driver fitness and determining appropriate licensing restrictions.” 15 At the end of the paper, ADA set out recommendations for identifying and evaluating diabetes in drivers.16 Although the ADA addressed these issues in discussing fitness for non-CMV drivers with diabetes, the same disease-related conditions that present driving concerns in the non-CMV driving population create those same concerns in the CMV driving population. ADA begins by stating, “[M]ost people with diabetes safely operate motor vehicles without creating any meaningful risk of injury to themselves or others.” 17 Summarizing several studies on understanding diabetes and driving, the paper notes inconsistent findings relative to which drivers with diabetes are at higher risk of crashes. However, the paper notes that according to the studies, “The single most significant factor associated with driving collisions for drivers with diabetes appears to be a recent history of severe hypoglycemia,18 regardless of the type of diabetes or the treatment used.” 19 The paper further references studies finding that even moderate hypoglycemia “significantly and consistently impairs driving safely and judgment as to whether to continue to drive or self-treat under such metabolic conditions.” 20

    15 ADA, “Diabetes and Driving,” Diabetes Care, vol. 35, supplement 1, January 2012, pp. S81-S85, at S81. Accessed March 20, 2015, from: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/Supplement_1/S81.full.pdf+html.

    16 Id. at S83-S85.

    17 Id. at S81.

    18 Id. at S82 (“The American Diabetes Association Workgroup on Hypoglycemia defined severe hypoglycemia as low blood glucose resulting in neuroglycopenia that disrupts cognitive motor function and requires the assistance of another to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or other resuscitative actions.”).” Reference omitted.

    19 Id. At page 84, the paper states, “[R]ecurrent episodes of severe hypoglycemia, defined as two or more episodes in a year, may indicate that a person is not able to safely operate a motor vehicle.”

    20 Id. References omitted.

    In evaluating fitness for drivers with diabetes, the ADA paper underscores the importance of individualized assessments “based not solely on diagnosis of diabetes but rather on concrete evidence of actual risk.” 21 According to the ADA paper, such an assessment “must include an assessment by the treating physician or other diabetes specialist who can review recent diabetes history” as these health care providers are “the best source of information concerning the driver's diabetes management and history.” 22 Among other things, the ADA paper recommends physicians provide the following information to licensing authorities: (1) The driver's risk of severe hypoglycemia; (2) the driver's ability to recognize imminent hypoglycemia and take appropriate corrective action; and (3) the driver's ability to provide evidence of sufficient self-monitoring of blood glucose. Appropriate screening inquiries related to driver fitness include “whether the driver has, within the past 12 months, lost consciousness due to hypoglycemia, experienced hypoglycemia that required intervention from another person to treat or that interfered with driving, or experienced hypoglycemia that developed without warning.” 23

    21 Id. at S83.

    22 Id.

    23 Id.

    The ADA's summary of findings concerning the risks of driving and diabetes concludes that, “[M]ost people with diabetes safely operate motor vehicles without creating any meaningful risk of injury to themselves or others.” 24 This statement also reflects FMCSA's conclusion based on the available evidence.

    24 Id. at S81.

    B. What FMCSA is Proposing and Why

    In accordance with section 4129(d) of SAFETEA-LU referenced earlier in the Legal Basis section of the preamble, FMCSA may not adopt higher physical qualification standards for drivers with ITDM “except to the extent that limited operating, monitoring, and medical requirements are deemed medically necessary.” As noted above, CMV drivers with diabetes whose condition is stable and well-controlled do not pose an unreasonable risk to their health or to public safety. Also, as noted, studies indicate that hypoglycemia is the chief safety concern for drivers with diabetes, and the evidence reports show a connection between insulin use and the risk of hypoglycemia. FMCSA has determined that the inconvenience and expense for drivers, and the administrative burden of an exemption program are no longer necessary to address concerns of hypoglycemia and meet the statutory requirement that drivers with ITDM maintain a physical condition that “is adequate to enable them to operate (CMVs) safely.” 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3). The principal reason for codifying medical qualification standards for ITDM drivers is to eliminate the prohibition on physically qualifying these drivers, thereby promoting their ability to earn a living without the inconvenience and added costs of obtaining and maintaining an exemption. As stated above, evidence indicates that these drivers are reasonably safe to drive if their diabetes is stable and well-controlled.

    In this proposed rule, FMCSA would address hypoglycemia as a driver health and operational safety risk by establishing a regulatory protocol to ensure proper disease monitoring and management for drivers using insulin. The Agency is proposing to allow drivers with ITDM to be medically qualified. As a result, the exemption program established in the 2003 and 2005 notices would be unnecessary, and the notices would be withdrawn when this final rule becomes effective. These actions are consistent with the MRB recommendations. Further, this rulemaking would allow healthcare professionals familiar with a driver's physical condition to communicate directly with each other, appropriately ensuring that the MEs have the information necessary to complete the certificate attesting to the driver's medical qualifications. The practice of medical certification through MEs is more efficient and is reflective of congressional intent to have MEs on the National Registry make an individualized assessment of a particular driver's health status and ability to operate a CMV safely.

    Contrary to the MRB recommendations, the Agency is not proposing to prohibit drivers with ITDM from being medically qualified to operate CMVs carrying passengers and hazardous materials. The risk posed by a driver with stable, well-controlled ITDM is very low in general. Further, there is no available evidence to support such a prohibition, and, as noted, under section 4129 of SAFETEA-LU, FMCSA may not hold drivers with ITDM “to a higher standard of physical qualification . . . than other individuals . . . except to the extent that limited operating, monitoring, and medical requirements are deemed medically necessary under regulations.” In addition, the current exemption program permits these drivers to qualify for passenger carrying and hazardous materials transportation. The Agency requests public comment specifically on this point, however.

    In addition, FMCSA is not proposing to adopt the MRB recommendation to require annual or more frequent medical recertification for all drivers with diabetes mellitus. The proposed requirements apply only to drivers with ITDM. Current regulations do not prohibit any drivers with non-insulin treated diabetes mellitus from being qualified medically to operate CMVs. Finding no medical necessity for such a prohibition, the Agency is not proposing such a change. Furthermore, although the MRB recommended evaluation by a licensed physician, the Agency believes the TC working in conjunction with the ME, who is certified by the National Registry and working within the regulatory framework under part 391, meets the statutory requirement under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) for periodic physical examinations of drivers. The Agency seeks comment on these issues.

    Today's proposed rule would amend 49 CFR part 391 by revising §§ 391.41 and 391.45 and by adding new § 391.46 to address driver health and public safety concerns associated with hypoglycemia related to diabetes and its control through insulin. The elements of the proposed rule are limited and medically necessary under section 4129(d) of SAFETEA-LU, ensure that the physical condition of drivers with ITDM is adequate to enable them to operate CMVs safely as required by 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3), and align with current best medical practice standards for monitoring and managing ITDM. In brief, the Agency proposes the following elements:

    A driver with ITDM must have an annual or more frequent evaluation by a TC prior to a DOT medical examination by a certified ME. This proposed requirement is consistent with the MRB recommendations, except that the MRB recommended application to all drivers with diabetes mellitus. For the reason stated above, FMCSA is proposing this requirement only for drivers with ITDM.

    The driver must keep blood glucose records as determined by the TC and submit those records to his or her TC at the evaluation. This proposed requirement is consistent with the MRB recommendation that drivers with ITDM monitor blood glucose levels and submit logs as part of their annual evaluation.

    The ME must obtain written notification from the driver's TC, who has determined whether, in the preceding 12 months, the driver had a severe hypoglycemic reaction or demonstrated hypoglycemic unawareness and monitored and managed the condition properly as evidenced by blood glucose records. This proposed requirement is consistent with the MRB recommendation that drivers with ITDM be free of severe hypoglycemia and hypoglycemia unawareness, and that these drivers properly monitor and manage the condition.

    At least annually, an ME, listed on the National Registry, must examine and certify that the driver is free of complications that would impair the driver's ability to operate a CMV safely and only renew the medical certificate for up to 1 year. This proposed requirement is consistent with the MRB recommendation for annual or more frequent recertification. For the reason stated above, FMCSA is proposing this requirement only for drivers with ITDM.

    In contrast with the current exemption program, the proposed rule would require an annual evaluation by a TC instead of an evaluation by an endocrinologist and an annual or more frequent DOT medical examination by a certified ME to determine if medical certification is warranted. Evaluation by a TC allows for the individualized assessment of drivers with ITDM, which is consistent with the recommendations of the ADA and other organizations concerned with diagnosis and treatment of the disease. Most importantly, under section 4129(a) of SAFETEA-LU, Congress expressly directed FMCSA to modify the exemption program to “provide for the individual assessment of applicants who use insulin to treat their diabetes and who are, except for their use of insulin, otherwise qualified under the [FMCSRs].” FMCSA believes that a similar provision for an individual assessment is also appropriate in this rule. Further, although the ADA, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and other organizations urge yearly assessments for individuals with diabetes by a physician or health care professional knowledgeable about the disease, none of these groups calls for yearly evaluations by endocrinologists. The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases notes that most people with diabetes receive care from a primary care physician—generally an internist or family practice doctor. Indeed, a requirement to be evaluated by an endocrinologist now seems impracticable for most drivers with ITDM. According to the American Board of Internal Medicine, there are only about 5,300 board-certified endocrinologists in the United States, approximately 1,300 of which do not provide clinical care.25

    25http://thyroid.about.com/od/findlearnfromdoctors/a/endo-shortage.htm. Accessed on March 20, 2015.

    Reasonable persons with ITDM have every incentive to manage their condition so that the disease is stable and well-controlled, because the failure to take care of themselves not only would affect the quality of life, but also would significantly increase the risk of a hypoglycemic event. For a CMV driver, this situation would result in the inability to renew the required medical certificate and to earn an income through driving a CMV.

    If a driver who has not used insulin previously begins using insulin for control of diabetes mellitus, the driver would be required to have an examination by a TC prior to the required DOT medical examination by a certified ME . The ME would use medical information from the TC in conjunction with the medical certification examination to determine whether a driver new to insulin treatment qualifies for medical certification. Essentially, in issuing a MEC under FMCSA regulations, the ME will reflect his or her evaluation that such drivers are free of complications that might impair the ability to operate a CMV safely in interstate commerce.

    For all drivers with ITDM, the annual visit with the TC would ensure that a driver is complying with an appropriate standard of care for individuals with that condition, and it would allow the TC to monitor any of the other progressive conditions associated with diabetes. Although the proposed rule has no requirement for hypoglycemia awareness training, the annual or more frequent ME certification exam provides an opportunity for intervention should the TC evaluation, and the ME's own examination, provide evidence of hypoglycemia unawareness that impairs safe driving. The ME will request that the TC provide written notification regarding the ITDM driver's disease management prior to the examination of the driver.

    The annual or more frequent requirement for a new MEC aligns with the current interval specified under the directives in the notices of final disposition and with the interval specified for drivers with ITDM by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. The determination of whether a driver with ITDM is eligible to receive a MEC would rest with the ME who, working under part 391 with information provided by the TC, is authorized by statute to conduct DOT medical examinations.

    The proposed rule would not change the requirement under 49 CFR 392.3 for every CMV driver, including those with ITDM, to refrain from operating a CMV while the driver's ability or alertness is impaired in a way that would compromise safety. The driver's knowledge of the issues surrounding ITDM, appropriate monitoring protocols, and equipment and supplies are still very important. The proposed rule would not allow drivers with ITDM with licenses issued in Canada or Mexico to operate a CMV in the United States. Drivers from Mexico with a Licencia Federal de Conductor (LFC) generally may operate in the United States. 49 CFR 383.23(b), n. 1 and 391.41(a)(1)(i). But Mexico does not issue an LFC to any driver with diabetes. Under the terms of the 1998 reciprocity agreement with Canada, a Canadian driver with ITDM holding a license issued by a Canadian province is not authorized to operate a CMV in the United States.

    In 1994, at the termination of the ITDM waiver program described in the Background section of this NPRM, FHWA allowed drivers holding waivers to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce under the grandfather provisions of 49 CFR 391.64. The requirements in proposed § 391.46 reflect limited and necessary diabetes monitoring and management practices based on the results of the ADA studies and the evidence reports. On the other hand, under the current requirements in § 391.64, a driver with ITDM must continue to receive an annual endocrinologist examination, carry an absorbable source of glucose, and meet other requirements that FMCSA has determined are impracticable or unenforceable. If the requirements proposed today are adopted, the Agency believes that grandfathering provisions may be redundant because the individuals with waivers would comply already with the necessary elements of § 391.64 (e.g., otherwise qualifying under § 391.41 and annual examination by an ME), or would be able to meet a less restrictive requirement (e.g., annual examination by a TC rather than a board-certified endocrinologist). However, FMCSA seeks comments regarding whether removing these grandfathering provisions would adversely affect any driver that is operating currently under § 391.64.

    The current exemption program requires drivers with ITDM to obtain a signed statement from an ophthalmologist or optometrist that the applicant has been examined, meets the vision standard in § 391.41(b) or has an exemption, and does not have diabetic retinopathy. If the applicant has diabetic retinopathy, he or she must be tested by an ophthalmologist to determine whether the condition is unstable and proliferative. Following that exam, the applicant must submit a separate signed statement from the ophthalmologist certifying that the applicant's diabetic retinopathy is not unstable or proliferative.

    The proposed rule would not require drivers with ITDM to be examined or obtain a signed statement from an ophthalmologist or optometrist to meet the vision standard or a separate examination for diabetic retinopathy. As stated above, FMCSA believes that reasonable persons with ITDM have every incentive to manage their condition so that the disease is stable and well-controlled, because the failure to care for themselves would affect their quality of life. This includes examinations by an optometrist or ophthalmologist to assess the individual's long term visual health. The regulatory concern for any driver is whether he or she can meet the standards in § 391.41(b)(10). FMCSA believes that meeting the vision acuity standard as part of the annual exam by an ME listed in the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners provides reasonable certainty of discovering and mitigating risks associated with any safety-related condition that would interfere with meeting the standard, including diabetic retinopathy. This approach also would be less costly for drivers who would incur the cost of seeing a vision specialist only if there are signs of a degenerative condition, in contrast to the exemption program requirement that these drivers must see an optometrist or ophthalmologist to meet visual acuity requirements under § 391.41(b). The Agency requests comment on the need for a person with ITDM to be examined by an optometrist or ophthalmologist as a condition of passing the physical exam.

    VII. Section-By-Section Analysis

    This NPRM addresses the physical qualification standards for interstate CMV drivers treating their diabetes mellitus with insulin. This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed provisions in numerical order.

    Section 391.41 Physical Qualifications for Drivers

    Section 391.41 would be amended to allow drivers treating diabetes mellitus with insulin to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce provided they meet the conditions specified in the new § 391.46. Paragraph (b)(3) would be revised to allow a person to meet the physical qualification standards to operate a commercial motor vehicle either by (1) having no medical history or diagnosis of diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control or (2) meeting the requirements in new § 391.46.

    Section 391.45 Persons Who Must Be Medically Examined and Certified

    Section 391.45 would be revised to renumber the section for clarity. Existing paragraph (b)(1) would become new paragraph (b), requiring any driver who has not been medically examined and certified as qualified to operate a CMV during the preceding 24 months, unless the driver is required to be examined and certified in accordance with paragraphs (c), (d), (e) or (f) of this section. Existing paragraph (b)(2) would be divided into new paragraphs (c) and (d). Existing paragraph (c) would become new paragraph (f). New paragraph (e) would require any driver who has diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control and who has been qualified for a MEC under the standards in § 391.46 to be medically examined and certified as qualified to drive at least every 12 months.

    Section 391.46 Physical Qualification Standards for a Person With Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus

    A new § 391.46 would be added containing the requirements that a person who has diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control must meet to be physically qualified to drive a CMV in accordance with specific standards for such drivers.

    Proposed paragraph (a) would require that a person with diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control is physically qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce if he or she otherwise meets the standards in § 391.41 and also meets the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of proposed § 391.46.

    Paragraph (b) would require the person with diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control to have an evaluation by his or her TC who would determine that the driver had not experienced a recent severe hypoglycemic reaction and was properly managing the disease. A definition of TC would be added to the provision. Paragraph (b) also would require a person with diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control to be medically examined and certified under § 391.43 by an ME. These examinations would occur at least annually. The ME must obtain and review written notification from the TC that the person is properly managing the diabetes mellitus. Paragraph (c) would require that the medically certified driver with ITDM maintain his or her blood glucose records per the guidance of the TC for the period of certification and submit those records to the TC at the time of the evaluation.

    VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order (E.O.) 12866) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (issued September 30, 1993, published October 4 at 58 FR 51735, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and DOT policies and procedures, FMCSA must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. E.O. 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” as one likely to result in a rule that may:

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal government or communities.

    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency.

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof.

    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.

    FMCSA determined this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and not significant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures. The Agency estimates that the economic impact of this proposed rule will not exceed the annual $100 million threshold for economic significance.

    This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) provides an assessment of the costs and benefits of the Qualifications of Drivers: Diabetes NPRM. FMCSA proposes to allow the operation of CMVs in interstate commerce by drivers with well-controlled ITDM whose physical condition allows them to operate safely. Under current medical qualifications requirements an insulin-dependent driver does not meet the qualifications of § 391.41(b)(3) to receive a MEC to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. However, FMCSA may grant the driver with stable, well-controlled ITDM an exemption to drive in interstate commerce under the procedures in 49 CFR part 381 and the protocols in the 2003 Notice of Final Disposition as updated in 2005.26

    26 68 FR 52441 and 70 FR 67777.

    The proposed rule would change the physical qualification standards to allow the ME to qualify drivers with stable, well-controlled ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. FMCSA has evaluated the costs and benefits of the proposed rule using the current exemption program as a baseline for comparison. The proposed rule and the exemption program differ on key provisions that affect costs, which are summarized below.

    Table 2—Comparison of Current Exemption Program and Proposed Rule Current exemption program Proposed rule Annual exam by ME Annual exam by ME. Renewable exemption granted by FMCSA for up to every 2 years No exemption needed. Annual exam by eye specialist for evidence of diabetic retinopathy No annual exam by eye specialist required in regulations. Annual evaluation by board-certified endocrinologist Annual evaluation by TC. Submit quarterly reports from board-certified endocrinologist No report required.

    The majority of CMV drivers receive MECs that are valid for two years. The proposed rule would require drivers with ITDM to obtain MECs at least annually as currently required by the exemption program. However these drivers would no longer be required to obtain an exemption from FMCSA. A driver with stable, well-controlled ITDM who meets the requirements of the proposed rule could obtain a MEC and continue to earn income operating CMVs in interstate commerce without the additional expense and delay of applying for an exemption.

    Not all drivers who seek to be medically certified under the standards described in this proposed rule would be medically qualified to operate a CMV, however estimating the number of drivers who would join the driver population is difficult. As a result the Agency has performed a threshold analysis using various percentages of ITDM-medically qualified drivers to determine possible costs of the rule annually in millions of dollars. Further information on this analysis may be found in the RIA in the docket.

    In this analysis, we provide cost estimates if the estimated rates of ITDM-qualified driver populations are: 33.3%, 66.7%, and 100%. The Agency has no estimate of the actual rate of ITDM-qualified drivers certified under the qualifications proposed here and feels that 33.3%, 66.7%, and 100% acceptance rates allow the reader to understand the range of possible impacts of the rule. This has no impact on the rule's cost per driver which will be discussed shortly.

    The proposed rule is less onerous for both drivers with ITDM and for the Agency. The Agency would change the requirement from an annual evaluation by a board-certified endocrinologist to one with a TC because the treating licensed healthcare professional is capable of determining whether the driver's condition is well-controlled. The revised requirement also would eliminate quarterly reports from the board-certified endocrinologist, the sharing of information between the ME on the National Registry and the TC would ensure that only drivers who are controlling their ITDM would receive a 1-year medical certificate. The Agency would no longer review applications for exemptions, further reducing administrative costs for FMCSA. The rule would eliminate an annual eye exam, because a qualified ME on the Agency's National Registry could determine whether the driver meets the vision standard. For these reasons, the per-driver cost would be significantly lower under the proposed rule than under the current exemption program.

    The table below compares costs of the current exemption program with projected costs of the proposed rule. As the Agency lacks sufficient data to project the affected population changes in subsequent years, the analysis projects this rule's total annual costs to remain constant in real terms during each of the ten years from the initial compliance date. A separate discussion of the annualized costs at the 7% discount rate for this rule is therefore unnecessary, as the annualized costs are identical to the corresponding discounted annual costs. The Agency seeks comments on the use and appropriateness of these ranges in the absence of additional data on the prevalence of ITDM-qualified drivers and their likelihood of participating in the proposal's certification program.

    Table 3—Total Annual Costs [In millions of $] Current exemption program Proposed rule
  • (100% IDTM-qualified drivers 27—209,664 drivers)
  • Proposed rule
  • (66.7% ITDM-qualified drivers—139,846 drivers)
  • Proposed rule
  • (33.3% ITDM-qualified drivers—69,818 drivers)
  • Cost of Endocrinology Visits ($m) $0.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cost of Annual Exam of Eye Specialist ($m) 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cost of Issuing Annual Medical Certificates ($m) 0.13 16.35 10.91 5.45 Cost of Applying for Exemption ($m) 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Driver Time Costs of Medical Exams ($m) 0.0 7.55 5.03 2.51 Cost to Government ($m) 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Costs ($m) 1.79 23.90 15.94 7.96

    On a per-driver basis, the annual cost impact of this rule is consistent across all ITDM-qualified drivers. These costs include a driver's cost of time related to the DOT medical examination ($31 per hour) and a driver's expense for the out-of-cycle DOT medical examination ($120). Combined, the out-of-pocket cost per ITDM-qualified driver resulting from this proposal is $151 (= $31 + $120). If an ITDM-qualified driver presently participates in the medical exemption program, although he or she will still incur the annual $151 cost of this proposal, this driver will experience a significant cost reduction relative to the cost to participate in the current exemption program, discussed further in the RIA.

    27 “ITDM-qualified drivers” are those the Agency believes would qualify under this proposed rule to receive medical certificates enabling them to operate CMVs in interstate commerce were they to undergo a DOT medical examination. The derivation of the estimated number of ITDM-qualified drivers at the three participation rates evaluated is shown in section 2.4.1 of the regulatory evaluation.

    In addition to examining published literature on the safety risk of drivers with diabetes, the Agency has also examined the safety performance of drivers holding diabetes exemptions.

    Table 4—Diabetes Exemption Analysis Results Fatal crashes Fatalities Injury crashes Injuries Tow away crashes Total crashes Pre-Exemption Period 16 24 108 171 193 317 Exemption-Period 0 0 22 31 52 74 Post-Exemption Period 3 4 16 22 22 41 Total 19 28 146 224 267 432 Source: December 14, 2012 MCMIS snapshot.

    The table above titled “Diabetes Exemption Analysis Results” summarizes the crash performance of 1,730 drivers in the Diabetes Exemption Program. Crash statistics for the pre-exemption career and (if any) post-exemption career 28 of the drivers are presented, but the primary periods of interest are the months and years during which a driver was granted an exemption. As can be seen, as a whole, drivers in the exemption program were involved in 74 crashes, none of them fatal.

    28 Some drivers continued driving CMVs after their exemption was rescinded or terminated. It is unlikely that these drivers stopped taking insulin. Instead, it is most likely that these drivers ignored the prohibition on driving while being treated with insulin unless the driver holds an exemption.

    This record of crash history can be compared against the crash performance of drivers as a whole. Because one can examine MCMIS reported crashes only for drivers in the exemption program, the analysis of the safety performance of drivers as a whole is restricted to MCMIS reported crashes. The Agency lacks data on vehicle miles traveled for drivers in the exemption program, however, and the best indication of exposure is therefore years of driving.

    The exemption program provides data on when an exemption was granted, renewed, rescinded, or terminated. These data allow one to determine, for each exemption holder, approximately how many months and years each driver operated a CMV while holding an exemption. FMCSA was able to analyze data for 1,730 drivers involved in 74 crashes. Some drivers could not be analyzed because of missing data. (They had a termination date but no acceptance date, they could not be matched to a driver's license record, or some other data problem made it impossible to calculate the number of years they had been driving or to match their exemption to a crash record.) The 1,730 drivers had an average of 3.293 years of driving experience in the exemption program. On a per-driver, per-year basis, the crash rate for drivers with ITDM in the exemption program was 0.013 (0.0130 = 74 crashes ÷ 1,730 drivers ÷ 3.293 years).

    Data indicate that the safety performance for CMV drivers with ITDM who hold exemptions is as good as that of the general population of CMV drivers. The table below shows crashes reported to MCMIS for all FMCSA-regulated CMV drivers from 2005 to 2011. Over this period, there was an average of 134,191 crashes reported to MCMIS each year. FMCSA estimates that there are currently 3.5 million active CMV drivers in FMCSA-regulated operations. Consequently, the average number of crashes per year per active CMV driver is about 0.038 (134,191 ÷ 3,500,000).

    Table 5—MCMIS Crashes (Any Severity) Involving Large Trucks, 2005-2012 Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average Crashes 149,878 148,221 148,733 134,666 111,502 122,851 123,483 134,191 Source: December 2013, MCMIS snapshot.

    The proposed rule would eliminate the blanket prohibition against drivers with ITDM so that the exemption program would no longer represent the sole means of physically qualifying to operate CMVs. The Agency believes that the benefits of the proposed rule to ITDM individuals are significant. These individuals may pursue interstate driving careers after demonstrating to a ME that their condition is well-controlled and that their ability to operate CMVs safely is not compromised by their medical condition. Although the annual costs will be higher because of the increased number of drivers with stable, well-controlled ITDM who could be eligible for medical certification under the new rule, the Agency expects that drivers with ITDM will benefit from greater employment opportunities, and will realize benefits to their health through improved monitoring of their ITDM.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. “Small entities” consist of small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.29

    29 Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), see National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/regulaotry-flexibility/601.html.

    Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. Under the standards of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857) (SBREFA), the proposed rule does not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SEISNOSE) because the medical standards apply to individuals seeking to operate a CMV in interstate commerce; they are qualifications for an occupation rather than for small entities. Although there are individual drivers who are self-employed, qualifications for an occupation are not considered a small business issue.

    Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comment from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact either on small businesses or on governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of SBREFA, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Ms. Linda Phillips, using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, taken together, or by the private sector of $151 million (which is the value in 2012 after adjusting for inflation $100 million from 1995) or more in any 1 year. FMCSA's assessment is that this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure.

    E. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rulemaking for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, published March 1, 2004, (69 FR 9680) that this NPRM does not have any significant impact on the environment. In addition, the actions in this rulemaking are categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation per paragraph 6(b) and 6(s)(7) of Appendix 2 of FMCSA's Order 5610.1. A Categorical Exclusion determination is available for inspection or copying in the www.regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency has determined that this proposed rule is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since the action results in no increase in emissions.

    F. Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898)

    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O., and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.

    G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a Federal agency must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Current exemption program applicants provide personal, employee health, and driving information during the application process. In the currently drafted supporting statement for the Information Collection Request (ICR), “Medical Qualifications of Drivers” (OMB control number 2126-0006), FMCSA attributes 2,219 annual burden hours to the applications made by CMV drivers to the current exemption program, and this proposed rule would eliminate this entire burden. However it would add fewer burden hours for the information collection of the TC who prepares written notification for the ME on the driver health, the completion of the ME report and results, and the ME's submission of the exam data and Medical Certificates to FMCSA. The supporting statement for this ICR is on display in the docket for your review and comment.

    H. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (E.O. 12630)

    E.O. 12630 requires Federal agencies to consider the potential takings implications of their proposed actions, decisions, or regulations on constitutionally protected property rights, and document takings implications in all significant rulemaking documents that must be submitted to the OMB. FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630.

    I. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) (regarding the general duty to review regulations) and 3(b)(2) (addressing important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    J. Protection of Children (E.O. 13045)

    E.O. 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” requires that agencies issuing economically significant rules, which concern an environmental health or safety risk that an Agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, must include an evaluation of the environmental health and safety effects of the regulation on children. 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997). Section 5 of E.O. 13045 directs an agency to submit for a covered regulatory action an evaluation of its environmental health or safety effects on children. The FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a covered regulatory action as defined under E.O. 13045, because this proposal would not constitute an environmental health risk or safety risk that would disproportionately affect children.

    K. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under E.O. 13132, a rule has implications for federalism if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on States or localities. FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under that E.O. and has determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Nothing in this proposed rule would preempt State law or regulation or impose substantial direct compliance costs on these governmental entities.

    L. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

    M. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. This rulemaking does not significantly or uniquely affect Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments. Thus, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and no tribal summary impact statement is required.

    N. Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” This proposal is not a significant energy action within the meaning of section 4(b) of the E.O. This proposal is not economically significant and would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    O. Privacy Impact Analysis

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. In accordance with this Act, a privacy impact analysis is warranted to address any privacy implications contemplated in the proposed rulemaking. The Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment analyzing the privacy implications to the Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary's Privacy Office to determine whether a PIA is required. The DOT Chief Privacy Officer has evaluated the risks and effects that this rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing Personally Identifying Information and has examined protections and alternative information handling processes in developing the proposal in order to mitigate potential privacy risks. The privacy risks and effects associated with this proposed rule are not unique and have previously been addressed by the medical examination/certification requirements in the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry) and the Medical Examiner's Certification Integration PIA published on the DOT Privacy Web site and the DOT/FMCSA 009—National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners System of Records Notice (SORN) (77 FR 24247) published on April 23, 2012. An additional PIA and SORN for this rulemaking is not required.

    P. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    Q. E-Government Act of 2002

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. FMCSA has determined that this proposed rulemaking does not involve new or substantially changed technology.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 391

    Alcohol abuse, Diabetes, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Medical, Motor carriers, Physical qualifications, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 391 as follows:

    PART 391—QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS AND LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLE (LCV) DRIVER INSTRUCTORS 1. The authority citation for part 391 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, 31136, and 31502; sec. 4007(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114 of Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    2. Revise § 391.41(b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 391.41 Physical qualifications for drivers.

    (b) * * *

    (3) Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control, unless the person meets the requirements in § 391.46;

    3. Revise § 391.45 to read as follows:
    § 391.45 Persons who must be medically examined and certified.

    Except as provided in § 391.67, the following persons must be medically examined and certified in accordance with § 391.43 as physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle:

    (a) Any person who has not been medically examined and certified as physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle;

    (b) Any driver who has not been medically examined and certified as qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle during the preceding 24 months, unless the driver is required to be examined and certified in accordance with paragraphs (c), (d), (e) or (f) of this section;

    (c) Any driver authorized to operate a commercial motor vehicle only within an exempt intra-city zone pursuant to § 391.62, if such driver has not been medically examined and certified as qualified to drive in such zone during the preceding 12 months;

    (d) Any driver authorized to operate a commercial motor vehicle only by operation of the exemption in § 391.64, if such driver has not been medically examined and certified as qualified to drive during the preceding 12 months;

    (e) Any driver who has diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control and who qualifies for a medical certificate under the standards in § 391.46, if such a person has not been medically examined and certified as qualified to drive during the preceding 12 months;

    (f) Any driver whose ability to perform his or her normal duties has been impaired by a physical or mental injury or disease.

    4. Add new § 391.46 to read as follows:
    § 391.46 Physical qualification standards for a person with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus.

    (a) Diabetes mellitus requiring insulin. A person with diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control is physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce provided:

    (1) The person otherwise meets the physical qualification standards in § 391.41 or has the exemption or skill performance evaluation certificate, if required; and

    (2) The person has the medical evaluations required by paragraph (b) of this section and meets the monitoring requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.

    (b) Medical evaluations. A person with diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control must have the following medical examinations.

    (1) Evaluation by the treating clinician. Prior to the annual or more frequent examination required by § 391.45, the person must be evaluated by the treating clinician. For purposes of this paragraph, “treating clinician” means a physician or health care professional who manages and prescribes insulin for the treatment of individuals with diabetes mellitus. The treating clinician must determine that within the previous 12 months the person has—

    (i) Had no severe hypoglycemic reaction resulting in a loss of consciousness or seizure, or requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function; and

    (ii) Properly managed his or her diabetes.

    (2) Medical examiner's examination. (i) At least annually, the person must be medically examined and certified as physically qualified in accordance with § 391.43 and free of complications that might impair his or her ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle.

    (ii) The medical examiner must obtain written notification from the person's treating clinician that the person's diabetes is being properly managed and must evaluate whether the person is physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle.

    (c) Blood glucose records. During the period of medical certification, the driver with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus must monitor and maintain blood glucose records as determined by the treating clinician and submit those blood glucose records to the treating clinician at the time of the evaluation required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.

    Dated: April 22, 2015. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09993 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 RIN 0648-XD680 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Common Thresher Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, announce the extension of the public comment period on our March 03, 2015, 90-day finding on a petition to list the Common Thresher Shark (Alopias vulpinus) as endangered or threatened under the ESA, or, in the alternative, delineate six distinct population segments (DPSs) of the common thresher shark, as described in the petition, and list them as endangered or threatened. As part of that finding, we solicited scientific and commercial information about the status of this species and announced a 60-day comment period to end on May 04, 2015. Today, we extend the public comment period by 60 days to July 6, 2015. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in the agency's 12-month finding.

    DATES:

    The deadline for receipt of comments is extended from May 04, 2015, until July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0025” by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0025. Click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail or hand-delivery: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (301) 427-8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR (301) 427-8469.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 03, 2015, we published a positive 90-day finding on a petition from Friends of Animals requesting that we list the common thresher shark Alopias vulpinus as endangered or threatened under the ESA, or, in the alternative, delineate six distinct population segments (DPSs) of the common thresher shark, as described in the petition, and list them as endangered or threatened. In that notice we also announced the initiation of a status review and solicited information from the public to help inform the status review of the species and determine its risk of extinction.

    We received a request to extend the public comment period by 60 days in order to provide the public with additional time to gather relevant information and adequately comment on the validity of the petitioned action in a meaningful and constructive manner. In addition, a technical error on the Regulations.gov Web site prevented the public from accessing materials in the docket folder for the 90-day finding, including existing public comments and other substantive materials. We considered the request and concluded that a 60-day extension should allow sufficient time for responders to submit comments without significantly delaying the completion of the status review. We are therefore extending the close of the public comment period from May 04, 2015 to July 6, 2015. Although we have extended the public comment period, we are unable to extend the deadline for completing the status review. As such, we urge members of the public to submit their comments as soon as possible to allow us more time to review and incorporate the submitted information where appropriate.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Perry F. Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10348 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 85 Monday, May 4, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 28, 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 June 3, 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: Assignments of Payments and Joint Payment Authorizations.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0183.

    Summary of Collection: The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h (g)) authorizes producers to assign, in writing, Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation program payments. The statute requires that any such assignment be signed and witnessed. The Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, extends that authority to Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs, including rice, feed grains, cotton, and wheat. When the recipient of a FSA or CCC payment chooses to assign a payment to another party or have the payment made jointly with another party, the other party must be identified. FSA will collect information using forms CCC-36, CCC 37, CCC-251, and CCC-252.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected on the forms will be used by FSA employee in order to record the payment or contract being assigned, the amount of the assignment, the date, and the name and address of the assignee and the assignor. This is to enable FSA employee to pay the proper party when payments become due. FSA will also use the information to issue program payments jointly at the request of the producer and also terminate joint payments at the request of both the producer and joint payee.

    Description of Respondent: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 66,110.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting; On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 11,002.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: 7 CFR 766, Direct Loan Servicing—Special.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0233.

    Summary of Collection: Authority to establish the regulatory requirements contained in 7 CFR 766 is provided under 5 U.S.C. 301 which provides that “The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the distribution and performance of its business . . .” The Secretary delegated authority to administer the provisions of the Act applicable to the Farm Loan Program (FLP) to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service in section 2.16 of 7 CFR part 2. FLP provides loans to family farmers to purchase real estate equipment and finance agricultural production. The regulations covered by this information collection package describes the policies and procedures for the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) servicing of financially distressed or delinquent direct loan borrowers in accordance with the provisions of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Act) (Pub. L. 87-128), as amended. FSA's loan servicing options include disaster set-aside, primary loan servicing (including reamortization, rescheduling, deferral, write down and conservation contracts), buyout at market value, and homestead protection.

    Need and Use of the Information: Information collections are submitted by FLP direct loan borrowers to the local FSA office serving the country in which their business is headquartered. The information is necessary to provide supervised credit and authorized servicing actions to financially distressed and delinquent direct borrowers as legislatively mandated.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 14,934.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 15,850.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10319 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 28, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 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. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    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.

    Rural Utility Service

    Title: Substantially Underserved Trust Areas (SUTA), 7 CFR 1700, Subpart D.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0147.

    Summary of Collection: The 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 110-246) authorized the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) initiative. The SUTA initiative identifies the need and improves the availability of Rural Utility Service (RUS) programs to reach trust areas. The initiative gives the Secretary of Agriculture certain discretionary authorities relating to financial assistance terms and conditions that can enhance the financing possibilities in areas that are underserved by certain RUS electric, water and waste, and telecom and broadband programs.

    Need and Use of the Information: RUS provides loan, loan guarantee and grant programs for rural electric, water and waste, and telecommunications and broadband infrastructure. Eligible applicants notify RUS in writing, at the time of application, that it seeks consideration under the requirements of 7 CFR 1700, subpart D. The data covered by this collection are those materials necessary to allow the agency to determine applicant and community eligibility, and an explanation and documentation of the high need for the benefits of the SUTA provisions. Without this information RUS would not be able to make a prudent loan decision.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 2.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 12.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10318 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0017] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Requirements for Requests To Amend Import Regulations AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the requirements for requests to amend import regulations for plants, plant parts, and plant products.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0017.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0017, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0017 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the requirements for requests to amend import regulations, contact Ms. Nicole Russo, Assistant Director, RCC, RPM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2159. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Requirements for Requests to Amend Import Regulations.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0261.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations governing the importation of plants, fruits, vegetables, roots, bulbs, seeds, unmanufactured wood articles, and other plant products are contained in 7 CFR part 319, “Foreign Quarantine Notices.”

    Persons who request changes to the import regulations and who wish to import plants, plant parts, or plant products that are not allowed importation into the United States, must file a request with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for consideration to determine whether the new commodity may be safely imported. Section 319.5 provides the requirements for the submission of these requests. This request process requires the use of information collection activities, including information about the requestor, information about the commodity to be imported, shipping information, a description of pests and diseases associated with the commodity, risk mitigation or management strategies, and additional information as determined by APHIS to complete a pest risk analysis in accordance with international standards.

    To assist importers who are interested in requesting the importation of plants for planting that are not allowed importation under the regulations in part 319, we are adding to this information collection a new form, Plant Protection and Quarantine Form 595, Request to Develop a Pest Risk Assessment for Plants for Planting. We estimate that this new form will account for 20 respondents, 20 total annual responses, 0.25 hours per response, and 5 estimated total annual burden hours.

    We have also decreased the estimated total annual burden on respondents from 2,960 hours to 26 hours to more accurately reflect the total number of hours importers need to complete and submit a request to change the import regulations. Although the estimated annual number of respondents increased from 37 to 62, there has been a large decrease in the time (hours per response) that it takes for each respondent to prepare a request to change the import regulations. The hours per response decreased from 40 hours per response to 0.42 hours, which is a more accurate estimate.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate 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;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.42 hours per response.

    Respondents: Importers.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 62.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 62.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 26 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10392 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent to Re-establish the Charter of the Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Agriculture intends to re-establish the charter of the Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board (Board), pursuant to Section 460, of the Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the Board is to advise the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) on means of promoting public participation for the land and resource management plan for the recreation area and environmental education.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tina Tilley, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected] or via facsimile to 270-924-2150. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Board was established pursuant to the Act and in accordance with the provisions of FACA; the Secretary intends to renew the charter for the Board. The Secretary has determined the work of the Board is in the public interest and relevant to the duties of the Department of Agriculture. The Board provides advice to the Secretary on: (1) Means of promoting public participation for the land and resource management plan for the recreation area; and (2) environmental education.

    Board Membership

    The Act outlines the specific Federal, State, and local agencies that will be represented on the Board, which includes 17 appointees. The interests listed in the Act are as follows:

    (1) Four persons appointed by the Secretary, including:

    a. Two residents of the State of Kentucky and

    b. Two residents of the State of Tennessee;

    (2) Two persons appointed by the Governor of Kentucky;

    (3) Two persons appointed by the Governor of Tennessee;

    (4) Two persons appointed by the Commissioner of Kentucky, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources or designee;

    (5) One person appointed by the Commission of Tennessee Wildlife Resources or designee;

    (6) Two persons appointed by the Judge Executive of Lyon County, Kentucky;

    (7) Two persons appointed by the Judge Executive of Trigg County, Kentucky; and

    (8) Two persons appointed by the County Executive of Stewart County, Tennessee.

    No individual who is currently registered as a Federal lobbyist is eligible to serve as a member of the Board. Members of the Board serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of the Board, subject to approval by the Designated Federal Official (DFO). The Board members serve 5-year terms. In the event a vacancy arises, nominees will be sought through an open and public process and submitted to the Secretary for vetting, approval, and appointment.

    Equal opportunity practices in accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture

    (USDA) policies shall be followed in all appointments to the Board. To ensure that the recommendations of the Board have been taken into account, the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department's membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.

    Dated: April 23, 2015. Gregory L. Parham, Assistant Secretary for Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10307 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    Title: Domestic and International Client Export Services and Customized Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0143.

    Form Number(s): ITA-4096P.

    Type of Request: Renewal submission.

    Number of Respondents: 189,272.

    Average Hours per Response: 10 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 31,545 (annual).

    Needs and Uses: The International Trade Administration's (ITA) U.S. Commercial Service (CS) is mandated by Congress to broaden and deepen the U.S. exporter base. The CS accomplishes this by providing counseling, programs and services to help U.S. organizations export and conduct business in overseas markets. This information collection package enables the CS to provide appropriate export services to U.S. exporters and international buyers.

    The Commercial Service (CS) offers a variety of services to enable clients to begin exporting/importing or to expand existing exporting/importing efforts. Clients may learn about our services from business related entities such as the National Association of Manufacturers, Federal Express, State Economic Development offices, the Internet or word of mouth. The CS provides a standard set of services to assist clients with identifying potential overseas partners, establishing meeting programs with appropriate overseas business contacts and providing due diligence reports on potential overseas business partners. The CS also provides other export-related services considered to be of a “customized nature” because they do not fit into the standard set of CS export services, but are driven by unique business needs of individual clients.

    The dissemination of international market information and potential business opportunities for U.S. exporters are critical components of the Commercial Service's export assistance programs and services. U.S. companies conveniently access and indicate their interest in these services by completing the appropriate forms via ITA and CS U.S. Export Assistance Center Web sites.

    The CS works closely with clients to educate them about the exporting/importing process and to help prepare them for exporting/importing. When a client is ready to begin the exporting/importing process our field staff provide counseling to assist in the development of an exporting strategy. We provide fee-based, export-related services designed to help client export/import. The type of export-related service that is proposed to a client depends upon a client's business goals and where they are in the export/import process. Some clients are at the beginning of the export process and require assistance with identifying potential distributors, whereas other clients may be ready to sign a contract with a potential distributor and require due diligence assistance.

    Before the CS can provide export-related services to clients, such as assistance with identifying potential partners or providing due diligence, specific information is required to determine the client's business objectives and needs. For example, before we can provide a service to identify potential business partners we need to know whether the client would like a potential partner to have specific technical qualifications, coverage in a specific market, English or foreign language ability or warehousing requirements. This information collection is designed to elicit such data so that appropriate services can be proposed and conducted to most effectively meet the client's exporting goals. Without these forms the CS is unable to provide services when requested by clients.

    The forms ask U.S. exporters standard questions about their company details, export experience, information about the products or services they wish to export and exporting goals. A few questions are tailored to a specific program type and will vary slightly with each program. CS staff use this information to gain an understanding of client's needs and objectives so that they can provide appropriate and effective export assistance tailored to an exporter's particular requirements.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government; and Federal government.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10268 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-27-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 154—Baton Rouge, Louisiana Notification of Proposed Production Activity Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (Herbicides and Insecticides) St. Gabriel and Baton Rouge, Louisiana

    The Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, grantee of FTZ 154, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (Syngenta), located at facilities in St. Gabriel and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 22, 2015.

    A separate application for subzone designation at the Syngenta facilities was submitted and will be processed under Section 400.31 of the Board's regulations. The facilities are used for the production of crop protection products including herbicides and insecticides, in retail packaging and bulk. Syngenta may produce its own products or provide contract manufacturing for other companies. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Syngenta from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Syngenta would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the finished products (whether in brand name or generic form) (duty rates are 5% or 6.5%) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. The finished products include the herbicides: Bicep II MagnumTM; Bicep Lite IITM, Dual II MagnumTM; S-Moc MicrocapsTM; Touchdown TotalTM; LexarTM; DesicaTM; Mesotrione 28% MUPTM; SableTM; TraxionTM; DepartureTM; RefugeTM; TouchdownTMHitech; GesatopTM; Gesatop-Nueve-OTM; RegloneTM; TraxionTM; Halex GTTM; Coloso TotalTM; Primextra IITM; Demp Malonamid TechTM; LumaxTM; Lumax GoldTM; RewardTM; Brawl II ATZTM; Bicep MaxxTM; SequenceTM; and Charger Maxx ATZTM. Finished products also include the following insecticides: Engeo PlenoTM; Voliam XpressTM; Karate ZeonTM; EforiaTM and Engeo FullTM. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: s-metolachlor; mesotrione wet paste; pinoxaden (2-bromo-1,3-diethyl-5-methyl benzene); lambda-cyhaolthrin technical, pyrethroid pesticide, liquid; glyphosate acid technical 2; benoxacor (ortho nitrophenols); paraquat concentrate ES (paraquat dichloride); thiamethoxam; chlorantraniliprole; lufenuron; and diquat (duty rates range from free to 6.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 15, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10379 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-26-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 39—Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Valeo North America, Inc. d/b/a Valeo Compressor North America, (Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioner Compressors), Dallas, Texas

    Valeo North America, Inc. d/b/a Valeo Compressor North America (Valeo), an operator of FTZ 39, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Dallas, Texas, within FTZ 39. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 20, 2015.

    Valeo already has authority to produce air-conditioner compressor assemblies for motor vehicles. The current request would add a new finished product (electromagnetic compressor/clutch assemblies) and certain foreign-status components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Valeo from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Valeo would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to air-conditioner compressor assemblies (free) and electromagnetic compressor/clutch assemblies (3.1%) for the foreign status materials and components noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: compressor/clutch assemblies; compressor bodies and housings; coils; rotors; armatures; and, fittings (parts of compressors) (duty rate ranges from free to 3.1%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 15, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10386 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-845; C-201-846] Sugar From Mexico: Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 4, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    As of December 19, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) suspended the antidumping duty (AD) investigation of imports of sugar from Mexico, based on an agreement between the Department and signatory producers/exporters accounting for substantially all imports of sugar from Mexico, and the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of sugar from Mexico, based on an agreement between the Department and the Government of Mexico. Both agreements eliminate completely the injurious effects of exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. The Department has received timely requests to continue the AD and CVD investigations of sugar from Mexico. Pursuant to sections 734(g) and 704(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), respectively, the Department is resuming its investigations. We are resuming the investigations as if our preliminary determinations had been published on this notice's publication date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kaitlin Wojnar or David Lindgren at (202) 482-3857 or (202) 482-3870, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 17, 2014, the Department initiated AD and CVD investigations of sugar from Mexico under sections 732 and 702 of the Act, respectively.1 On August 25, 2014, the Department made an affirmative preliminary CVD determination and aligned the date of its final determination with that of the concurrent AD investigation.2 On October 24, 2014, the Department made a preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value and fully extended the final determination deadline.3

    1See Sugar from Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 FR 22795 (April 24, 2014); see also Sugar from Mexico: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 79 FR 22790 (April 24, 2015).

    2See Sugar from Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 79 FR 51956 (September 2, 2014).

    3See Sugar from Mexico: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR 65189 (November 3, 2014).

    On October 27, 2014, the Department and a representative for the Mexican sugar producers/exporters initialed a proposed agreement to suspend the AD investigation of sugar from Mexico.4 On the same day, the Department and the Government of Mexico initialed a proposed agreement to suspend the CVD investigation of sugar from Mexico.5 Consistent with sections 734(e)(1) and 704(e)(1) of the Act, the Department notified all interested parties and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the proposed agreement.6 On October 30, 2014, the Department issued a memorandum proposing a clarification of the scope of the investigations.7 Interested parties were invited to submit written comments on the proposed suspension agreements and the proposed scope clarification by November 10, 2014. On November 7, 2014, that deadline was extended to November 18, 2014.8 The Department received timely comments from numerous parties.

    4See Department Memorandum, “Draft Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico,” October 27, 2014.

    5See Department Memorandum, “Draft Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico,” October 27, 2014.

    6See Department Memorandum, “Memorandum to All Interested Parties,” October 27, 2014.

    7See Department Memorandum, “Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Sugar from Mexico: Proposed Scope Clarification,” October 30, 2014.

    8See Department Memorandum, “Sugar from Mexico: Notice of Extension of Deadline to Submit Comments on Draft Suspension Agreements and Scope Clarification,” November 7, 2014.

    The Department and a representative of the signatory producers/exporters accounting for substantially all imports of Mexican sugar to the United States, Camara Nacional de Las Industrias Azucarera y Alcoholera (the Mexican Sugar Chamber), signed an agreement suspending the AD investigation on December 19, 2014.9 On the same day, the Department and the Government of Mexico signed an agreement suspending the CVD investigation.10 In accordance with sections 734(f) and 704(f) of the Act, the Department notified the ITC of its suspension of the AD and CVD investigations.11 The scope of the investigations was revised, as provided in the Suspension Agreements, based on comments received from interested parties.

    9See Sugar from Mexico: Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 FR 78039 (December 29, 2014), at Attachment, “Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico” (AD Suspension Agreement).

    10See Sugar from Mexico: Suspension of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 79 FR 78044 (December 29, 2014), at Attachment, “Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico” (CVD Suspension Agreement) (collectively, with the AD Suspension Agreement, the Suspension Agreements).

    11See Letter from the Department, “Suspension of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Sugar from Mexico,” December 22, 2014.

    On January 8, 2015, Imperial Sugar Company (Imperial) and AmCane Sugar LLC (AmCane) each notified the Department that they had petitioned the ITC to conduct a review to determine whether the injurious effects of imports of the subject merchandise are eliminated completely by the AD Suspension Agreement (a section 734(h) review) and the CVD Suspension Agreement (a section 704(h) review).12 On January 16, 2015, Imperial and AmCane also submitted timely requests for continuation of the AD and CVD investigations.13 The American Sugar Coalition and its members14 (collectively, Petitioners) and the Mexican Sugar Chamber challenged both Imperial's and AmCane's standing to request continuation under sections 734(g) and 704(g) of the Act.15 The Department solicited comments on the standing issue and notified interested parties that, if it was determined that continuation is warranted, the suspended investigations would resume following the March 24, 2015, deadline for the ITC's section 734(h) and section 704(h) reviews.16 We received comments and rebuttal comments on the standing issue from several interested parties.17

    12See Letter from Imperial, “Sugar from Mexico—Notice of Filing of Petition for Review of Suspension Agreements to Eliminate the Injurious Effect of Subject Imports,” January 8, 2015; see also Letter from AmCane, “Sugar from Mexico: Notice of Petition for Review of Suspension Agreements,” January 8, 2015.

    13See Letter from Imperial, “Sugar from Mexico, Inv. Nos. A-201-845 and C-201-846—Request for Continuation of Investigations,” January 16, 2015; see also Letter from AmCane, “Sugar from Mexico: Request for Continuation of Investigations,” January 16, 2015.

    14 The American Sugar Coalition is comprised of the following individual members: American Sugar Cane League; American Sugar Refining, Inc.; American Sugarbeet Growers Association; Florida Sugar Cane League; Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company; Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc.; Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida; and United States Beet Sugar Association.

    15See Letter from Petitioners, “Sugar from Mexico: Opposition to Standing of Imperial Sugar Company and AmCane Sugar LLC to Request Continuation of Suspended Investigations,” January 20, 2015; see also Letter from the Mexican Sugar Chamber, “Letter Supporting Petitioners' Opposition to Standing of Imperial Sugar Company and AmCane Sugar LLC,” January 22, 2015. Rebuttal comments were filed on January 27 and 28, 2015, and Petitioners filed a reply on January 29, 2015. See Letter from Imperial, “Sugar from Mexico, Inv. Nos. A-201-845 and C-201-846—Response to Opposition to Standing of Imperial Sugar Company to Request Continuation of Suspended Investigations,” January 27, 2015; see also Letter from AmCane, “Sugar from Mexico: Response to Letter Disputing Standing of AmCane Sugar LLC to Request Continuation of Suspended Investigations,” January 28, 2015; Letter from Petitioners, “Sugar from Mexico: Reply to Imperial's and AmCane's Responses to Petitioners' Opposition to Standing to Request Continuation of Suspended Investigations,” January 29, 2015.

    16See Department Memorandum, “Solicitation of Comments and Timetable for Requests to Continue the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations on Sugar from Mexico,” January 28, 2015.

    17See Letter from the Mexican Sugar Chamber, “Investigation of Sugar from Mexico—Opposition to Standing of Imperial Sugar Company and AmCane Sugar LLC,” February 10, 2015; see also Letter from Sweetener Users Association, “Sugar from Mexico—Comments of the Sweetener Users Association in Support of Determination that Certain Sugar Refiners Have Standing to Request Continuation of Investigations,” February 10, 2015; Letter from Petitioners, “Sugar from Mexico: Comments on Continuation of Suspended Investigations,” February 10, 2015; Letter from Imperial, “Sugar from Mexico, Inv. Nos. A-201-845 and C-201-846—Rebuttal Comments in Response to Opposition to Standing of Imperial Sugar Company to Request Continuation of Suspended Investigations,” February 17, 2015; Letter from AmCane, “Sugar from Mexico: Response to Petitioners' Feb. 10 Comments on Continuation of Suspended Investigations,” February 17, 2015; Letter from Petitioners, “Sugar from Mexico: Rebuttal to Sweetener Users Association's Comments on Standing of Imperial Sugar Company and AmCane Sugar LLC,” February 18, 2015.

    On March 19, 2015, in a unanimous vote, the ITC found that the Suspension Agreements eliminate completely the injurious effects of imports of sugar from Mexico.18 On the same day, the Department announced that it would issue a decision regarding continuation of the investigations promptly after the ITC made its views and findings available.19 On March 24, 2015, the ITC notified the Department of its determinations.20 On April 10, 2015, the ITC provided a report of its views and findings in the section 734(h) and section 704(h) reviews to the Department.21 On April 24, 2015, we issued a memorandum regarding our determination that Imperial and AmCane are interested parties which are parties to the investigations and, accordingly, have standing to request continuation of the AD and CVD investigations.22

    18See Department Memorandum, “Requests to Continue the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations on Sugar from Mexico,” March 19, 2015.

    19Id.

    20See Letter from the ITC, Notification of Determination, March 24, 2015.

    21See Letter from the ITC, Notification of Report, April 9, 2015 (notifying the Department that a report on the ITC's section 734(h) and section 704(h) reviews would be available on the ITC's electronic filing system in one business day).

    22See Department Memorandum, “Standing of Imperial Sugar and AmCane Sugar to Request Continuation of the AD and CVD Investigations on Sugar From Mexico,” April 24, 2015.

    Continuation of Investigations

    Sections 734(g) and 704(g) of the Act require the Department to continue a suspended investigation if it receives a request for continuation within 20 days of the notice of suspension of an investigation from an interested party, as described in section 771(9)(C) through (G) of the Act, which is a party to the investigation. As noted above, Imperial and AmCane filed timely requests for continuation. Having determined that Imperial and AmCane have standing to request continuation, the Department is continuing its AD and CVD investigations of imports of sugar from Mexico pursuant to sections 734(g) and 704(g) of the Act, respectively. The Department is resuming the investigations as if its preliminary determinations had been published on this notice's publication date. Consistent with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, as well as the CVD investigation's prior alignment with the concurrent AD investigation, we intend to make our final determination in both investigations within 135 days of this notice's publication date.

    Dated: April 24, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10253 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 21 May 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.

    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing [email protected]; or by calling 202-504-2200 Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    Dated: April 24, 2015, in Washington DC. Thomas Luebke, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10345 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0009, Large Trader Reports AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on large trader reports and related forms that are needed to ensure that the CFTC receives adequate information to carry out its market and financial surveillance programs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0009 by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hannah Ropp, Surveillance Analyst, Division of Market Oversight; Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; phone: (202) 418-5228; fax: (202) 418-5507; email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0009.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.1

    1 This notice does not solicit comment on the proposed amendments to this collection that may result from the proposal titled Position Limits for Derivatives (78 FR 75680, Dec. 12, 2013). Comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act implications of the Position Limits for Derivatives proposal were solicited through the proposal itself, the comment period for which (as extended and reopened) closed on March 30, 2015.

    Title: Large Trader Reports (OMB Control No. 3038-0009). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The reporting rules covered by OMB control number 3038-0009 (“Collection”) are structured to ensure that the Commission receives adequate information to carry out its market and financial surveillance programs. The market surveillance programs analyze market information to detect and prevent market disruptions and enforce speculative position limits. The financial surveillance programs combine market information with financial data to assess the financial risks presented by large customer positions to Commission registrants and clearing organizations.

    Previously, all reporting rules contained in parts 15 through 19 and 21 of the Commission's regulations were covered by the Collection; however, a recent rulemaking action relocated several recordkeeping and reporting burdens from this collection to a new collection, OMB Control Number 3038-0103. Specifically, that rulemaking appropriated the information collection burdens associated with Commission regulations 17.01, 18.04, and 18.05. Accordingly, this renewal will update the Collection's current burden estimates and officially remove the duplicative burdens from the Collection.

    The reporting rules are implemented by the Commission partly pursuant to the authority of sections 4a, 4c(b), 4g, and 4i of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”). Section 4a of the Act permits the Commission to set, approve exchange-set, and enforce speculative position limits. Section 4c(b) of the Act gives the Commission plenary authority to regulate transactions that involve commodity options. Section 4g of the Act imposes reporting and recordkeeping obligations on registered entities and registrants (including futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, floor brokers, or floor traders), and requires each registrant to file such reports as the Commission may require on proprietary and customer positions executed on any board of trade in the United States or elsewhere. Lastly, section 4i of the Act requires the filing of such reports as the Commission may require when positions made, or obtained on designated contract markets, or derivatives transaction execution facilities, equal or exceed Commission-set levels.

    With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.2

    2 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be 0.26 hours per response, on average. These estimates include the time to locate the information related to the exemptions and to file necessary exemption paperwork.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Large Traders, Clearing Members, Contract Markets, and other entities affected by Commission regulations 16.00 and 17.00 as well as Parts 19 and 21.

    Estimated number of respondents: 453.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 18,348 hours.

    Frequency of collection: Periodically.

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Dated: April 28, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10314 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0018] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting to renew the approval for an existing information collection titled, “Consumer Leasing Act (Regulation M) 12 CFR 1013.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before July 6, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

    • Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this mailbox.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Consumer Leasing Act (Regulation M) 12 CFR 1013.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0006.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 13,718.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,500.

    Abstract: Consumers rely upon the disclosures required by the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq. (CLA) and Regulation M, 12 CFR 1013, for information to comparison shop among leases, as well as to ascertain the true costs and terms of lease offers. Federal and state enforcement and private litigants use the records to ascertain whether accurate and complete disclosures of the cost of leases have been provided to consumers prior to consummation of the lease. This information provides the primary evidence of law violations in CLA enforcement actions brought by federal agencies. Without Regulation M's recordkeeping requirement, the agencies' ability to enforce the CLA would be significantly impaired.

    Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Ashwin Vasan, Chief Information Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10367 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0017] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting to renew the approval for an existing information collection titled, “Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (Regulation O) 12 CFR part 1015.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before July 6, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this mailbox.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (Regulation O) 12 CFR part 1015.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0007.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 107.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 322.

    Abstract: The required disclosures under Regulation O (12 CFR part 101) assist prospective purchasers of Mortgage assistance relief services (MARS) in making well-informed decisions and avoiding deceptive and unfair acts and practices. The information that must be kept under Regulation O's recordkeeping requirements is used by the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission for enforcement purposes and to ensure compliance by MARS providers with Regulation O. The information is requested only on a case-by-case basis.

    Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Ashwin Vasan, Chief Information Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10363 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0067] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to add a new System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is establishing a new system of records in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The system is entitled “NGA-010, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Security Financial Disclosure Reporting Records System”. This system will allow NGA to collect and use employee financial disclosure information to facilitate a variety of NGA's mission-related duties.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before June 3, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth James, Acting Branch Chief, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Financial Disclosure Program Manager, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150 or by calling 571-557-0110.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on Insert Date, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. NGA-010 System name:

    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Security Financial Disclosure Reporting Records System.

    System location:

    Records are maintained at National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Headquarters in Washington, DC metro facilities.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Current and former NGA employees, military personnel, contractors, and external applicants who have been extended a conditional offer of employment employed by or assigned to NGA facilities.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Identifying information, such as name, date of birth, Social Security Number (SSN), address, marital status, telephone number and work email address, employee identification number, employee status, annual income, financial information, investment information, real estate, owned and leased asset information.

    The system also contains any records of the analysts' examination of the form and related materials, including any notations, memoranda, investigative notes and summaries or other observations.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    50 U.S.C. 402a, Coordination of counterintelligence activities; E.O. 13467, Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information; Public Law 103-359, Title VIII, Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994; E.O. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry; E.O. 12333, United States Intelligence Activities; 5 CFR part 732; 5 CFR part 736; 32 CFR part 147; DCID 6/4; 5 U.S.C. 301 Departmental Regulations; DoDD 5105.60, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); 5 U.S.C. 7532 Suspension and Removal; E.O. 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employees; E.O. 12958, Classified National Security Information; E.O. 12968, Access to Classified Information; Section 1.350 U.S.C 401-413, National Security Act of 1947, as amended; DoD 5200.2-R, DoD Personnel Security Program; DCID 1/14, Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    Purpose(s):

    NGA collects and uses employee financial disclosure information to facilitate a variety of NGA's mission-related duties, including activities related to personnel security, access controls, security clearances, and counterintelligence activities.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of uses and the purposes for such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records may be specifically disclosed outside of the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. a(b)(3) as follows:

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of NGA's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Paper records and electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Records may be retrieved by name, employee identification number or SSN.

    Safeguards:

    Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable NGA automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is strictly limited to those individuals who have a need to know for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions. Some of the technical controls include limited, role based access as well as profiles based access to limit users to only data that is needed for the performance of their official duties. The system is located in a secure data center and operated by Federal personnel and contractors.

    Retention and disposal:

    Disposition pending (until the National Archives and Records Administration approve the retention and disposition of these records, treat as permanent).

    System manager(s) and address:

    Security and Installations Directorate, Personnel Security Division, Security Financial Disclosure Branch, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150-7500.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150-7500.

    The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “Privacy Act Inquiry.”

    The written request must contain your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. Also include an explanation of why you believe NGA would have information on you and specify when you believe the records would have been created.

    You must sign your request and your signature must either be notarized or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). Signature)'.

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150-7500.

    The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “Privacy Act Inquiry.”

    The written request must contain your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. Also include an explanation of why you believe NGA would have information on you and specify when you believe the records would have been created.

    You must sign your request and your signature must either be notarized or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state).under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). Signature)'.

    Contesting records procedures:

    Individuals contesting the accuracy of records contained in this system of records about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 7500 Geoint Drive, Springfield, VA 22150-7500.

    The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “Privacy Act Inquiry.”

    The written request must contain your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. Also include an explanation of why you believe NGA would have information on you and specify when you believe the records would have been created.

    You must sign your request and your signature must either be notarized or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). Signature)'.

    Record source categories:

    Information originates from the individual completing the security disclosure form. The system also contains records originating from the security specialist reviewing the financial submission, including any notations, memoranda, investigative notes and summaries or other observations made by the NGA specialist who reviews the file for trend analysis and/or anomalies.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access only to the information they submitted however exemption applies to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source. The NGA specialist case notes will be kept separate from the individual's data submission. Those case notes will contain investigative case leads and summaries, sensitive processes, evidence gathered from external sources and potential referrals to law enforcement agencies. Note: When claimed, this exemption allows limited protection of investigative reports maintained in a system of records used in personnel or administrative actions.

    Investigative material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

    An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) published in 32 CFR part 320. For additional information, contact the system manager.

    [FR Doc. 2015-10060 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0021] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; 2015-16 National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) Full-Scale Data Collection 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 revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 3, 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-0021 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 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-502-7411.

    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: 2015-16 National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) Full-Scale Data Collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0598.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 50, 028.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 26, 235.

    Abstract: The National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) is a redesign of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and is ED's primary source of information on the teacher and principal labor market and on what is happening in K-12 public schools from teachers' and principals' perspectives. NTPS is an in-depth, nationally representative survey of first through twelfth grade public school teachers, principals, and schools. Kindergarten teachers in schools with at least a first grade are also eligible for NTPS. Starting in 2015-2016, the NTPS will be conducted every two years utilizing core content and a series of rotating modules to allow timely collection of important education trends and conducting trend analyses. The NTPS is the Department's regular source of data on salaries, out-of-pocket expenses, qualifications, and race/ethnic and age distribution of teachers; along with salaries and race/ethnic and age distribution of principals; and school start times and student teacher ratios. This request is to conduct the 2015-16 NTPS full-scale data collection.

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10346 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0058] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 6, 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-0058 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jean Marchowsky, (202) 205-2161.

    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: Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP).

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0646.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 549.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,277.

    Abstract: This data collection is pursuant to the Secretary's authority under Part B of Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), to award funds under two grant programs designed to address the unique needs of rural school districts—the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program (ESEA Section 6212) and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program (ESEA Section 6221). Under the SRSA program, the Secretary awards grants directly to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) on a formula basis. Under the RLIS program, eligible school districts are sub-recipients of funds the Department awards to State educational agencies (SEAs) on a formula basis. For both grant programs, the Department awards funds based on a determination of the eligibility of individual school districts and the calculation of the allocation each eligible district should receive according to formula prescribed in the statute. This data collection package consists of two forms and related documents that are used to accomplish the grant award process each year: (1) A spreadsheet used by SEAs to submit information to identify RLIS and SRSA-eligible LEAs and to allocate funds based on the appropriate formula, and (2) an application form for SRSA-eligible LEAs to apply for funding. This submission requests a three-year extension of the current approved collection package (OMB #1810-0646). The REAP eligibility spreadsheet (Form 1) has no substantive changes or revisions from the previously-approved collection under OMB#1810-0646. Similarly, the SRSA Application (Form 2) is essentially unchanged from the previous collection. The instructions accompanying both Form 1 and Form 2 remain unchanged from the previously-approved collection, except for minor changes to update dates and contact information. None of these changes require SEAs to submit additional data.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10313 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wave Energy Prize AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of the Wave Energy Prize.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of the availability of the Wave Energy Prize and of DOE's responses to public comments on the draft Prize Rules and Prize Terms and Conditions. The prize is designed to achieve game-changing performance enhancements to wave energy conversion (WEC) devices, establishing a pathway to sweeping cost reductions on a commercial scale. The prize consists of three phases—design, build, and test and evaluation. Prize purses to the winner(s): Grand Prize ($1,500,000), 2nd Place Finisher ($500,000), and 3rd Place Finisher ($250,000).

    DATES:

    DOE launches the Wave Energy Prize and opens the Prize for public registration on May 1, 2015. The Winner(s) of the Prize, if any, is expected to be announced by the end of 2016. All dates are subject to change.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons can register for the Wave Energy Prize at waveenergyprize.org on the “Register” page. The final Prize Rules, the final Prize Terms and Conditions, and DOE's responses to public comments on the draft Prize Rules and Prize Terms and Conditions, can all be found are found under the “Rules” tab of the “About” page. Please submit questions and comments to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please submit questions and comments to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (America COMPETES), Public Law 111-358, enacted January 4, 2011, authorizes Federal agencies to issue competitions to stimulate innovations in technology, education, and science. The Wave Energy Prize leverages the America COMPETES Act to provide incentives to design, build, and test innovative WEC concepts.

    DOE launches the Wave Energy Prize, a public prize challenge sponsored by DOE's Water Power Program. The prize is designed to increase the diversity of organizations involved in WEC technology development, while motivating and inspiring existing stakeholders. DOE envisions this competition will achieve game-changing performance enhancements to WEC devices, establishing a pathway to sweeping cost reductions on a commercial scale.

    The wave energy industry is young and is experiencing many new innovations as evidenced by a sustained growth in patent activity. While the private industry is developing these early-concept WEC devices through design and benchtop prototype testing, funding is hard to secure for performance testing and evaluation of WEC devices in wave tanks at a meaningful scale. This is a problem for the industry since scaled WEC prototype tank testing, validation, and evaluation are key steps in the advancement of WEC technologies through the technical readiness levels to reach commercialization.

    Goal of the Wave Energy Prize: The Wave Energy Prize will encourage the development of more efficient WEC devices that double the energy captured from ocean waves, which in turn will reduce the cost of wave energy, making it more competitive with traditional energy solutions.

    Economic impact of the Wave Energy Prize: A successful Wave Energy Prize could jump-start private sector innovation critical to the country's long-term economic growth, energy security, and international competitiveness in the wave energy conversion sector.

    Why participate in the Wave Energy Prize? The Wave Energy Prize seeks to attract innovative ideas from developers new to the industry and next-generation ideas from existing developers by offering a monetary prize purse and providing an opportunity for tank testing and evaluation of scaled WEC device prototypes at the U.S. Navy's Maneuvering and Seakeeping Basin (MASK) facility in Carderock, MD.

    Eligibility: U.S. entities are able to participate in the Wave Energy Prize. This includes U.S. persons and companies as well as foreign companies that are incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States. Full eligibility requirements for the Wave Energy Prize are set in accordance with those established by America COMPETES, and are fully outlined in the Wave Energy Prize Rules document available at waveenergyprize.org.

    Selection of winner(s): Average Climate Capture Width per Characteristic Capital Expenditure (ACE) has been selected by the Wave Energy Prize as a reduced content metric that is a proxy for levelized cost of energy. To be eligible for consideration for prize purses, WEC devices tested during the Prize must exceed a threshold value of ACE of three meters per million dollars, representing a 100% increase, or doubling, of ACE above the current “state of the art” in representative sea states and deep water. WEC devices that surpass the ACE threshold will be ranked according to their Hydrodynamic Performance Quality (HPQ), a metric that holistically evaluates WEC performance and reliability. This HPQ ranking will be used to determine the Grand Prize Winner, 2nd Place Finisher, and 3rd Place Finisher of the Wave Energy Prize. Further details on these technical requirements are available in the Prize Rules and Terms and Conditions at waveenergyprize.org.

    Issued on April 27, 2015 in Washington, DC. José Zayas, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10409 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-74-000.

    Applicants: Recurrent Energy, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of RE Mustang LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150427-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-75-000.

    Applicants: Recurrent Energy, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of RE Mustang 3 LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150427-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-76-000.

    Applicants: Recurrent Energy, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of RE Mustang 4 LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150427-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3168-012; ER14-2871-003; ER10-3243-005; ER15-356-002; ER15-357-002; ER10-3244-005; ER10-3245-004; ER10-3249-004; ER10-3250-004; ER10-3169-008; ER10-3251-003; ER14-2382-003; ER15-621-002; ER12-2570-008; ER11-2639-004; ER15-622-002; ER15-463-002; ER15-110-002; ER13-1586-004; ER10-1992-010; ER13-618-007.

    Applicants: ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC, Cameron Ridge, LLC, Chandler Wind Partners, LLC, Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC, Chief Keystone Power, LLC, Coso Geothermal Power Holdings, LLC, Foote Creek II, LLC, Foote Creek III, LLC, Foote Creek IV, LLC, Michigan Power Limited Partnership, Oak Creek Wind Power, LLC, ON Wind Energy LLC, Pacific Crest Power, LLC, Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC, Ridge Crest Wind Partners, LLC, Ridgetop Energy, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC, Terra-Gen Energy Services, LLC, TGP Energy Management, LLC, Victory Garden Phase IV, LLC, Westwood Generation, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150424-5366.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-342-007.

    Applicants: CPV Shore, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of CPV Shore, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150424-5370.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-237-003.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-04-24_Response to JDA Deficiency Ltr to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150424-5344.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-295-002.

    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Co.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Joint Dispatch Amendment Filing—Response to Second Staff Letter to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150424-5339.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-348-002.

    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Co.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Joint Dispatch Amendment Filing—Response to Second Staff Letter to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150424-5337.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1565-000.

    Applicants: Sky River LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Sky River LLC Amendment to the Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective 4/25/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150424-5341.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1566-000.

    Applicants: Metropolitan Edison Company, Exelon Generation Company, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement of Metropolitan Edison Company and Exelon Generation Company, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150427-5328.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1567-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PJM Original Service Agreement No. 4117, Queue V4-011 to be effective 3/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150427-5378.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA15-1-000.

    Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower II LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower V LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower VI LLC, Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC, Waverly Wind Farm LLC, Flat Rock Windpower LLC, Flat Rock Windpower II LLC, Madison Windpower LLC, Marble River, LLC, Sustaining Power Solutions LLC.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150427-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10309 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9927-22-OECA] National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Meeting and Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC. For additional information about registering for public comment, please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Due to limited space, seating at the NEJAC meeting will be on a first-come, first-served basis.

    DATES:

    The NEJAC meeting will convene Wednesday, May 20, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.; and will reconvene on Thursday, May 21, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All noted times are Pacific Standard Time.

    One public comment period relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) is scheduled for Wednesday, May 20, 2015, starting at 5:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. Members of the public who wish to participate during the public comment period are highly encouraged to pre-register by 6:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on Monday, May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The NEJAC meeting will be held at the McMillin Event Center at the National Training Center, located at 2875 Dewey Road, San Diego, CA 92106.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions or correspondence concerning the meeting should be directed to Jasmin Muriel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC1601A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-4287; via email at [email protected]; or by fax at 202-564-1624. Additional information about the NEJAC is available at: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/nejac.

    Registration is required for all participants. Pre-registration by 6:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on Monday, May 11, 2015, for all attendees is highly recommended. To register, visit http://nejac-oct2014.eventbrite.com. Please state whether you would like to be put on the list to provide oral public comment. Please specify whether you are submitting written comments before the 6:00 p.m., Monday, May 11, 2015, deadline. Non-English speaking attendees wishing to arrange for a foreign language interpreter may make appropriate arrangements in writing using the above telephone number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator about areas that may include, among other things, “advice about broad, cross-cutting issues related to environmental justice, including environment-related strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, and economic issues related to environmental justice.”

    The meeting shall be used to discuss and receive comments about the nexus between sustainability and environmental justice. Specifically, the NEJAC will discuss these primary areas: (1) Goods Movement; (2) EJ 2020 Action Agenda; (3) EJ Best Practices for Local Government; and (4) Climate Change. In addition, the meeting will include updates from NEJAC work groups.

    A. Public Comment: Individuals or groups making oral presentations during the public comment period will be limited to a total time of seven minutes. To accommodate the large number of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of an organization or group will be allowed to speak. If time permits, multiple representatives from the same organization can provide comment at the end of the session. In addition, those who did not sign up in advance to give public comment can sign up on site. The suggested format for written public comments is as follows: Name of Speaker; Name of Organization/Community; City and State; Email address; and a brief description of the concern and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by 6 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on Monday May 11, 2015, will be included in the materials distributed to the members of the NEJAC. Written comments received after that date and time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All information should be sent to the mailing address, email address, or fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    B. Information about Services for Individuals With Disabilities: For information about access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Jasmin Muriel, at (202) 564-4287 or via email at [email protected]. To request special accommodations for a disability, please contact Ms. Muriel at least four working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone/fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Sherri P. White, Designated Federal Officer, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10366 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S. [Public Notice: 2015-6002] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request. Form Title: EIB 11-08, Application for Global Credit Express Revolving Line of Credit.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    The Application for Global Credit Express Revolving Line of Credit is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the transaction for Export-Import Bank assistance under its Working Capital Guarantee and Direct Loan Program. This form is used by small U.S. businesses with limited export experience. This program relies to a large extent on the exporter's qualifying score on the FICO (Fair Isaac Corporation) SBSS (Small Business Scoring Service). Therefore the financial and credit information needs are minimized. This is a request to renew an existing form. The only change is to enhance a question about company ownership so as to improve the quality of information derived from the question.

    The form can be viewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/EIB11-08-Final.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before July 6, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov (EIB:11-08) or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Titles and Form Number: EIB 11-08, Application for Global Credit Express Revolving Line of Credit

    OMB Number: 3048-0038.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Need and Use: The Application for Global Credit Express Revolving Line of Credit is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the transaction for Export-Import Bank assistance under its Working Capital Guarantee and Direct Loan Program.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 130.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 195 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing Time per Year: 195 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $8,287.5 (time*wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $9,945.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Records Management Division,Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10343 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice EIB-2015-0008] Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088734XX AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction. Comments received will be made available to the public.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2015 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit a comment, enter EIB-2015-0008 under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and select Search. Follow the instructions provided at the Submit a Comment screen. Please include your name, company name (if any) and EIB-2015-0008 on any attached document.

    Reference: AP088734XX.

    Purpose and Use:

    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction: To support the export of U.S.-manufactured commercial aircraft to Luxembourg.

    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the items being exported: To be used for air cargo services globally. To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the items being exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.

    Parties:

    Principal Suppliers: The Boeing Company.

    Obligor: Cargolux Airlines International S.A.

    Guarantor(s): N/A.

    Description of Items Being Exported: Boeing 747 aircraft.

    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this transaction will be available in the “Summary Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors” on http://exim.gov/newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/.

    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not include confidential or proprietary business information; information which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by supplying information that competitors could use to compete with companies in the United States.

    Bonita Jones, Program Analyst, Records Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10251 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [EIB-2015-0010] Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088976XX AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction. Comments received will be made available to the public.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2015 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit a comment, enter EIB-2015-0010 under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and select Search. Follow the instructions provided at the Submit a Comment screen. Please include your name, company name (if any) and EIB-2015-0010 on any attached document.

    Reference: AP088976XX.

    Purpose and Use:

    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:

    To support the export of U.S.-manufactured commercial aircraft to China.

    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the items being exported:

    To be used for cargo air service between China and other countries.

    To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.

    Parties:

    Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company.

    Obligor: China Southern Airlines.

    Guarantor(s): N./A.

    Description of Items Being Exported:

    Boeing 777 aircraft.

    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this transaction will be available in the “Summary Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors” on http://exim.gov/newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/.

    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not include confidential or proprietary business information; information which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by supplying information that competitors could use to compete with companies in the United States.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Program Analyst, Records Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10327 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice EIB-2015-0009] Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088934XX AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction. Comments received will be made available to the public.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2015 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit a comment, enter EIB-2015-0009 under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and select Search. Follow the instructions provided at the Submit a Comment screen. Please include your name, company name (if any) and EIB-2015-0009 on any attached document.

    Reference: AP088934XX.

    Purpose And Use: Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:

    To support the export of U.S.-manufactured commercial aircraft to the United Arab Emirates.

    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the items being exported:

    To be used for passenger air service between the United Arab Emirates and other countries.

    To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the items being exported may be used to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.

    Parties:

    Principal Suppliers: The Boeing Company.

    Obligor: Emirates Airline.

    Guarantor(s): N/A.

    Description of Items Being Exported:

    Boeing 777 aircraft.

    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this transaction will be available in the “Summary Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors” on http://exim.gov/newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/.

    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not include confidential or proprietary business information; information which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by supplying information that competitors could use to compete with companies in the United States.

    Bonita Jones, Program Analyst, Records Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10250 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [Notice 2015-08] Filing Dates for the Illinois Special Elections in the 18th Congressional District AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing dates for special elections.

    SUMMARY:

    Illinois has scheduled special elections on July 7, 2015, and September 10, 2015, to fill the U.S. House of Representative seat in the 18th Congressional District vacated by Representative Aaron Schock.

    Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special Primary Election on July 7, 2015, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report. Committees required to file reports in connection with both the Special Primary and the Special General Election on September 10, 2015, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report, 12-day Pre-General Report and a Post-General Report.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Principal Campaign Committees

    All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Illinois Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on June 25, 2015; a 12-day Pre-General Report on August 29, 2015; and a Post-General Report on October 10, 2015. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    All principal campaign committees of candidates participating only in the Special Primary Election shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on June 25, 2015. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Unauthorized Committees (PACs and Party Committees)

    Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2015 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Illinois Special Primary or Special General Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Illinois Special Primary or Special General Elections will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

    Additional disclosure information in connection with the Illinois Special Elections may be found on the FEC Web site at http://www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.shtml.

    Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling Activity

    Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,600 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).

    Calendar of Reporting Dates for Illinois Special Elections Report Close of books 1 Reg./Cert. &
  • overnight mailing
  • deadline
  • Filing deadline
    Quarterly Filing Campaign Committees Involved in Only the Special Primary (07/07/15) Must File Pre-Primary 06/17/15 06/22/15 06/25/15 July Quarterly 06/30/15 07/15/15 07/15/15 Semi-Annual Filing Committees Involved in Only the Special Primary (07/07/15) Must File Pre-Primary 06/17/15 06/22/15 06/25/15 Mid-Year 06/30/15 07/31/15 07/31/15 Quarterly Filing Campaign Committees Involved in Both the Special Primary (07/07/15) and Special General (09/10/15) Must File Pre-Primary 06/17/15 06/22/15 06/25/15 July Quarterly 06/30/15 07/15/15 07/15/15 Pre-General 08/21/15 08/26/15 2 08/29/15 Post-General 09/30/15 10/10/15 2 10/10/15 October Quarterly —WAIVED— Year-End 12/31/15 01/31/16 2 01/31/16 Semi-Annual Filing Committees Involved in Both the Special Primary (07/07/15) and Special General (09/10/15) Must File Pre-Primary 06/17/15 06/22/15 06/25/15 Mid-Year 06/30/15 07/31/15 07/31/15 Pre-General 08/21/15 08/26/15 2 08/29/15 Post-General 09/30/15 10/10/15 2 10/10/15 Year-End 12/31/15 01/31/16 2 01/31/16 Quarterly Filing Campaign Committees Involved in Only the Special General (09/10/15) Must File Pre-General 08/21/15 08/26/15 2 08/29/15 Post-General 09/30/15 10/10/15 2 10/10/15 October Quarterly —WAIVED— Year-End 12/31/15 01/31/16 2 01/31/16 Semi-Annual Filing Committees Involved in Only the Special General (09/10/15) Must File Pre-General 08/21/15 08/26/15 2 08/29/15 Post-General 09/30/15 10/10/15 2 10/10/15 Year-End 12/31/15 01/31/16 2 01/31/16 1 The reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered as a political committee up through the close of books for the first report due. 2 Notice that this filing deadline falls on a weekend. Filing deadlines are not extended when they fall on nonworking days. Accordingly, reports filed by methods other than Registered, Certified or Overnight Mail or electronically, must be received before the Commission's close of business on the last business day before the deadline.
    Dated: April 27, 2015.

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Ann M. Ravel, Chair, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10350 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the notices must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 19, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

    1. Independence Bancshares, Inc., Greenville, South Carolina; to acquire MPIB Holdings, LLC, Darien, Connecticut, and thereby engage in data processing activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(14)(i).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 29, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10344 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board, Acting Clearance Officer—Mark Tokarski—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report:

    Report title: Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Real Estate Appraisal Standards for Federally Related Transactions Pursuant to Regulations H and Y.

    Agency form number: FR H-4.

    OMB control number: 7100-0250.

    Frequency: Event-generated.

    Reporters: State member banks (SMBs) and nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies (BHCs).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: SMBs, 31,820 hours; nonbank subsidiaries of BHCs, 11,813 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: SMBs, 0.25; nonbank subsidiaries of BHCs, 0.25.

    Number of respondents: SMBs, 860; nonbank subsidiaries of BHCs, 613.

    General description of report: The recordkeeping requirements of this information collection are mandatory (12 U.S.C. 3339). Since the Federal Reserve does not collect this information, confidentiality is not generally an issue. However, if the Federal Reserve were to collect a copy of the appraisal report during an examination, the documents could be exempt from disclosure under FOIA (5 U.S.C 552(b)(4) and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: For federally related transactions, Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) requires SMBs and BHCs with credit-extending nonbank subsidiaries to use appraisals prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. Generally, these standards include the methods and techniques used to analyze a property as well as the requirements for reporting such analysis and a value conclusion in the appraisal. SMBs and BHCs with credit-extending nonbank subsidiaries are expected to maintain records that demonstrate that appraisals used in their real estate-related lending activities comply with these regulatory requirements. There is no formal reporting form.

    Current Actions: On February 12, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 7866) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR H-4. The comment period for this notice expired on April 13, 2015. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments. The information collection will be extended for three years, without revision, as proposed.

    Final approval, under OMB delegated authority to implement the following information collection:

    Report title: Federal Reserve Board Public Web Site Usability Survey.

    Agency form number: FR 3076.

    OMB control number: 7100—to be assigned.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: Consumers, media, economists, financial institutions, nonprofits, community development organizations, consumer groups, state or local agencies, and researchers from academic, government, policy and other institutions.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Surveys, 300 hours; and Focus Groups, 120 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Surveys, 0.25 hours; and Focus Groups, 1.50 hours.

    Number of respondents: Surveys, 100; and Focus Groups, 20.

    General description of report: This information collection is generally authorized under section 2B of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended, that requires the Board to provide certain reports, audits, and other information that “the Board reasonably believes is necessary or helpful to the public in understating the accounting, financial reporting, and internal controls of the Board and the Federal reserve banks” (12 U.S.C. 225b(c)). In addition, the Board uses its Web site to provide the public information about a variety of other matters, including information about the Board, its actions, and the economy. The responses to this survey will help the Board to determine how effective its communications are as the Board strives to fulfill its statutory mission to “maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates” (12 U.S.C. 225a). Participation in the FR 3076 would be voluntary and the information collected on these surveys is not considered confidential. Thus, no issue of confidentiality arises.

    Abstract: The Board would use the FR 3076 survey to obtain feedback from the public users of the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site, social media, outreach, and communication responsibilities. This collection would seek input from users or potential users to understand their interests and needs; to help make informed decisions concerning content, design, and dissemination strategies; to gauge public awareness of its offerings and resources; and to assess the effectiveness of its communications with various audiences.

    The FR 3076 would be used to gather qualitative and quantitative information directly from users or potential users of the Board's Web site such as the public, the Congress, other government agencies, economic educators, economists, financial institutions, financial literacy groups, and community development groups and more.

    Web pages may include press releases, data releases and download, reports, supervision manuals, brochures, new Web pages, audio, video, and use of social media. Information gathered may also include general input on users' interests and needs, feedback on Web site navigation and layout, distribution channels, or other factors which may affect the ability of users to locate and access content online.

    Qualitative surveys include data gathering methods such as focus groups and individual interviews. Quantitative surveys include surveys conducted online or via mobile device, by phone or by mail, emails, or a combination of these methods. The Board may choose to contract with an outside vendor to conduct focus groups, interviews, or surveys; or the Board may choose to collect the data directly.

    As FederalReserve.gov continues to evolve, the Board may seek input from users or potential users of Board's public Web site on questions such as:

    • Did you find the content and layout relevant and of value?

    • How did you find the content you were looking for?

    • Was the navigation useful?

    • How did you learn about the content?

    • How did you access the content? (e.g.: paper copy distributed at an event, online, or mobile device). If online or through a mobile device, was the document printed, viewed on a tablet, or on a computer screen?

    • What suggestions do you have for improving the format and appearance of online presentation? (e.g.: readability—font size, charts, and graphs; organization of information; and navigating—indexing, search tools, and links).

    • What other information would be of value to enhance the online tool or information?

    Participation in the FR 3076 would be voluntary.

    Current Actions: On February 12, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 7866) requesting public comment for 60 days on the implementation of the FR 3076. The comment period for this notice expired on April 13, 2015. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments. The information collection will be implemented, as proposed.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 28, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10280 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0163]; [Docket 2015-0053; Sequence 5] Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small Business Size Representation AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for approval of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding small business size representation. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 8651 on February 18, 2015. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: June 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0163, Small Business Size Representation, by any of the following methods:

    • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB Control number 9000-0163. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0163, Small Business Size Representation”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0163, Small Business Size Representation” on your attached document.

    • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Hada Flowers/IC 9000-0163, Small Business Size Representation.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “Information Collection 9000-0163, Small Business Size Representation,” in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, contact via telephone 703-605-2868 or email m[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.301 and the FAR clause at 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation, implement the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) regulation at 13 CFR 121.404(g), requiring that a concern that initially represented itself as small at the time of its initial offer must recertify its status as a small business under the following circumstances:

    • Within thirty days of an approved contract novation;

    • Within thirty days in the case of a merger or acquisition, where contract novation is not required; or

    • Within 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of a contract, and no more than 120 days prior to the exercise of any option thereafter.

    The implementation of SBA's regulation in FAR 19.301 and the FAR clause at 52.219-28 require that contractors rerepresent size status by updating their representations at the prime contract level in the Representations and Certifications section of the System for Award Management (SAM) and notifying the contracting officer that it has made the required update.

    The purpose of implementing small business rerepresentations in the FAR is to ensure that small business size status is accurately represented and reported over the life of long-term contracts. The FAR also provides for provisions designed to ensure more accurate reporting of size status for contracts that are novated, merged or acquired by another business. This information is used by the SBA, Congress, Federal agencies and the general public for various reasons such as determining if agencies are meeting statutory goals, set-aside determinations, and market research.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Based on information from Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) regarding rerepresentation modifications, a downward adjustment is being made to the number of respondents. As a result, a downward adjustment is being made to the estimated annual reporting burden since the notice regarding an extension to this clearance published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 30265, on May 22, 2012.

    Respondents: 1,700.

    Responses Per Respondent: 1.

    Total Number of Responses: 1,700.

    Hours Per Response: 0.5.

    Total Burden Hours: 850.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0163, Small Business Size Representation, in all correspondence.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10361 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL [Docket No.: 105042015-1111-02] Council Member Summary Notice of Application Process for Council-Selected Restoration Component Projects and Programs AGENCY:

    Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice explains the two-phase submission and application process for RESTORE Council members to receive funding under the Council-Selected Restoration Component of the RESTORE Act.

    DATES:

    These provisions are effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Pleffner, Council, telephone number: 813-995-2025.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2) of the Resource and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act), the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) will fund and implement projects and programs to restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region pursuant to a published Funded Priorities List (FPL). 1 The Council published the “Council Member Proposal Submission Guidelines for Comprehensive Plan Funded Priorities List of Projects and Programs” on its Web site on August 21, 2014. This document contains overarching submission guidelines for Council member agencies and States to submit projects and programs for possible inclusion on the FPL. The Council will periodically request proposals from its eleven State and Federal members in order to develop further FPLs.

    1 The FPL will be a supplement to the previously published Initial Comprehensive Plan.

    To receive funding under the Council-Selected Restoration Component of the RESTORE Act, Council members must take part in a two-phase submission and application process. Both phases of the submission and application process must be completed before a member will receive an official award from the Council and be able to receive grant funding.

    EN04MY15.002

    In the first phase, projects and programs must be selected for inclusion on the FPL. The Council members are the only entities eligible to submit proposals for the FPL. The Council will select projects and programs for inclusion in the FPL using the review and selection process described in the “Council Member Proposal Submission Guidelines for Comprehensive Plan Funded Priorities List of Projects and Programs.” The Council will then publish the draft FPL, accept and respond to public comments, and publish the final FPL as an addendum to the Initial Comprehensive Plan.

    After publication of the final FPL, the second phase of the application process begins by requiring the submission of a full grant application or interagency agreement for each individual project or program by the Council member who is designated as the primary recipient. This second phase, the grant application phase, is not competitive. After a project or program has been selected under phase 1, the actual grant awards (with State Council members) or interagency agreements (with Federal agency Council members) are entered into through the administrative process. The Council members are the only entities eligible to enter into grant awards or interagency agreements. All State Council member projects or programs selected for funding under the FPL must apply for a grant to implement the project or program described in the proposal. All Federal agency Council member projects or proposals selected for funding under the FPL must work with the Council to create an Interagency Agreement.

    Detailed information about the grant application phase process will be published at a later date. Example forms and documents that may be required in the full grant application package are listed below:

    • Standard Forms (SF-424 family);

    • Council-specific forms;

    • Detailed Project Narrative;

    • Detailed Budget Narrative;

    • Organizational Risk Assessment;

    • Council and Government-wide Certifications; and

    • Environmental Compliance Documentation, as applicable.

    Will D. Spoon, Program Analyst, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10357 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment; Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in concurrence with and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

    Times and Dates:

    8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., May 20, 2015 (CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment (CHAC) meeting).

    9 a.m.-4:30 p.m., May 21, 2015 (CHAC and the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) joint meeting).

    Place: The CHAC meeting will be held at CDC Corporate Square, Building 8, Conference Room 1-ABC, Corporate Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; telephone (404) 639-8317. The meeting is also accessible by teleconference: Local (Atlanta, Georgia) number (404) 553-8912, Conference ID: 8317483; Toll-free number +1 (855) 348-8390, Conference ID: 8317483.

    The CHAC/PACHA joint meeting will be held at the W Hotel Atlanta Downtown, 45 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, Salons 5 and 6, Atlanta, Georgia 30308; telephone (404) 582-5800.

    Status: Both of the meetings are open to the public, limited only by the space available.

    Purpose: This Committee is charged with advising the Director, CDC and the Administrator, HRSA, regarding activities related to prevention and control of HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis and other STDs, the support of health care services to persons living with HIV/AIDS, and education of health professionals and the public about HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis and other STDs.

    Matters for Discussion: Agenda items include: (1) Role of STD clinics in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP); (2) Addressing Hepatitis C and HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID); (3) Update from viral hepatitis workgroup; and (4) considerations for the update of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (joint meeting with PACHA).

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person For More Information: Margie Scott-Cseh, CDC, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; telephone (404) 639-8317.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Catherine Ramadei, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10306 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-15ADW; Docket No. CDC-2015-0025] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection request entitled “Employer Perspectives of an Insurer-Sponsored Wellness Grant”. This collection is a part of an employer study to understand the impact of integrating wellness programs with traditional occupational safety and health (OSH) programs.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0025 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Employer Perspectives of an Insurer-Sponsored Wellness Grant—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. Under Public Law 91-596, sections 20 and 22 (Section 20-22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970), NIOSH has the responsibility to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. In this capacity, NIOSH proposes to conduct a study among employers in Ohio insured by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (OHBWC) to (1) assess the effectiveness and cost-benefit of an intervention that funds workplace wellness programs and (2) understand the impact of integrating wellness programs with traditional occupational safety and health (OSH) programs.

    Work-related injuries and illnesses are common among US workers and result in pain, disability, and substantial cost to workers and employers. A recent, comprehensive analysis of the economic burden of work-related injuries and illnesses estimated that in 2007 alone medical and indirect costs for work-related injuries and illnesses were $250 billion. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there were 4,609 occupational fatalities in 2011 and approximately 2 million work-related injuries and illnesses that involved some lost work in 2010.

    Workers' health is affected not only by workplace safety and health hazards, but also workers' own health behaviors. Reflecting this, two different, yet, complementary approaches exist in the workplace: OSH programs and wellness programs. Both types of programs aim to improve worker health and reduce costs to employers, workers' compensation (WC) insurers, and society. Since 2004, NIOSH has advocated an approach that coordinates wellness programs with OSH programs because emerging evidence suggests that integrating these two fields may have a synergistic effect on worker safety and health.

    NIOSH has established an intramural program for protecting and promoting Total Worker HealthTM. The NIOSH Total Worker HealthTM Cross-Sector Program promotes the integration of health and safety protection with health and wellness promotion through research, interventions, partnerships, and capacity building to meet the needs of the 21st century workforce. The proposed project addresses three priority goals of the NIOSH Total Worker HealthTM Program: (1) Investigate the costs/benefits associated with comprehensive, coordinated work-based health protection/health promotion interventions; (2) improve the understanding of how the work environment influences the effectiveness of health programs and identify opportunities for workplace interventions to prevent, control, recognize and manage common chronic conditions; and (3) conduct scientific research that more holistically investigates organizational and worker health and safety outcomes associated with emerging issues and addresses gaps in knowledge in the health protection/health promotion field.

    There is a need for research to demonstrate a `business case' for both wellness programs and integrated OSH-wellness programs and identify OSH organizational and management policies, programs and practices that effectively reduce work-related injuries, illnesses, disabilities and WC costs. To date small employers have been largely ignored in these areas and many studies have focused on the manufacturing industry. Real-world examples of effective interventions that apply to employers of all sizes and industries will ultimately improve workers' health and safety.

    For the current study, NIOSH and OHBWC are collaborating on a project to determine the effectiveness and economic return of the Workplace Wellness Grant Program (WWGP) and to understand the impact of integrating of wellness with traditional OSH programs. In early 2012 OHBWC took steps to integrate wellness and OSH programs by launching the WWGP, in which an estimated 400 (currently 321) employers and 13,000 employees will be provided a total of $4 million in funds over four years to implement wellness programs.

    The majority of the study aims will be accomplished through secondary analysis of pre- and post-intervention data being collected by OHBWC and shared with NIOSH. For the overall study, data for participating employers will include aggregate health risk appraisal data; aggregate biometric data; turnover data; health care utilization costs; information about occupational safety and health, wellness, and integrated occupational safety and health-wellness program elements; OHBWC WWGP expense records; yearly WC claims and cost data; data that details employer participation in other OHBWC programs; industry codes, and employer size. A sample of no more than 50 employers will be selected among grantees for 1-2 brief phone calls to confirm responses on an annual survey administered by OHBWC.

    In addition, NIOSH will supplement the cost data extracted from existing sources with information collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with no more than 25, randomly selected, participating employers. Data gathered from these employer interviews are critical to compute ratios of total savings to total costs for the grant-supported wellness programs from the perspective of the participating employers.

    NIOSH will ask a series of questions that will be used to estimate direct and indirect costs that were not directly funded by the WWGP during and after the grant funding period. This will be accomplished by collecting as detailed information as possible about the employer's wellness program and occupational and safety program costs. Topics will include questions about: The timeline and confirmation of grant funding (4 questions), non-grant funds used for wellness program costs after receiving the first grant (5 questions), non-grant funds used for wellness program costs before receiving the first grant (7 questions), time spent on wellness program after receiving the grant (3 questions), time spent on wellness program before receiving the grant (7 questions), other questions about the people planning and running the wellness program (2 or 4 questions), work time spent by employees for wellness activities (6 to 11 questions), changes to OSH plan and hazards after receiving the grant (8 to 13 questions), and other questions about their wellness program (3 to 5 questions).

    The results of these interview-supplemented case studies will be used to estimate the proportion by which total employer costs exceed the cost of the primary wellness program vendor, as well as the proportion of these costs attributable to establishing the program in the first year versus operating the program in subsequent years. These estimates will be applied to generate total employer costs for all of the WWGP recipients, with sensitivity analysis based on the observed variability of employer costs in the case studies.

    If the WWGP is effective at improving worker health, reducing WC claims and demonstrating a positive economic return, then other employers and insurance carriers may develop similar programs and drive the optimization of integrated OSH-wellness approaches. NIOSH expects to complete data collection in 2017.

    There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Wellness Program Coordinators Employer interviews on cost of wellness and occupational safety and health program 25 1 2 50 Occupational Safety and Health Specialists Employer interviews on cost of wellness and occupational safety and health program 25 1 2 50 The person in charge of the employer's wellness program Annual case study verification interview 100 1 30/60 50 Total 150
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10286 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Child Care Development Fund, CCDF; Reporting Improper Payments; Instructions for States.

    OMB No.: 0970-0323.

    Description: Section 2 of the Improper Payments Act of 2002 provides for estimates and reports of improper payments by Federal agencies. Subpart K of 45 CFR, part 98 will require States to prepare and submit a report of errors occurring in the administration of CCDF grant funds once every three years.

    The Office of Child Care (OCC) is completing the third 3-year cycle of case record reviews to meet the requirements for reporting under IPIA. The current forms and instructions expire September 30, 2015. OCC is submitting the information collection for renewal clearance with minor changes. Responders will now have additional guidance and clarification in the instructions and errors have been corrected. New language incorporates requirements from the 2014 Child Care and Development Fund Block Grant Act passed in November 2014.

    Respondents: State grantees, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average burden hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Sampling Decisions and Fieldwork Preparation Plan 17 1 106 1,802 Record Review Worksheet 17 276 6.33 29,700.36 State Improper Authorizations for Payment Report 17 1 639 10,863 Corrective Action Plan 8 1 156 1,248

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 43,613.36.

    Additional Information:Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment:OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected] Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10296 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-0785] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for the RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM 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 medical device.

    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 medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (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 medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM. RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM is indicated for the endovascular repair of fusiform aneurysms and saccular aneurysms/penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers in the descending thoracic aorta in patients having appropriate anatomy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for the RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 8,062,345 B2) from Bolton Medical Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 18, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of the RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM 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 RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM is 2,852 days. Of this time, 2,529 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 323 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: December 2, 2004. The applicant claims that the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective on December 3, 2004. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on December 2, 2004, which represents the IDE effective date.

    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): November 4, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application (PMA) for the RELAY THORACIC STENT-GRAFT WITH PLUS DELIVERY SYSTEM (PMA P110038) was initially submitted November 4, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: September 21, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P110038 was approved on September 21, 2012.

    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 225 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 July 6, 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 November 2, 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 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10338 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2013-E-1299 and FDA-2013-E-1302] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.

    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, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 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 medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (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 medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM. CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM is indicated to provide defibrillation therapy for the treatment of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients who do not have symptomatic bradycardia, incessant ventricular tachycardia, or spontaneous, frequently recurring ventricular tachycardia that is reliably terminated with antitachycardia pacing. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,856,835 and 7,149,575) from Cameron Health Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 18, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that the FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM is 1,024 days. Of this time, 743 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 281 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: December 11, 2009. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the FD&C act for human tests to begin became effective December 11, 2009.

    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): December 23, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application (PMA) for CAMERON HEALTH S-ICD SYSTEM (PMA P110042) was initially submitted December 23, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: September 28, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P110042 was approved on September 28, 2012.

    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 applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 651 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 July 6, 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 November 2, 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 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10334 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0154] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; NESINA AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for NESINA 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 Bldg., 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 NESINA (alogliptin benzoate). NESINA is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for NESINA (U.S. Patent No. 8,173,663) from Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., 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 NESINA 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 NESINA is 3,021 days. Of this time, 1,164 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,857 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: October 20, 2004. The applicant claims October 19, 2004, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was October 20, 2004, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.

    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 27, 2007. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for NESINA (NDA 22-271) was submitted on December 27, 2007.

    3. The date the application was approved: January 25, 2013. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-271 was approved on January 25, 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 264 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 July 6, 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 November 2, 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 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10337 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0074] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BOSULIF AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for BOSULIF 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 BOSULIF (bosutinib monohydrate). BOSULIF is indicated for treatment of adult patients with chronic, accelerated, or blast phase Ph+ chronic myelogenous leukemia with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for BOSULIF (U.S. Patent No. RE42376) from Wyeth Holdings Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 26, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of BOSULIF 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 BOSULIF is 3,032 days. Of this time, 2,739 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 293 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: May 19, 2004. The applicant claims May 16, 2004, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was May 19, 2004, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: November 17, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for BOSULIF (NDA 203-341) was submitted on November 17, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: September 4, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 203-341 was approved on September 4, 2012.

    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 1,664 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 July 6, 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 November 2, 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 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10333 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0156] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; KAZANO AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for KAZANO 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 KAZANO (alogliptin benzoate and metformin hydrochloride). KAZANO is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for KAZANO (U.S. Patent No. 8,288,539) from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, 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 KAZANO 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 KAZANO is 1,365 days. Of this time, 934 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 431 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: May 3, 2009. The applicant claims May 4, 2009, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was May 3, 2009, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: November 22, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for KAZANO (NDA 203-414) was submitted on November 22, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: January 25, 2013. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 203-414 was approved on January 25, 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 102 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 July 6, 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 November 2, 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 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10335 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2013-E-0476 and FDA-2013-E-0654] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; TUDORZA PRESSAIR AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for TUDORZA PRESSAIR and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications 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 TUDORZA PRESSAIR (aclidinium bromide). TUDORZA PRESSAIR is indicated for the long-term maintenance treatment of bronchospasm associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for TUDORZA PRESSAIR (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,750,226 and 7,078,412) from Almiral, S.A., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents eligibilities for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 16, 2013, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of TUDORZA PRESSAIR 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 TUDORZA PRESSAIR is 3,136 days. Of this time, 2,739 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 397 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: December 24, 2003. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on December 24, 2003.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: June 23, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for TUDORZA PRESSAIR (NDA 202-450) was submitted on June 23, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: July 23, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 202-450 was approved on July 23, 2012.

    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 applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,679 or 1,298 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 July 6, 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 November 2, 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 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10336 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Service Administration Council on Graduate Medical Education; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME).

    Dates and Times: May 21, 2015 (10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EST).

    Place: Webinar, and Conference Call Format.

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The COGME provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and to Congress on a range of issues including the supply and distribution of physicians in the United States, current and future physician shortages or excesses, issues relating to foreign medical school graduates, the nature and financing of medical education training, and the development of performance measures and longitudinal evaluation of medical education programs. The COGME members will continue their discussion on Graduate Medical Education (GME) innovations.

    Agenda: The COGME agenda includes an opportunity for members to continue their discussion on Graduate Medical Education (GME) innovations including GME architecture, reform, and financing.

    The official agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/cogme/index.html

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the COGME should be sent to Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, using the address and phone number below. Individuals who plan to participate on the conference call or webinar should notify Dr. Weiss at least 3 days prior to the meeting, using the address and phone number below. Interested parties should refer to the meeting subject as the HRSA Council on Graduate Medical Education.

    The conference call-in number is: 888-566-5974. The passcode is: 4439136.

    The webinar link is https://hrsa.connectsolutions.com/bhw_cogmemay2015/.

    Contact: Anyone requesting information regarding the COGME should contact Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official within the Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 12C-05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 443-0430; or (3) send an email to [email protected]

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10354 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than June 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 594-4306.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Collection Request Title: Partnerships for Care (P4C) Supplemental Funding Progress Reports OMB No. 0915-xxxx—New

    Abstract: Partnerships for Care (P4C): Health Departments and Health Centers Collaborating to Improve HIV Health Outcomes is a 3-year partnership cross-HHS project. The activities described in this notice were funded in part by HRSA through the Secretary's Minority AIDS Initiative Fund, established by annual appropriations acts (most recently, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, Division G, title II) and the Community Health Center Fund established by section 10503 of the Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, as amended. The goals of the P4C project are to build sustainable partnerships between HRSA-funded health centers and CDC-funded state health departments (including Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, and Florida) to support expanded HIV service delivery in communities highly impacted by HIV, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. State health departments and health centers will work together to increase the identification of undiagnosed HIV infection, establish new access points for HIV care and treatment, and improve HIV outcomes along the continuum of care for people living with HIV (PLWH) (see P4C fact sheet at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/demonstration/p4c/index.html and HHS press release at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2014pres/07/20140715a.html). Eligible health centers (22 in 4 states) will receive up to $500,000 annually in HRSA supplemental funding (totaling $33M across the 3-year project period) to integrate high-quality, comprehensive HIV services into their primary care programs; and to work in collaboration with their state health department to (1) identify people with undiagnosed HIV infection, (2) link newly diagnosed individuals to care, and (3) retain patients living with HIV in care. Health centers must implement activities in five focus areas, including workforce development, infrastructure development, HIV service delivery, partnership development, and quality improvement and evaluation. Health centers must demonstrate progress toward implementing all required P4C activities and improving health care outcomes across the HIV care continuum (see http://aids.gov/federal-resources/policies/care-continuum/).

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: HRSA/Bureau of Primary Healthcare (BPHC) proposes standardized data collection and reporting through submission of five progress reports by the 22 health centers participating in the 3-year P4C project to achieve the following purposes:

    1. Ensure appropriate stewardship of federal funds.

    2. Support HHS efforts to streamline HIV data collection and reporting.

    3. Assess health center progress in implementing approved work plans and meeting other P4C goals and objectives.

    4. Assess health center progress in improving HIV outcomes across the HIV care continuum.

    5. Support health center use of patient data to improve quality of HIV care.

    6. Identify training and technical assistance needs among participating health centers.

    7. Support identification and dissemination of effective models and promising practices for the integration of HIV services into primary care.

    Proposed data collection closely aligns with (1) core HIV indicators established by HHS (see http://blog.aids.gov/2012/08/secretary-sebelius-approves-indicators-for-monitoring-hhs-funded-hiv-services.html), (2) measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum (see http://www.qualityforum.org/News_And_Resources/Press_Releases/2013/NQF_Endorses_Infectious_Disease_Measures.aspx), (3) performance measures used by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (see http://hab.hrsa.gov/deliverhivaidscare/habperformmeasures.html), (4) the Health Center Program's Uniform Data System (see http://bphc.hrsa.gov/healthcenterdatastatistics/index.html#whatisuds), and (5) P4C project requirements. Specifically, HRSA/BPHC proposes submission of two progress reports each year by participating health centers to include aggregate, HIV-related, patient data (quantitative) and other information regarding implementation of approved work plans and budgets (narrative).

    Likely Respondents: Health Center Program grantees receiving supplemental awards under the P4C project (22 total).

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below. As health centers develop reporting proficiencies and advance from initial start-up activities to establishing routine data abstraction methods for the new outcome measures, it is expected that the annualized burden will decrease by 20% each year.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Implementation Progress Report 22 1 22 5 110 Outcomes Progress Report 22 1 22 25 550 Total 22 44 660
    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10355 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice for Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is requesting nominations to fill at least 16 vacancies on the National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice (NACNEP).

    DATES:

    The Agency must receive nominations on or before July 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All nominations are to be submitted either by email to Kristen Hansen, Acting Designated Federal Official, NACNEP, at [email protected] or by mail to Kristen Hansen, Division of Nursing and Public Health, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 9-89, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information, contact Kristen Hansen, Division of Nursing and Public Health, Bureau of Health Workforce, by email at [email protected] or telephone at (301) 443-2796. A copy of the current committee membership, charter, and reports can be obtained by accessing the NACNEP Web site (http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/nacnep/index.html).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the authorities that established the NACNEP and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, HRSA is requesting nominations for at least 16 new committee members. The NACNEP provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary and Congress in preparation of general regulations and concerning policy matters arising in the administration of Title VIII, including the range of issues related to nurse workforce education and practice improvement. Annually, the NACNEP prepares and submits to the Secretary, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, and the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, a report describing the activities of the council, including findings and recommendations made by the NACNEP concerning the activities under Title VIII.

    The Department of Health and Human Services is requesting at least 16 nominations for members of the NACNEP from leading authorities in the various fields of nursing, higher and secondary education, and associate degree schools of nursing; and from representatives of advanced education nursing groups (such as nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and nurse anesthetists); from hospitals and other institutions and organizations which provide nursing services; from practicing professional nurses; from the general public; and full-time students enrolled in schools of nursing. The majority of NACNEP members shall be nurses.

    HRSA has special interest in the legislative requirements of having a fair balance between the nursing profession with a broad geographic representation of members, a balance between urban and rural members, and the adequate representation of minorities. HRSA encourages nominations from qualified candidates from these groups as well as individuals with disabilities and veterans.

    Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership. Self-nominations are accepted. Nominations must be typewritten. The following information should be included in the package of materials submitted for each individual being nominated: (1) a letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., specific attributes that qualify the nominee for service in this capacity), a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the council and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude this council membership. Potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, consultancies, research grants, and/or contracts to permit an evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest; (2) the nominator's name, address, and daytime telephone number; the home/or work address and telephone number; and the email address of the individual being nominated; (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae; and (4) a statement of interest from the nominee to support experience working with Title VIII nursing programs, expertise in the field, and a personal desire in participating on the NACNEP.

    Members will receive a stipend for each official meeting day of the NACNEP, as well as per diem and travel expenses as authorized by section 5 U.S.C. 5703 for persons employed intermittently in government service.

    Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Qualified candidates will be invited to serve up to a 4-year term.

    Authority:

    The National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice is in accordance with the provisions of 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 297t; section 851 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The Council is governed by provisions of Pub. L. 92-463, which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10356 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 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 the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Short-Term Training to Promote Diversity in Health Research.

    Date: May 28, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7198, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Stephanie L. Constant, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7189, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-8784, [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 28, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10271 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Determining the Genetic and Diagnostic Markers of Acute Renal Allograft Rejection (K24).

    Date: May 26, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fisher Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Zhuqing (Charlie) Li, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room # 3G41B, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5068, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Innovative Technologies for Differential Diagnosis of Acute Febrile Illnesses (R21/R33).

    Date: May 27, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fisher Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Eleazar Cohen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Room 3129, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3564, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 28, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10274 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute On Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel Performance Measures of Multiple Chronic Conditions (MCC).

    Date: May 28, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel Polyphenols and Alzheimer's Disease.

    Date: June 11, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 28, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10278 Filed 5-1-15; 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 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 the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research Initial Review Group.

    Date: June 18-19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Weiqun Li, MD, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 703, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-5807,[email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 28, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10270 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301-496-7057; fax: 301-402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology descriptions follow.

    Novel Furoquinolinediones as Inhibitors of TDP2 and Their Potential Use to Treat Cancer

    Description of Technology: The invention relates to novel Furoquinolinediones derivatives and their ability to inhibit the enzyme tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase 2 (TDP2), and therefore to serve as anti-cancer agents. Furthermore, these compounds can be used in combination with topoisomerase II (Top2) inhibitors, such as etoposide or doxorubicin, to more effectively kill cancer cells in a synergistic fashion.

    Pharmaceutical compositions containing these novel Furoquinolinediones and methods of treatment comprising administering of such compositions are disclosed in the invention.

    Potential Commercial Applications: Furoquinolinediones derivatives can potentially be utilized for cancer treatment either as stand alone or in combination with other drugs such as Top2 inhibitors.

    Competitive Advantages: Combination therapies based on the association of a TDP2 and a Top2 inhibitor because of their synergistic effect should allow the decrease of the effective dosage. Their therapeutic benefit should be observed at non-toxic concentrations for normal cells as it has already been demonstrated for PARP inhibitors in BRCA-deficient tumors.

    Development Stage: In vitro data available

    Inventors: Christophe R. Marchand, Likun An, Yves G. Pommier (all of NCI)

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-275-2014/0—US Provisional Application No. 62/100,968 filed January 8, 2015

    Licensing Contact: Kevin Chang, Ph.D.; 301-435-5018; [email protected]

    Transgenic Mouse Model of Human Open Angle Glaucoma

    Description of Technology: Glaucoma is a group of chronic neurodegenerative disorders, which is characterized by progressive loss of retinal ganglion cells (RGC) and results in irreversible damage to optic nerve and thereby loss of vision. Primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) is the most common form of glaucoma; mutations in MYOC gene are the most common genetically defined cause of POAG. As such, MYOC transgenic mouse models are very useful to study MYOC-associated glaucoma and to develop therapies to treat these diseases.

    The NIH inventors generated a new MYOC mouse model carrying a mutant human MYOC (Y437H) gene. The Y437H mutation is associated with a severe form of glaucoma among the identified MYOC mutations.

    Potential Commercial Applications:

    • Research tools

    • Drug development for glaucoma

    Competitive Advantages: The new transgenic mouse model carries a mutation associated with a severe form of glaucoma in humans.

    Development Stage: Prototype.

    Inventors: Stanislav Tomarev (NEI), Yu Zhou (former NEI), Oleg Grinchuk (former NEI).

    Publications:

    1. Zhou Y, et al. Transgenic mice expressing the Tyr437His mutant of human myocilin protein develop glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 May;49(5):1932-9. [PMID 18436825]

    2. Joe MK, Tomarev SI. Expression of myocilin mutants sensitizes cells to oxidative stress-induced apoptosis: implication for glaucoma pathogenesis. Am J Pathol. 2010 Jun;176(6):2880-90. [PMID 20382707]

    3. Chou TH, et al. Transgenic mice expressing mutated Tyr437His human myocilin develop progressive loss ofretinal ganglion cell electrical responsiveness and axonopathy with normal IOP. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Aug 14;55(9):5602-9. [PMID 25125600]

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-091-2015/0—Research Tool. Patent protection is not being pursued for this technology.

    Licensing Contact: Tedd Fenn; 424-297-0336; [email protected]

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Richard U. Rodriguez, Acting Director, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10275 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-12-095: Special Review.

    Date: May 6, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Angela Y. Ng, Ph.D., MBA, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6200, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1715, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 28, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10272 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Cell Biology Integrated Review Group; Molecular and Integrative Signal Transduction Study Section.

    Date: June 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Raya Mandler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5134, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-8228, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Lung Cellular, Molecular, and Immunobiology Study Section

    Date: June 2-3, 2015.

    Time: 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Pier 5 Hotel, 711 Eastern Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21202.

    Contact Person: George M Barnas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2180, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0696, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Sensorimotor Integration Study Section.

    Date: June 2, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites DC Convention Center, 900 10th Street, Washington, DC 20001.

    Contact Person: John Bishop, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5182, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-9664, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Pilot Clinical Studies in Nephrology and Urology.

    Date: June 2-3, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Atul Sahai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2188, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1198, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Temporal dynamics of Neurophysiological Patterns as Potential Targets for Treating Cognitive Deficits in Brain Disorders.

    Date: June 2, 2015

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Wei-Qin Zhao, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5181 MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892-7846, 301-435-1236, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 28, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10273 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive Option License: The Development of a Single Domain Human Anti-Mesothelin Monoclonal Antibody as a Bispecific Antibody for the Treatment of Human Cancers. AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive start-up option license to practice the inventions embodied in U.S. Patent Application 61/706,396 entitled “Mesothelin Antibodies And Methods For Eliciting Potent Antitumor Activity” [HHS Ref. E-236-2012/0-US-01], PCT Application PCT/US2013/059883 entitled “Mesothelin Antibodies And Methods For Eliciting Potent Antitumor Activity” [HHS Ref. E-236-2012/0-PCT-02], and all related continuing and foreign patents/patent applications for the technology family, to Oncolinx Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to and/or exclusively licensed to the Government of the United States of America.

    The prospective exclusive start-up option licensed territory may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to:

    The use of bispecific antibodies having:

    (a) The complementary determining regions (CDRs) of the monoclonal antibody SD1; and

    (b) the CDRs of an anti-CD3 antibody,

    for the treatment of mesothelin-expressing cancers. The Licensed Field of Use explicitly excludes the use of the CDR sequences of SD1 in a monospecific antibody, or in the form of an immunotoxin, antibody-drug conjugate, or chimeric antigen receptor.

    Upon the expiration or termination of the exclusive start-up option license, Oncolinx Pharmaceuticals, LLC will have the exclusive right to execute an exclusive commercialization license which will supersede and replace the exclusive start-up option license with no greater field of use and territory than granted in the exclusive start-up option license.

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before May 19, 2015 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: David A. Lambertson, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-4632; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This invention concerns a monoclonal antibody and methods of using the antibody for the treatment of mesothelin-expressing cancers, including mesothelioma, lung cancer, ovarian cancer and pancreatic cancer. The specific antibody covered by this technology is designated SD1, which is a single domain, fully human monoclonal antibody against mesothelin.

    Mesothelin is a cell surface antigen that is preferentially expressed on certain types of cancer cells. The SD1 antibody can selectively bind to these cancer cells and induce cell death while leaving healthy, essential cells unharmed. This can result in an effective therapeutic strategy with fewer side effects due to less non-specific killing of cells.

    The prospective exclusive start-up option license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive start-up option license may be granted unless the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice.

    Complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive start-up option license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Richard U. Rodriguez, Acting Director, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10276 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0042] Navigation Safety Advisory Council; Vacancies AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Navigation Safety Advisory Council. The Navigation Safety Advisory Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment; routing measures; marine information; diving safety; and aids to navigation systems.

    DATES:

    Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before June 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Navigation Safety Advisory Council that also indentifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with the resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:

    By mail: Commandant (CG-NAV)/NAVSAC Attn: Mr. George Detweiler, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Commandant (CG-NAV), U.S. Coast Guard 2703 Martin Luther King Avenue SE., STOP 7418, Washington, DC 20593-7418;

    • By fax to 202-372-1991; or

    • By email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. George Detweiler, the Navigation Safety Advisory Council Alternate Designated Federal Officer, telephone 202-372-1566, fax 202-372-1991, or email [email protected]; or Mr. Burt Lahn, Navigation Safety Advisory Council coordinator, telephone 202-372-1526, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is a federal advisory committee authorized by 33 U.S.C. 2073 and chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. Appendix). The Navigation Safety Advisory Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment; routing measures; marine information; diving safety; and aids to navigation systems.

    The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is expected to meet at least twice each year, or more often with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary from the Federal Government, although travel reimbursement and per diem may be provided for called meetings. The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is composed of not more than 21 members who all will have expertise in Inland and International vessel navigation Rules of the Road, aids to maritime navigation, maritime law, vessel safety, port safety, or commercial diving safety. Each member will be appointed to represent the viewpoints and interests of one of the following groups or organizations, and at least one member will be appointed to represent each membership category:

    a. Commercial vessel owners or operators;

    b. Professional mariners;

    c. Recreational boaters;

    d. The recreational boating industry;

    e. State agencies responsible for vessel or port safety; and

    f. The Maritime Law Association.

    Members serve as representatives and are not Special Government Employees as defined in section 202(a) of Title 18, U.S.C.

    The Coast Guard will consider applications for seven positions that expire or become vacant on November 4, 2015, in the following categories:

    a. Professional mariners;

    b. Recreational boaters;

    c. Recreational Boating Industry; and

    d. State agencies responsible for vessel or port safety;

    To be eligible, you should have experience in one of the categories listed above. Members serve terms of office of up to three (3) years. Members may be reappointed to an additional term, serving not more than six consecutive years. In the event the Navigation Safety Advisory Council terminates, all appointments to the Council terminate.

    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Council members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.

    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Council, submit your cover letter and resume to Mr. George Detweiler, the Navigation Safety Advisory Council Alternate Designated Federal Officer by email or mail according to instructions in the ADDRESSES section by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice.

    All email submittals will receive email receipt confirmation.

    To visit our online docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2015-0042) in the Search box, and click “Search”. Please do not post your resume on this site.

    G.C. Rasicot, Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10329 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [Docket No. USCBP-2015-0009] Request for Applicants for Appointment to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; Request for Applicants for Appointment to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee.

    _____

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection is requesting individuals who are interested in serving on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee to apply for appointment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee is tasked with providing advice to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on matters related to the performance of airport and seaport inspections coinciding with the assessment of an agriculture, customs, or immigration user fee.

    DATES:

    Applications for membership should reach U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the address below on or before June 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    If you wish to apply for membership, your application should be submitted by one of the following means:

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (202) 325-4290.

    Mail: Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.

    Balanced Membership Plans: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee may consist of up to 20 members. Members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Members are selected to represent the point of view of the airline, cruise ship, transportation, and other industries that may be subject to agriculture, customs, or immigration user fees and are not Special Government Employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). To achieve a fairly balanced membership, the composition of an advisory committee's membership will depend upon several factors, including the advisory committee's mission; the geographic, ethnic, social, economic, or scientific impact of the advisory committee's recommendations; the types of specific perspectives required, for example, such as those of consumers, technical experts, the public at-large, academia, business, or other sectors; the need to obtain divergent points of view on the issues before the advisory committee; and the relevance of State, local, or tribal governments to the development of the advisory committee's recommendations. The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection will consider a cross-section of those directly affected, interested, and qualified, as appropriate to the nature and functions of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee. Members shall not be paid or reimbursed for any travel, lodging expenses, or related costs for their participation on this Committee.

    Committee Meetings

    The Committee is expected to meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be held with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer. Committee meetings shall be open to the public unless a determination is made by the appropriate Department of Homeland Security official in accordance with Department of Homeland Security policy and directives that the meeting should be closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).

    Committee Membership

    Membership on the Committee is personal to the appointee and a member may not send an alternate to represent him or her at a Committee meeting. Appointees will serve a two-year term of office to run concurrent with the duration of the charter.

    No person who is required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as an agent or representative of a foreign principal may serve on this advisory Committee.

    Members who are currently serving on the Committee are eligible to re-apply for membership provided that they are not in their second consecutive term and that they have met attendance requirements. A new application letter is required. Members will not be paid compensation by the Federal Government for their services with respect to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee.

    Application for Advisory Committee Appointment

    Any interested person wishing to serve on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee must provide the following:

    • Statement of interest and reasons for application;

    • Complete professional resume;

    • Home address and telephone number;

    • Work address, telephone number, and email address; and

    • Statement of the industry you represent.

    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10308 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [Docket No. USCBP-2015-0014] Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Charter Renewal

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined that the renewal of the charter of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) performance of its duties. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.

    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC).

    ADDRESSES:

    If you desire to submit comments on this action, they must be submitted by July 6, 2015. Comments must be identified by (docket number) 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: (202) 325-4290.

    Mail: Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and USCBP-2015-0014, 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, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket Number USCBP-2015-0014. To submit a comment, see the link on the Regulations.gov Web site for “How do I submit a comment?” located on the right hand side of the main site page.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290.

    Purpose and Objective: The charter of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) is being renewed for two years in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. Appendix. A copy of the charter can be found at http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/COAC%20Charter%20Filed%203.23.15.pdf. COAC provides advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury. The COAC may consider issues such as: global supply chain security and facilitation, CBP modernization and automation, air cargo security, customs broker regulations, trade enforcement, exports, trusted trader, revenue modernization, One U.S. Government approach to trade and safety of imports, agricultural inspection, and protection of intellectual property rights.

    Duration: The committee's charter is effective March 23, 2015, and expires March 23, 2017.

    Responsible CBP Officials: Ms. Maria Luisa Boyce, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440.

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Maria Luisa Boyce, Senior Advisor for Private Sector Engagement/Executive Director, Office of Trade Relations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10371 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Approval of the Strawn Group, as a Commercial Gauger AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of approval of The Strawn Group, as a commercial gauger.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that The Strawn Group has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of October 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The approval of The Strawn Group, as commercial gauger became effective on October 31, 2014. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for October 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that The Strawn Group, 3855 Villa Ridge Road, Houston, TX 77068, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. The Strawn Group is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products per the American Petroleum Institute (API) Measurement Standards:

    API
  • chapters
  • Title
    8.2 Standard practice for automatic sampling of liquid petroleum and petroleum products. 8.3 Standard practice for mixing and handling of liquid samples of petroleum and petroleum products.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories

    Dated: April 23, 2015. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director,Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10152 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0122] Agency Information Collection Activities: Screening Requirements for Carriers AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Screening Requirements for Carriers. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before July 6, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Screening Requirements for Carriers.

    OMB Number: 1651-0122.

    Abstract: Section 273(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1323(e) the Act) authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to establish procedures which carriers must undertake for the proper screening of their alien passengers prior to embarkation at the port from which they are to depart for the United States, in order to become eligible for an automatic reduction, refund, or waiver of a fine imposed under section 273(a)(1) of the Act. To be eligible to obtain such an automatic reduction, refund, or waiver of a fine, the carrier must provide evidence to CBP that it screened all passengers on the conveyance in accordance with the procedures listed in 8 CFR 273.3.

    Some examples of the evidence the carrier may provide to CBP include: a description of the carrier's document screening training program; the number of employees trained; information regarding the date and number of improperly documented aliens intercepted by the carrier at the port(s) of embarkation; and any other evidence to demonstrate the carrier's efforts to properly screen passengers destined for the United States.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Carriers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 65.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 100 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,500.

    Dated: April 22, 2015. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10059 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0110] Agency Information Collection Activities: Visa Waiver Program Carrier Agreement AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Visa Waiver Program Carrier Agreement (CBP Form I-775). CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected on Form I-775. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before July 6, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Visa Waiver Program Carrier Agreement.

    OMB Number: 1651-0110.

    Form Number: CBP Form I-775.

    Abstract: Section 223 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1223(a)) provides for the necessity of a transportation contract. The statute provides that the Attorney General may enter into contracts with transportation lines for the inspection and administration of aliens coming into the United States from a foreign territory or from adjacent islands. No such transportation line shall be allowed to land any such alien in the United States until and unless it has entered into any such contracts which may be required by the Attorney General. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, this authority was transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

    The Visa Waiver Program Carrier Agreement (CBP Form I-775) is used by carriers to request acceptance by CBP into the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). This form is an agreement whereby carriers agree to the terms of the VWP as delineated in section 217(e) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1187(e)). Once participation is granted, CBP Form I-775 serves to hold carriers liable for the transportation costs, to ensure the completion of required forms, and to share passenger data. Regulations are promulgated at 8 CFR part 217.6, Carrier Agreements. A copy of CBP Form I-775 is accessible at: http://forms.cbp.gov/pdf/CBP_Form_I775.pdf.

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with no change to information collected or to CBP Form I-775.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 400.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 200.

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10372 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-ES-2015-N053; FF09E15000-FXHC112509CBRA1-156] John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of Final Revised Maps for Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to review the maps of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) at least once every 5 years and make any minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of the CBRS as are necessary to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any CBRS unit as a result of natural forces. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has conducted this review and has prepared final revised maps for all of the CBRS units in Maine, all units in Maryland, all units in New Jersey, all units in Virginia, 1 unit in New York, and 13 units in North Carolina. The maps were produced by the Service in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State, and local officials. This notice announces the findings of the Service's review and the availability of final revised maps for 182 CBRS units. The final revised maps for these CBRS units, dated August 1, 2014, are the official controlling CBRS maps for these areas.

    DATES:

    Changes to the CBRS depicted on the final revised maps, dated August 1, 2014, become effective on May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    For information about how to get copies of the maps or where to go to view them, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katie Niemi, Coastal Barriers Coordinator, Division of Budget and Technical Support, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone (703) 358-2071; or electronic mail (email) [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Background information on the CBRA (CBRA; 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and the CBRS, as well as information on the digital conversion effort and the methodology used to produce the revised maps, can be found in a notice the Service published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53467).

    For information on how to access the final revised maps, see the Availability of Final Maps and Related Information section below.

    Announced Map Modifications

    This notice announces modifications to the maps for all of the CBRS units in Maine, all units in Maryland, all units in New Jersey, all units in Virginia, 1 unit in New York, and 13 units in North Carolina. Most of the modifications were made to reflect changes to the CBRS units as a result of natural forces (e.g., erosion and accretion). The CBRA requires the Secretary to review the CBRS maps at least once every 5 years and make, in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, any minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of the CBRS as are necessary to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any CBRS unit as a result of natural forces (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)).

    The Service's review resulted in a set of 118 final revised maps, dated August 1, 2014, depicting a total of 182 CBRS units. The set of maps includes 19 maps for 34 CBRS units located in Maine; 23 maps for 49 CBRS units located in Maryland; 16 maps for 21 CBRS units located in New Jersey; 32 maps for 64 CBRS units located in Virginia; 2 maps for 1 CBRS unit located in New York; and 26 maps for 13 CBRS units located in North Carolina. Comprehensively revised maps for North Carolina Units L07, L08, and L09, were made effective on December 18, 2014, via Pub. L. 113-253; therefore, the revised maps prepared for these units through the digital conversion effort will not be adopted administratively by the Service and are not described in this notice. The Service found that a total of 138 of the 182 CBRS units reviewed had experienced changes in their size or location as a result of natural forces since they were last mapped. The Service's review of these areas also found three CBRS units that required modifications to correct administrative errors that were made in the past on maps for Washington County, Maine; Cumberland County, Maine; and Northampton County, Virginia. The revised maps were produced by the Service in partnership with FEMA.

    The Service is specifically notifying the following stakeholders concerning the availability of the final revised maps: the Chair and Ranking Member of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources; the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; the members of the Senate and House of Representatives for the affected areas; the Governors of the affected areas; and other appropriate Federal, State, and local officials.

    Consultation With Federal, State, and Local Officials Consultation and Comment Period

    The CBRA requires consultation with the appropriate Federal, State, and local officials (stakeholders) on the proposed CBRS boundary modifications to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any CBRS unit as a result of natural forces (16 U.S.C 3503(c)). The Service fulfilled this requirement by holding a 30-day comment period on the draft maps (dated September 30, 2013) for Federal, State, and local stakeholders, from June 10, 2014, through July 10, 2014. This comment period was announced in a notice published in the Federal Register (79 FR 33207) on June 10, 2014.

    Formal notification of the comment period was provided via letters to approximately 295 stakeholders, including the Chair and Ranking Member of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources; the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; the members of the House of Representatives and Senate for the affected areas; the Governors of the affected areas; the local elected officials of the affected areas; and other appropriate Federal, State, and local officials.

    Comments and Service Responses

    The June 2014 notice specifically solicited comments from Federal, State, and local officials. Below is a summary of the written comments and/or acknowledgements received from stakeholders (Federal, State, and local officials) and the Service's response to those comments. Comments received from non-stakeholders were not considered as part of this process and are therefore not summarized or responded to below. Interested parties may contact the Service individual identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements to view copies of the comments received during the stakeholder review period.

    Maryland

    1. Calvert County Office of the County Administrator: The Calvert County Administrator indicated that the County's understanding is that the geomorphic modification that was proposed to Unit MD-37P, which expanded the unit to include the entire shoreline of Flag Ponds Nature Park, would not prohibit projects that are consistent with the purpose of the protected area. The County Administrator stated that if their understanding is correct, they have no objection to the proposed expansion of the unit.

    Service Response to the Calvert County Office of the County Administrator: The only Federal spending prohibition within Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs) of the CBRS (such as Unit MD-37P) is the prohibition on Federal flood insurance. Therefore, the expansion of Unit MD-37P will not affect federally funded projects. There is also an exception to the prohibition on Federal flood insurance for structures within OPAs that are used in a manner consistent with the purpose for which the area is protected (e.g., park visitor center).

    2. State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources: The State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources concurred with the proposed modifications to the CBRS maps in Maryland.

    North Carolina

    1. Carteret County Shore Protection Office: The Carteret County Shore Protection Office (CCSPO) requested that the eastern boundary of Unit NC-06P be made consistent with the federally maintained and marked/buoyed navigation channel that is within the larger water feature known as Bogue Inlet. Specifically, the CCSPO recommended that the eastern boundary of Unit NC-06P be repositioned to the west to follow the Huggins/Dudley Island shoreline and merge with the part of the channel on the Unit NC-06P map identified as “Bogue Inlet.” The CCSPO submitted bathymetry maps generated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that identify the position of the deep water and navigational aids marking the main channel.

    Service Response to the Carteret County Shore Protection Office: The Service found no indication that the eastern boundary of Unit NC-06P was intended to follow the deepest portion of the navigation channel; rather, it generally follows the boundary between Onslow and Carteret Counties on the original CBRS base map, which falls roughly within Bogue Inlet (between Bear Island and Emerald Isle). The Service believes that the original intent of the CBRS boundary was to include Bear Island and its associated aquatic habitat within Unit NC-06P. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to place the boundary in the deepest portion of the navigation channel, which would remove some of the associated aquatic habitat of Bear Island (located between Dudley Island and Emerald Isle) from the CBRS. The boundaries of Unit NC-06P on the final revised map dated August 1, 2014, remain the same as those shown on the draft map dated September 30, 2013.

    2. Dare County Planning Department: The Dare County Planning Department (DCPD) requested that the Service review two previously issued CBRS determination letters to ensure that two specific structures adjacent to Unit L03 were not adversely affected (i.e., made ineligible for Federal flood insurance) by the revised maps. The DCPD also asked that any properties currently not located in CBRA zones, which as a result of the new maps will be located in the CBRA zone, be identified and provided to the County. Additionally, the DCPD stated that portions of the boundary in Unit L03 as it applies to the Kinnakeet Shores subdivision should have been modified to follow a distinct demarcation of wetlands in a manner similar to modifications that were made to CBRS boundaries in other locations. The DCPD is pleased that the digital conversion of the maps will make them more user friendly and hopes that the revised FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to be released in 2015 will include the revised CBRS boundaries.

    Service Response to the Dare County Planning Department: The Service reviewed the two CBRS property determination letters that were submitted by the DCPD. No modifications were made to Unit L03 and there is no change in the CBRS determinations for these two properties.

    Additionally, the Service reviewed all of the modifications that were made in Dare County and can confirm that none of them add additional structures or land to the CBRS (with the exception of some very minor additions of wetlands).

    The Service is authorized to make minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of the CBRS as are necessary to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any CBRS unit as a result of natural forces. Generally, the Service will only make such modifications to a boundary where the intent of the boundary segment was clearly to follow a geomorphic feature on the ground, and the feature had undergone natural change. The Service's review of Unit L03 found that the boundary segment that affects the Kinnakeet Shores subdivision was not originally intended to follow the edge of the wetlands, but rather a dirt road depicted on the underlying CBRS base map. Therefore, the Service did not modify the boundary to follow the wetlands as suggested by the DCPD. The boundary of Unit L03 affecting the Kinnakeet Shores Subdivision on the final revised map dated August 1, 2014, remains the same as the boundary depicted on the formerly controlling CBRS map of the area dated October 18, 1999.

    The Service is working with FEMA to include the updated CBRS boundaries adopted through this notice on the FIRMs that FEMA is revising in 2015. The CBRS boundaries are shown on FEMA's FIRMs for informational purposes; the official CBRS maps maintained by the Service will remain the official source of boundary location information for the CBRS.

    3. Town of North Topsail Beach: The Town of North Topsail Beach (TNTB) requested that the portions of the TNTB that had a full complement of infrastructure at the time Unit L06 was established be removed from the CBRS and that the associated aquatic habitat north of Topsail Island and around New River Inlet that is zoned as conservation area in local land use plans be reclassified from a System Unit to an OPA. The TNTB also requested that the Service make no modifications to the coincident boundary between Units L05 and L06 in New River Inlet, because the Town believes that it will make an existing navigation project even more complex and will significantly impact the disposal of material from the channel maintenance on North Topsail Beach's shoreline.

    Service Response to the TNTB: Changes to the CBRS boundaries through the digital conversion effort are limited to the administrative modifications the Secretary is authorized to make under the CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)-(e)). Changes that are outside the scope of this authority must be made through the comprehensive map modernization process, which entails Congressional enactment of legislation to make the revised maps effective. Additional information about CBRS digital conversion and comprehensive map modernization can be found in the Digital Conversion of the CBRS Maps section of the notice published by the Service in the Federal Register on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53467). Unit L06 has already undergone the comprehensive map modernization process and the Service has prepared final recommended maps for Congressional consideration dated November 20, 2013, which propose additions to and removals from the CBRS. The results of the Service's comprehensive review of Unit L06 (including an assessment of the level of infrastructure that was on the ground at the time of the Unit's designation in 1982) are contained in Service testimony presented before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs on April 8, 2014. The Service's review found that though there were some structures on the ground and a main trunk line of infrastructure that ran along the length of the unit in 1982, the area still met the CBRA's criteria for an undeveloped coastal barrier when it was designated within the CBRS in 1982. The Service does not consider areas such as the associated aquatic habitat north of Topsail Island and around New River Inlet that are identified as “conserved” solely through land use plans and/or zoning designations to qualify for OPA status. Therefore, the Service does not recommend reclassifying such areas from System Units to OPAs. Additionally, such a reclassification would be outside of the scope of the digital conversion effort.

    Regarding the realignment of the coincident boundary between Units L05 and L06 to the current location of New River Inlet, this modification complies with the directive in the CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)) that the Service shall make such minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of the CBRS as are necessary to reflect changes that have occurred as a result of natural forces. Additionally, whether the channel is within Unit L05 or Unit L06 will not have an effect on whether or not the project is allowable under an exception to the CBRA, as the units are adjacent and of the same CBRS unit type (System Unit). Therefore, the boundaries of Units L05 and L06 on the final revised maps dated August 1, 2014, remain the same as those shown on the draft maps dated September 30, 2013.

    4. Town of Topsail Beach: The Service received comments from the Town of Topsail Beach regarding Unit L07. The Service did not consider these comments, because the revised map for Unit L07 that was prepared through the digital conversion effort was superseded by a comprehensively revised map that was made effective on December 18, 2014, via Pub. L. 113-253.

    Virginia

    1. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation: The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation supported the revision of the maps, as well as the Service's efforts to make them digitally accessible.

    No Changes to Draft Maps

    The Service made no changes to the CBRS boundaries depicted on the draft maps dated September 30, 2013, as a result of the summer 2014 comment period (June 10, 2014; 79 FR 33207). The CBRS boundaries depicted on the final revised maps, dated August 1, 2014, are identical to the CBRS boundaries depicted on the draft revised maps dated September 30, 2013.

    Summary of Modifications to the CBRS Boundaries

    Below is a summary of the changes depicted on the final revised maps dated August 1, 2014.

    Maine

    The Service's review found 22 of the 34 CBRS units in Maine to have changed due to natural forces. The final revised maps for Units A03C and A07 correct administrative errors that were made by the Service in 1990.

    A01: LUBEC BARRIERS UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and shoreline.

    A03: JASPER UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    A03B: STARBOARD UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    A03C: POPPLESTONE BEACH/ROQUE ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the Popplestone Beach segment of the unit has been modified to correct an administrative error in the transcription of the boundary from the draft map that was reviewed and approved by Congress to the official map dated October 24, 1990, for this unit. The area in question was first added to the CBRS at the request of the State of Maine on April 18, 1983, through the minor and technical boundary modification process authorized by section 4(c) of the CBRA (Pub. L. 97-348). This same area, which had been in the CBRS since 1983, was misidentified as an “addition” to the CBRS in the Service's 1988 Report to Congress: Volume 2, Maine. This correction is supported by an assessment of the historical maps and aerial imagery for this area, as well as by the legislative history of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA; Pub. L. 101-591). Additionally, the landward boundaries of the Great Bar, Popplestone Beach, and Rogue Island Harbor segments of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    A05B: HEAD BEACH UNIT. The southeastern boundary of the unit has been modified to include the entire frontal dune within the unit.

    A06: CAPE ELIZABETH UNIT. The landward boundary of the eastern segment of the unit has been modified to account for natural change in the shoreline of the pond within the unit.

    A07: SCARBOROUGH BEACH UNIT. The southern landward portion of the boundary has been modified to correct an administrative error in the transcription of the boundary from the draft map that was reviewed and approved by Congress to the official map dated October 24, 1990, for this unit. This correction is supported by an assessment of the historical maps and aerial imagery for this area, as well as by the legislative history of the CBIA (Pub. L 101-591).

    A08: CRESCENT SURF UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    A09: SEAPOINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-04: SEAL COVE UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and shoreline.

    ME-07P: ROQUE BLUFFS UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-09P: PETIT MANAN/BOIS BUBERT UNIT. The boundary has been modified in the northern segment of the unit to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-10P: OVER POINT UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-11: POND ISLAND UNIT. A segment of boundary has been added to the southeastern portion of the unit to clarify the extent of the unit, which includes portions of Pond Island but not Hog Island. As a result, a segment of boundary has been removed from the southwestern side of the unit to keep one side of the unit open to East Penobscot Bay.

    ME-12: THRUMCAP UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-14: NASH POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-15P: LITTLE RIVER UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-16: HUNNEWELL BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-17: SMALL POINT BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The boundary has also been modified to account for natural changes in the location of the barrier in the area of Small Point Beach.

    ME-18: STOVER POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-20P: OGUNQUIT BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    ME-23: PHILLIPS COVE UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    Maryland

    The Service's review found 29 of the 49 CBRS units in Maryland to have changed due to natural forces.

    MD-01P: ASSATEAGUE ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for the migration of sand outside of the unit in Sinepuxent Bay.

    MD-03: SOUND SHORE UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-06: JOES COVE UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface. The southern boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Joes Gut.

    MD-09P: ST. PIERRE POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for the channel migration along an unnamed channel. The southern boundary of the unit has been modified to include the entire barrier feature, which has expanded to the south. The northern boundary of the unit has been modified to include the entire barrier feature, which has expanded to the east.

    MD-12: DEAL ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-14: FRANKS ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface. The boundary has also been modified to account for channel migration and erosion along Rock Creek.

    MD-15: LONG POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface. The southern boundary has been modified to include the entirety of an accreting barrier spit located south of Long Point and its associated aquatic habitat within the unit.

    MD-16: STUMP POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface. The boundary has also been modified to account for channel migration and erosion along Stacey Gut.

    MD-20: JENNY ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-18P: MARSH ISLAND UNIT. The northern landward boundary of the unit has been modified slightly to account for erosion and channel migration along Little Pungers Creek.

    MD-37P: FLAG PONDS UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface. The southern boundary has been modified to include the entirety of an accreting barrier spit and its associated aquatic habitat within the unit.

    MD-38: COVE POINT MARSH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-24: COVEY CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface. The northern boundary has been moved further north to account for shoreline erosion within the unit.

    MD-26: BOONE CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and to account for shoreline erosion.

    MD-27: BENONI POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and to account for shoreline erosion.

    MD-30: KENT POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-32: STEVENSVILLE UNIT. The landward and northern boundaries of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-33: WESLEY CHURCH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-35: WILSON POND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-41: GREEN HOLLY POND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-44: ST. CLARENCE CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and shoreline erosion.

    MD-45: DEEP POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The boundary has also been modified slightly to include the entirety of an accreting sand spit within the unit.

    MD-46: POINT LOOK-IN UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-47: TANNER CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-48P: POINT LOOKOUT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-49: BISCO CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh and wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-53: BLAKE CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-54: BELVEDERE CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    MD-56: ST. CATHERINE ISLAND UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to include an accreting sand spit on the eastern side of St. Catherine Island.

    New Jersey

    The Service's review found 19 of the 21 CBRS units in New Jersey to have changed due to natural forces.

    NJ-02: SEIDLER BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    NJ-03P: CLIFFWOD BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes in the wetland/fastland interface and along the banks of Whale Creek and Treasure Lake. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to account for the accretion of the sand spit at the western end of Cliffwood Beach.

    NJ-04: CONASKONK POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes to the wetland/fastland interface and the southernmost edge of Chingarora Creek.

    NJ-04A: NAVESINK/SHREWSBURY COMPLEX UNIT. The boundary of the northern segment of the unit has been modified to include more of the sand sharing system in the Navesink River to the north, northwest, and northeast of Barley Point. The boundary of the northern segment of the unit has been modified to the south and southeast of Barley Point to reflect the current location of the channels that the boundary follows. The eastern boundary of the southern segment of the unit has been modified slightly to fully include all of the islands behind the barrier within the unit.

    NJ-04B: METEDECONK NECK UNIT. The boundary of the northern segment of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred along the shoreline of Herring Island and in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The boundary of the southern segment of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes in the shoreline along Metedeconk Neck and along minor channels.

    NJ-04BP: METEDECONK NECK UNIT. The boundary of the northern segment of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred along the shoreline of Herring Island. The boundary of the southern segment of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes along the shoreline along Metedeconk Neck.

    NJ-05P: ISLAND BEACH UNIT. The boundary of the southern portion of the unit has been modified to include the entirety of an unnamed island in Barnegat Bay which is already partially within the unit.

    NJ-06: CEDAR BONNET ISLAND UNIT. A portion of the northern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The boundary coincident with a segment of Unit NJ-06P has been modified to reflect natural changes along the shoreline of an unnamed channel. The boundary has been modified to follow the center of an unnamed channel running between Units NJ-06 and NJ-06P.

    NJ-06P: CEDAR BONNET ISLAND UNIT. The boundaries of three of the four discrete segments of the unit in Little Egg Harbor have been modified to reflect natural changes that occurred along the shorelines of the islands. The boundary coincident with a segment of Unit NJ-06 has been modified to reflect natural changes along the shoreline of an unnamed channel.

    NJ-07P: BRIGANTINE UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration and erosion along several channels. The boundary, primarily in the northern part of the unit, has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and the shoreline.

    NJ-08P: CORSON INLET UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration and erosion along a tributary to Corson Sound, Ben Hands Thorofare, Crook Horn Creek, and Weakfish Creek.

    NJ-09: STONE HARBOR UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface on the northwestern side of the unit and along Slab Creek and Nichols Channel. The coincident boundary between Units NJ-09 and NJ-09P has been modified to account for channel migration along Gravelly Run, Great Flat Thorofare, Hammock Creek, and Jenkins Channel. The coincident boundary between Units NJ-09 and NJ-09P has been modified to account for natural changes along the southeastern shoreline of Nummy Island.

    NJ-09P: STONE HARBOR UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along Dung Thorofare. The coincident boundary between Units NJ-09 and NJ-09P has been modified to account for channel migration along Gravelly Run, Great Flat Thorofare, Hammock Creek, and Jenkins Channel. The coincident boundary between Units NJ-09 and NJ-09P has been modified to account for natural changes along the southeastern shoreline of Nummy Island.

    NJ-11P: HIGBEE BEACH UNIT. A portion of the southern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    NJ-12: DEL HAVEN UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The coincident boundary between Units NJ-12 and NJ-12P has been modified to account for shoreline erosion along Delaware Bay.

    NJ-12P: DEL HAVEN UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units NJ-12 and NJ-12P has been modified to account for shoreline erosion along Delaware Bay.

    NJ-13: KIMBLES BEACH UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. A small portion of the boundary that follows the shoreline of Delaware Bay at Kimbles Beach has been modified to account for erosion.

    NJ-14: MOORES BEACH UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The coincident boundary between Units NJ-14 and NJ-14P has been modified to account for channel migration along East Creek, West Creek, and several unnamed channels.

    NJ-14P: MOORES BEACH UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Bidwell Creek, Dennis Creek, Riggins Ditch, Sluice Creek, and several unnamed channels. The coincident boundary between Units NJ-14 and NJ-14P has been modified to account for channel migration along East Creek, West Creek, and several unnamed channels.

    New York

    The Service's review found that Unit NY-60P (the only CBRS unit in New York that was part of this review) had changed due to natural forces. The other CBRS units in New York were not assessed as part of this review.

    NY-60P: JAMAICA BAY. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect changes in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and the shoreline in Jamaica Bay.

    North Carolina

    The Service's review found 12 of the CBRS units in North Carolina to have changed due to natural forces. This review did not include the North Carolina portion of Unit M01 in Brunswick County, because that unit crosses the State boundary into South Carolina and was included in its entirety with the draft maps for all CBRS units in South Carolina that were remapped and referenced in a notice the Service published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53467). Additionally, this review originally included North Carolina Units L07, L08, and L09; however, comprehensively revised maps for those three units were made effective on December 18, 2014, via Pub. L. 113-253; therefore, the draft maps for those units prepared through the digital conversion effort have been superseded and are not included in this notice. The comprehensively revised maps, dated December 18, 2014, make modifications to the CBRS to remove areas that were inappropriately included within the CBRS in the past; add undeveloped areas that qualify for inclusion; and also address the natural changes that were proposed in the notice published in the Federal Register (79 FR 33207) on June 10, 2014.

    L01: CURRITUCK BANKS UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit on Knotts Island Bay has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and the shoreline. The coincident boundary with the northern segment of Unit L01P has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface on Currituck Sound, and modified to follow the center of the channel in Old Currituck Inlet.

    L01P: CURRITUCK BANKS UNIT. The landward boundary of the northern segment of L01P has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface on Currituck Sound, and modified to follow the center of the channel in Old Currituck Inlet.

    NC-01: PINE ISLAND BAY UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit along the shoreline of the excluded area has been modified slightly to better follow the shoreline as depicted on the new CBRS base map.

    NC-02: NAGS HEAD WOODS UNIT. The landward boundary along the portion of the northern segment of the unit that follows the edge of the marsh has been modified to better follow the edge of the marsh as depicted on the new CBRS base map.

    NC-03P: CAPE HATTERAS UNIT. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to account for shoreline erosion. The boundary of the unit has been modified to account for accretion at the southern end of Ocracoke Island. The western boundary of the unit, where it is coincident with Unit L03AP, has intentionally not been modified. This area continues to change, and there are CBRS units on both sides of the boundary, so a modification in this area would have no effect.

    L03AP: SHACKLEFORD BANKS UNIT. The western boundary of the unit along Beaufort Inlet has been expanded westward into the inlet. The original boundary of the unit has been generally located along the shoreline of Shackleford Banks within the inlet, but the island and the inlet continue to change. The boundary has been modified and generalized to account for existing conditions and the potential for future change. The eastern boundary of the unit, which is coincident with Unit NC-03P, has intentionally not been modified. This area continues to change, and there are OPAs on both sides of the boundary, so a modification in this area would have no effect.

    NC-04P: FORT MACON UNIT. The northern boundary of the excluded area of the unit surrounding United States Coast Guard Station Fort Macon has been modified to account for erosion along the shoreline.

    NC-05P: ROOSEVELT NATURAL AREA UNIT. The northern boundary of the unit along Bogue Sound has been modified to account for erosion.

    NC-06P: HAMMOCKS BEACH UNIT. The northern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred to Bear Island and Bogue Inlet. A portion of the southern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect the current location of Sanders Creek. The location of the shoals in Bear Inlet has been dynamic, and so has the location of the Bear Inlet channel. Additionally, the southern boundary of the unit is coincident with Unit L05. The boundary in this area has been simply generalized, and the current geomorphic features of the inlet were not used to determine the placement of the boundary.

    L05: ONSLOW BEACH COMPLEX UNIT. The southern boundary of the southern segment of the unit has been modified to follow what is now the center of New River Inlet up the New River channel. The boundary of the unit has also been modified due to channel migration along Wards Channel through to its junction with New River. In the northern segment of the unit, the northern boundary has been modified to follow the center of Shacklefoot Channel and Sanders Creek through to its junction with Bear Inlet. The location of the shoals in Bear Inlet has been dynamic, and so has the location of the Bear Inlet channel. Additionally, the northern boundary of the unit is coincident with Unit NC-06P. The boundary in this area has been simply generalized, and the current geomorphic features of the inlet were not used to determine the placement of the boundary.

    L06: TOPSAIL UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh, wetland/fastland interface, and the location of New River Inlet. Due to the dynamic nature of the New River Inlet and the adjacent barrier island to the northeast of the unit, the boundary through the inlet has been modified and generalized to account for existing conditions and the potential for future change.

    NC-07P: CAPE FEAR UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the marsh, wetland/fastland interface, and the shoreline along Bald Head Creek, Cape Creek, and the Cape Fear River and its associated aquatic habitat.

    Virginia

    The Service's review found 55 of the 64 CBRS units in Virginia to have changed due to natural forces. The final revised map for Unit VA-09 corrects an administrative error that was made by the Service in 1997.

    VA-01P: ASSATEAGUE ISLAND UNIT. The southern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for accretion at the southern end of Assateague Island.

    VA-02P: ASSAWOMAN ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The boundary on the southern side of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes along Shipping Creek and Wire Passage. The northern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes along Assawoman Creek. The northern boundary formerly ran through Assawoman Inlet, which has since closed, and now runs from Assawoman Creek across Assawoman Island to the Atlantic Ocean.

    VA-03P: METOMPKIN ISLAND UNIT. The northern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along Wire Passage. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect the westward migration of Metompkin Island. The coincident boundary between Units VA-03P and K03 has been modified to follow the current location of Metompkin Inlet and to account for accretion at the northern end of Cedar Island. The name of this unit has been changed from “Metomkin Island” to “Metompkin Island” to correctly identify the underlying barrier feature.

    K03: CEDAR ISLAND UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units VA-03P and K03 has been modified to follow the current location of Metompkin Inlet and to account for accretion at the northern end of Cedar Island. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The coincident boundary between Units K03 and VA-04P has been modified to follow the current location of Wachapreague Inlet and to account for accretion at the southern end of Cedar Island.

    VA-04P: PARRAMORE/HOG/COBB ISLANDS UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units VA-04P and K04 has been modified to reflect the migration of Long Channel, Little Cobb Island, and the southern end of Cobb Island.

    K04: LITTLE COBB ISLAND UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units VA-04P and K04 has been modified to reflect the migration of Long Channel, Little Cobb Island, and the southern end of Cobb Island. The coincident boundary between Units K04 and VA-05P has been moved southward to reflect natural changes in Sand Shoal Inlet and the barrier islands to the north and south of the inlet.

    VA-05P: WRECK ISLAND UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units K04 and VA-05P has been moved southward to reflect natural changes in Sand Shoal Inlet and the barrier islands to the north and south of the inlet. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The coincident boundary between Units VA-05P and VA-06P has been modified to reflect channel migration along Main Ship Shoal Channel.

    VA-06P: SMITH ISLAND UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units VA-05P and VA-06P has been modified to reflect channel migration along Main Ship Shoal Channel.

    K05, K05P: FISHERMAN'S ISLAND UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units K05 and K05P has been modified to reflect channel migration along two minor unnamed channels and to account for natural changes in the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-09: ELLIOTS CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. Additionally, the southern boundary of the unit has been modified to correct an administrative error that was made by the Service in 1997 when this unit was last modified to account for natural changes under 16 U.S.C. 3503(c). In 1996, Northampton County, Virginia, submitted a letter to the Service that objected to the Service's proposed addition of part of a subdivision known as Sugar Hill, located near Elliott's Creek. The County's letter indicated that the subdivision was already being developed and did not qualify for addition to the CBRS under 16 U.S.C. 3503(c), as there had been no natural changes that warranted the proposed addition. The Service's background records indicate that the Service re-examined the area in 1996 and agreed that the area in question should not be included within the CBRS. However, when the Service adopted the final set of revised maps via a notice in the Federal Register on February 24, 1997 (62 FR 8258), the map that proposed to add the area in question to the CBRS was adopted in error. This correction is supported by an assessment of the historical maps and aerial imagery for this area and the Service's background records for Unit VA-09.

    VA-10: OLD PLANTATION CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-11: WESTCOAT POINT UNIT. The boundary of the unit in Cherrystone Inlet has been modified to account for the migration of sand outside the unit at Westcoat Point.

    VA-12: GREAT NECK UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-13: WESTERHOUSE CREEK UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-14: SHOOTING POINT UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-16: SCARBOROUGH NECK UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-17: CRADDOCK NECK UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-18: HACKS NECK UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-21: BEACH ISLAND UNIT. The northeastern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect the eastward migration of Beach Island.

    VA-23: SIMPSON BEND UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect channel migration along Cedar Cove Gut.

    VA-24: DRUM BAY UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect channel migration along Starling Creek and Fishing Creek.

    VA-26: CHEESEMAN ISLAND UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect the eastward migration of Cheeseman Island and to include wetlands and aquatic habitat that are now associated with the barrier. The southern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for the migration of sand both eastward and southward.

    VA-28: TANGIER ISLAND UNIT. The northwestern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect channel migration along an unnamed channel and to account for the northwesterly expansion of the barrier feature at the southern end of Tangier Island.

    VA-29: ELBOW POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-30: WHITE POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-31: CABIN POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The southern end of the unit has been modified to account for the southeasterly expansion of the barrier feature.

    VA-32: GLEBE POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-33: SANDY POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-34: JUDITH SOUND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-35: COD CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-36: PRESLEY CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-37: CORDREYS BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to account for the westward expansion of the barrier feature.

    VA-38: MARSHALLS BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-39P: GINNY BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-40: GASKIN POND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-41: OWENS POND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-42: CHESAPEAKE BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-43: FLEET POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-44: BUSSEL POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-45: HARVEYS CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-46: INGRAM COVE UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-47: BLUFF POINT NECK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The southern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for erosion of the barrier feature.

    VA-48: BARNES CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-49: NORTH POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-50: WINDMILL POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-51: DEEP HOLE POINT UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect shoreline erosion. The eastern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for the migration of sand outside the unit in Windmill Point Creek. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect the westward migration of the barrier at Deep Hole Point and include wetlands and aquatic habitat that are now associated with the barrier.

    VA-52: STURGEON CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-53: JACKSON CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-55: RIGBY ISLAND/BETHEL BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The name of this unit has been changed from “Rigby Island/Bethal Beach” to “Rigby Island/Bethel Beach” to correctly identify the underlying barrier feature.

    VA-56: NEW POINT COMFORT UNIT. The northern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to account for migrating sand.

    VA-57: WARE NECK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-58: SEVERN RIVER UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-59P: PLUM TREE ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.

    VA-60P: LONG CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The boundary has been modified to reflect channel migration along Grunland Creek.

    Availability of Final Maps and Related Information

    The final revised maps dated August 1, 2014, and digital boundary data can be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Web site, at http://www.fws.gov/CBRA. The digital boundary data are available for reference purposes only. The digital boundaries are best viewed using the base imagery to which the boundaries were drawn; this information is printed in the title block of the maps. The Service is not responsible for any misuse or misinterpretation of the digital boundary data.

    Interested parties may also contact the Service individual identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice to make arrangements to view the final maps at the Service's Headquarters office. Interested parties who are unable to access the maps via the Service's Web site or at the Service's Headquarters office may contact the Service individual identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and reasonable accommodations will be made to ensure the individual's ability to view the maps.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Ecological Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10279 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX15ED00CPN] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an information collection, Earth Explorer User Registration Service.

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments 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) 648-7197 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `Information Collection 1028-NEW, Earth Explorer User Registration Service' in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan Longhenry, Long Term Archive Project Manager, at (605) 695-1611 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The USGS proposes to collect general demographic information about public users that download products from the USGS using Earth Explorer (EE) application to help address Congress, OMB and DOI management's questions as to who uses Landsat and other remote sensing data and what are the most common uses of these data which they have found to be valuable for justifying and maintaining the free distribution of the USGS land remote sensing data. EE also stores information about users that download source code products (GloVis for example). The information collected in the database includes the names, affiliations, addresses, email address and telephone numbers of individuals. The information is gathered to facilitate the reporting of demographic data for use of the EE Application. Demographic data is also used to make decisions on future functional requirements within the system.

    Earth Explorer is a Web application that enables users to find, preview, and download or order digital data published by the U.S. Geological Survey. There are more than 300 USGS Datasets available from the site. To download or order products from EE, users must register with the EE system.

    The information is stored on an internal encrypted database. The data is provided by the customer and utilized to contact the customer to notify customer of data ready for download. If downloads are unsuccessful, the customer is contacted to provide updated information. In addition, EE requires certain fields to be completed such as name, address, city and zip code before an account can be established and an order can be submitted. Email is sent to new registered users to validate user email information.

    EE does not derive new data and does not create new data through aggregation.

    Personal information is not used as search criteria. Access to the information uses the least privileged access methodology. Authorized individuals with specifically granted access to the Privacy Act data can retrieve only by account number or order number Personal data is encrypted while stored in the Database. Contact ID is generated when account is created.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-NEW.

    Title: Earth Explorer User Registration Service.

    Type of Request: Existing information collection without prior approval.

    Affected Public: Federal Agencies, state, tribal, and non-government individuals who have requested USGS products from USGS/Earth Explorer application are covered in this system. The system has only one category for individuals.

    Respondent's Obligation: Participant data is furnished by the individual and is required for order fulfillment.

    Frequency of Collection: The information is collected at the time of registration and is only updated by the individual. Updates to the information are accomplished by the individual when they feel the need to update. Occasions' that user might want to update would be if something has changed in their demographic (email address as an example).

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 84,000.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: Approximately 84,000 new users are added on an annual basis.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 min.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 2,800.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: None.

    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 and current expiration date.

    III. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments 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) ways 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 the 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 us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Francis P. Kelly, Director, EROS Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10317 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary [GX15AE3800C2000] National Environmental Policy Act: Implementing Procedures; Revision to Categorical Exclusions for U.S. Geological Survey (516 DM 9) AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Final National Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in the Department of the Interior (the Department) is revising two existing categorical exclusions included in the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual 516 DM 9. The revisions to the categorical exclusions pertain to two types of activities conducted by the USGS: The excavation of trenches across potentially active faults to assess the history of earthquakes along those faults; and the removal of hydrologic and water-quality monitoring structures and equipment and restoration of the sites. USGS experience with these activities indicates that they do not normally have the potential for significant environmental impacts in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The intent of the revisions is to improve the efficiency of the environmental review process.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The categorical exclusions are effective immediately.

    ADDRESSES:

    To obtain a copy of the revised categorical exclusions contact Esther Eng, Chief, Environmental Management Branch—USGS, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Esther Eng, Chief, Environmental Management Branch—USGS, (703) 648-7550.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their decisions before deciding whether and how to proceed. The Council on Environmental Quality encourages Federal agencies to use categorical exclusions to protect the environment more efficiently by (a) reducing the resources spent analyzing proposals that normally do not have the potential to significantly impact the environment and, (b) focusing resources on proposals that may have significant environmental impacts. The appropriate use of categorical exclusions allows the NEPA review to conclude without preparing either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) (40 CFR 1500.4(p) and 40 CFR 1508.4) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The Department's list of extraordinary circumstances under which a normally excluded action would require further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS is found at 43 CFR 46.215.

    Categorical Exclusion Revision for Trenching

    The USGS excavates trenches across potentially active faults to assess the history of earthquakes along those faults. The study of ancient earthquakes and their rates of occurrence is known as paleoseismology. Paleoseismic data obtained from trenching studies is a fundamental input for USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps. The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps are used to inform emergency response and to guide building codes. The revision of this categorical exclusion will allow for a more efficient NEPA review.

    Public comments were solicited through a notice placed in the Federal Register on August 22, 2014 (79 FR 49799). The proposed language for the categorical exclusion in the notice was as follows: “Digging and subsequent site restoration of exploratory trenches not to exceed one acre of surface disturbance.”

    Categorical Exclusion for Water Monitoring Equipment

    One of the seven science mission areas of the USGS, the Water Mission Area, is tasked with collecting and disseminating reliable, impartial, and timely information that is needed to understand the Nation's water resources. The Water Mission Area actively promotes the use of this information by decision makers to: (1) Minimize loss of life and property as a result of water-related natural hazards, such as floods, droughts, and land movement; (2) effectively manage groundwater and surface-water resources for domestic, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and ecological uses; (3) protect and enhance water resources for human health, aquatic health, and environmental quality; and (4) contribute to the wise physical and economic development of the Nation's resources for the benefit of present and future generations. To achieve this science mission, the USGS constructs and operates a variety of hydrologic and water-quality monitoring structures and equipment at streams, rivers, springs, wellheads, and other sites across the Nation. After these structures are no longer needed for scientific data collection, they are removed and the site is restored. The revision of this categorical exclusion will allow for a more efficient NEPA review.

    Public comments were solicited through the same notice placed in the Federal Register on August 22, 2014 (79 FR 49799). The proposed language for the categorical exclusion as set out in the notice was as follows: “Operation, construction, installation, and removal—including restoration of sites to the pre-structure condition or equivalent of the surrounding environment—of hydrologic and water-quality monitoring structures and equipment including but not limited to weirs, cableways, streamgaging stations, groundwater wells, and meteorologic structures.”

    Public Comments

    No public comments were received.

    Categorical Exclusion

    The Department of the Interior will add the following categorical exclusions to the Departmental Manual at 516 DM 9, section 9.5 Categorical Exclusions:

    E. Operation, construction, installation, and removal—including restoration of sites to the pre-structure condition or equivalent of the surrounding environment—of hydrologic and water-quality monitoring structures and equipment including but not limited to weirs, cableways, streamgaging stations, groundwater wells, and meteorologic structures; and

    I. Digging and subsequent site restoration of exploratory trenches not to exceed one acre of surface disturbance.

    Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10242 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-AM-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-15-015] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    May 7, 2015 at 11 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: none

    2. Minutes

    3. Ratification List

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1013 (Second Review)(Saccharin from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission on May 20, 2015.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: none

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:

    Issued: April 28, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10385 Filed 4-30-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1110-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New Collection; Rap Back Services Form (1-796) AGENCY:

    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (80 FR 9753), on February 24, 2015, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 3, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of this information collection:

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Approval of a new collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Rap Back Services Form.

    (3) Agency form number: 1-796.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: This form is utilized by authorized agencies to enroll individuals in the Rap Back Service to ensure the submitting agency is notified when individuals in positions of trust engage in criminal conduct or individuals under the supervision of a criminal justice agency commit subsequent criminal acts.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 120,000 respondents will complete each form within approximately 5 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 500 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.

    BILLING CODE 4410-02

    [FR Doc. 2015-10301 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1110-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of an existing collection in use without an OMB control number; FBI Expungement Form (FD-1114) AGENCY:

    Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39, pages 10714-10715, on February 27, 20-15, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 3, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC, 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of this information collection:

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Approval of a collection in use without an OMB control number.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: FBI Expungement Form.

    (3) Agency form number: FD-1114.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: This form is utilized by criminal justice and affiliated judicial agencies to request appropriate removal of criminal history information from an individual's record.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 152,430 respondents are authorized to complete the form which would require approximately 10 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 89,521 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC, 20530.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10302 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1190-0009] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection; Americans With Disabilities Act Discrimination Complaint Form AGENCY:

    Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (80 FR 10513) February 26, 2015, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 3, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Rebecca Bond, Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, by calling (800) 514-0301 or (800) 514-0383 (TTY) (the Division's Information Line), or write her at the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section—NYA, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Americans with Disabilities Act Discrimination Complaint Form.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: No form number. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Disability Rights Section in the Civil Rights Division.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals alleging discrimination by public entities based on disability. Under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, an individual who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability by a public entity may, by himself or herself or by an authorized representative, file a complaint. Any Federal agency that receives a complaint of discrimination by a public entity is required to review the complaint to determine whether it has jurisdiction under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. If the agency does not have jurisdiction, it must determine whether it is the designated agency responsible for complaints filed against that public entity. If the agency does not have jurisdiction under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and is not the designated agency, it must refer the complaint to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then must refer the complaint to the appropriate agency.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 9,100 respondents per year at 0.50 hours per complaint form.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 4,550 hours. It is estimated that respondents will take 0.50 hour to complete the questionnaire. The burden hours for collecting respondent data sum to 4,550 hours (9,100 respondents × 0.50 hours = 4,550 hours).

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10303 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Public Disclosure Room; Notice of Temporary Relocation

    Renovation of the Employee Benefits Security Administration's Public Disclosure Room (PDR) will necessitate a temporary relocation and suspension of operations for a total of up to six (6) business days. The renovation will begin on or after May 11 and is expected to last four to six weeks. The PDR will be closed up to three (3) business days prior to moving to the temporary location and up to three (3) business days after the renovation. You can check for updates on the schedule on the EBSA Web site, at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/. The temporary address for the PDR will be N1519, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. While the PDR is at this temporary location, the telephone number will remain (202) 693-8673, and the hours of operation will temporarily change to 8:00 am-4:00 pm Monday through Friday. Following the renovation, the PDR will re-open in Suite N-1515 at 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. The telephone number will remain (202) 693-8673 and the hours of operation will return to 8:15 am to 4:45 pm.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of April, 2015. Judy Mares, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10395 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Program Year (PY) 2015 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Allotments; PY 2015 Wagner-Peyser Act Final Allotments and PY 2015 Workforce Information Grants. AGENCY:

    Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces allotments for PY 2015 for WIOA Title I Youth, Adults and Dislocated Worker Activities programs; final allotments for Employment Service (ES) activities under the Wagner-Peyser Act for PY 2015 and Workforce Information Grants allotments for PY 2015.

    WIOA allotments for States and the State final allotments for the Wagner-Peyser Act are based on formulas defined in their respective statutes. WIOA requires allotments for the outlying areas to be competitively based rather than based on a formula determined by the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) as occurred under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). For PY 2015, the Secretary is using the transitional authority provided by WIOA in Section 503(b) to use the discretionary formula rationale and methodology for allocating PY 2015 funds for the outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Palau, and the Virgin Islands) that was published in the Federal Register at 65 FR 8236 (Feb. 17, 2000). The formula that the Department of Labor (Department) used for PY 2015 is the same formula used in PY 2014 and is described in the section on Youth Activities program allotments. Comments are invited on the formula used to allot funds to the outlying areas. The Department will implement a competitive grant process for funding the outlying areas in PY 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments on the formula used to allot funds to the outlying areas must be received by June 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments to the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Financial Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4702, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Ms. Anita Harvey, email: [email protected]

    Commenters are advised that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to security concerns. Hand-delivered comments will be received at the above address. All overnight mail will be considered to be hand-delivered and must be received at the designated place by the date specified above.

    Please submit your comments by only one method. The Department will not review comments received by means other than those listed above or that are received after the comment period has closed.

    Comments: The Department will retain all comments on this notice and will release them upon request via email to any member of the public. The Department also will make all the comments it receives available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the above address. If you need assistance to review the comments, the Department will provide you with appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. The Department will make copies of this notice available, upon request, in large print, Braille and electronic file. The Department also will consider providing the notice in other formats upon request. To schedule an appointment to review the comments and/or obtain the notice in an alternative format, contact Ms. Harvey using the information provided above. The Department will retain all comments received without making any changes to the comments, including any personal information provided. The Department therefore cautions commenters not to include their personal information such as Social Security Numbers, personal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses in their comments; this information would be released with the comment if the comments are requested. It is the commenter's responsibility to safeguard his or her information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    WIOA Youth Activities allotments—Evan Rosenberg at (202) 693-3593 or LaSharn Youngblood at (202) 693-3606; WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker Activities and ES final allotments—Robert Kight at (202) 693-3937; Workforce Information Grant allotments—Kim Vitelli at (202) 693-3639. Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone numbers above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department is announcing WIOA allotments for PY 2015 for Youth Activities, Adults and Dislocated Worker Activities, Wagner-Peyser Act PY 2015 final allotments, and PY 2015 Workforce Information Grant allotments. This notice provides information on the amount of funds available during PY 2015 to States with an approved WIA Title I and Wagner-Peyser Act Strategic Plan for PY 2015, and information regarding allotments to the outlying areas.

    On December 16, 2014, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235 was signed into law (“the Act”). The Act, Division G, Title I, Section 107 of the Act allows the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to set aside up to 0.5 percent of most operating funds. The evaluation provision is consistent with the Federal government's priority on evidence-based policy and programming and provides important opportunities to expand evaluations and demonstrations in the Department to build solid evidence about what works best. In the past, funds for ETA evaluations and demonstrations were separately appropriated and managed by ETA. This year, that separate authority has been replaced by the set aside provision. Funds are transferred to the Department's Chief Evaluation Office to implement formal evaluations and demonstrations in collaboration with ETA. For 2015, the Secretary set aside .25 percent of the TES and SUIESO appropriations. ETA spread the amount to be set aside for each appropriation among the programs funded by that appropriation with more than $100 million in funding. This includes WIOA Adult, Youth and Dislocated Worker and Wagner-Peyser Employment Service program budgets.

    We also have attached tables listing the PY 2015 allotments for programs under WIOA Title I Youth Activities (Table A), Adult and Dislocated Workers Employment and Training Activities (Tables B and C, respectively), and the PY 2015 Wagner-Peyser Act final allotments (Table D). We also have attached the PY 2015 Workforce Information Grant table (Table E).

    Youth Activities Allotments. The appropriated level for PY 2015 for WIOA Youth Activities totals $831,842,000. After reducing the appropriation by $2,295,000 for evaluations, $829,547,000 is available for Youth Activities. Table A includes a breakdown of the Youth Activities program allotments for PY 2015 and provides a comparison of these allotments to PY 2014 Youth Activities allotments for all States, and outlying areas. For the Native American Youth program, the total amount available is 1.5 percent of the total amount for Youth Activities (after the evaluations set aside), in accordance with WIOA section 127. The total funding available for the outlying areas was reserved at 0.25 percent of the amount appropriated for Youth Activities (after the evaluations set aside) minus the amount reserved for Native American Youth (in accordance with WIOA section 127(b)(1)(B)(i)). On December 17, 2003, Public Law 108-188, the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (“the Compact”), was signed into law. The Compact provided for consolidation of WIA Title I funding, for the Marshall Islands and Micronesia into supplemental grants provided from the Department of Education's appropriation. See 48 U.S.C. 1921 d (f)(1)(B)(iii). The Compact also specified that the Republic of Palau remained eligible for WIA Title I funding. See 48 U.S.C. 1921d(f)(1)(B)(ix). WIOA section 512(g)(1) updated the Compact to refer to WIOA funding. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Division F, Title III, Section 306 of Pub. L. 113-235) authorized WIOA Title I funding to Palau through FY 2015.

    Under WIA, the Secretary had discretion for determining the methodology for distributing funds to all outlying areas. Under WIOA the Secretary must disseminate the funds through a competitive process. Using the transition authority provided in WIOA Section 503(b), ETA will delay implementation of a competitive grant process for outlying areas until PY 2016. For PY 2015, the Department used the same methodology used since PY 2000 (i.e., we distribute funds among the outlying areas by formula based on relative share of number of unemployed, a 90 percent hold-harmless of the prior year share, a $75,000 minimum, and a 130 percent stop-gain for the state for the previous year). For the relative share calculation in PY 2015, the Department continued to use the data obtained from the 2010 Census for American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands, and Virgin Islands. For Palau, the Department continued to use data from Palau's 2005 Census.

    After the Department calculated the amount for the outlying areas and Native Americans, we determined that the amount available for PY 2015 allotments to the States is $815,061,036. This total amount was below the required $1 billion threshold specified in WIOA section 127(b)(1)(C)(iv)(IV); therefore, the Department did not apply the WIOA additional minimum provisions. Instead, as required by WIOA, the Department used the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) (Pub. L. 97-300), section 262(a)(3) (as amended by section 207 of the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. 102-367) minimums of 90 percent hold-harmless of the prior year allotment percentage and 0.25 percent State minimum floor. WIOA also provides that no state may receive an allotment that is more than 130 percent of the allotment percentage for the State for the previous year. The three data factors required by WIOA for the PY 2015 Youth Activities State formula allotments are:

    (1) The average number of unemployed individuals for Areas of Substantial Unemployment (ASUs) for the 12-month period, July 2013-June 2014;

    (2) Number of excess unemployed individuals or the ASU excess (depending on which is higher) averages for the same 12-month period used for ASU unemployed data; and

    (3) Number of economically disadvantaged Youth (age 16 to 21, excluding college students in the workforce and military) from special tabulations of data from the American Community Survey (ACS), which the Department obtained from the Bureau in 2012. The Bureau collected the data used in the special tabulations for economically disadvantaged Youth between January 1, 2006-December 31, 2010.

    For purposes of identifying ASUs for the within-State Youth Activities allocation formula, States should continue to use the data made available by BLS (as described in LAUS Technical Memorandum No. S-14-22). For purposes of determining the number of economically disadvantaged Youth for the statutory within-state allocation formula, States should continue to use the special tabulations of ACS data made available to them in 2013 and available at http://www.doleta.gov/budget/disadvantagedYouthAdults.cfm See TEGL No. 21-12 for further information.

    Adult Employment and Training Activities Allotments. The total appropriated funds for Adult Activities in PY 2015 is $776,736,000. After reducing the appropriated amount by $2,143,000 for evaluations, $774,593,000 remains for Adult Activities, of which $772,656,517 is for States and $1,936,483 is for outlying areas. Table B shows the PY 2015 Adult Employment and Training Activities allotments and a State by State comparison of the PY 2015 allotments to PY 2014 allotments.

    In accordance with WIOA, the Department reserved the total available for the outlying areas at 0.25 percent of the full amount appropriated for Adult Activities (after the evaluations set aside). As discussed in the Youth Activities section above, in PY 2015 the Department will distribute the Adult Activities funding for the outlying areas, using the same principles, formula and data as used for outlying areas for Youth Activities. After determining the amount for the outlying areas, the Department used the statutory formula to distribute the remaining amount available for allotments to the States. The Department did not apply the WIOA minimum provisions for the PY 2015 allotments because the total amount available for the States was below the $960 million threshold required for Adult Activities in WIOA section 132(b)(1)(B)(iv)(IV). Instead, as required by WIOA, the Department calculated minimum allotments using the JTPA section 202(b)(2) (as amended by section 202 of the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992) minimums of 90 percent hold-harmless of the prior year allotment percentage and 0.25 percent State minimum floor. WIOA also provides that no State may receive an allotment that is more than 130 percent of the allotment percentage for the State for the previous year. The three formula data factors for the Adult Activities program are the same as those used for the Youth Activities formula, except the Department used data for the number of economically disadvantaged Adults (age 18 to 72, excluding college students in the workforce and military).

    As noted above, updated data for within-state ASU calculations is available from BLS, and States should continue to use the economically disadvantaged Adults data made available to States by the Department in 2013.

    Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities Allotments. The amount appropriated for Dislocated Worker activities in PY 2015 totals $1,236,389,000. The total appropriation includes formula funds for the States, while the National Reserve is used for National Dislocated Worker Grants, technical assistance and training, demonstration projects, and the outlying areas' Dislocated Worker allotments. After reducing the appropriated amount by $3,411,000 for evaluations, a total of $1,232,978,000 remains available for Dislocated Worker activities. The amount available for outlying areas is $3,082,445, leaving $217,167,555 for the National Reserve and a total of $1,012,728,000 available for States. Like the Adult program, Table C shows the PY 2015 Dislocated Worker activities allotments and a by State comparison of the PY 2015 allotments to PY 2014 allotments.

    Like the Adult Activities program, the Department reserved the total available for the outlying areas at 0.25 percent of the full amount appropriated for Dislocated Worker Activities (after the evaluations set aside). As with the Youth and Adult funds, the Department will not distribute the Dislocated Worker Activities funds for grants to the outlying areas by competitive grant until PY 2016. In PY 2015 the Department will use the same pro rata share as the areas received for the PY 2015 WIOA Adult Activities program, the same methodology used in PY 2014.

    The three data factors required in WIOA for the PY 2015 Dislocated Worker State formula allotments are:

    (1) Number of unemployed, averages for the 12-month period, October 2013—September 2014;

    (2) Number of excess unemployed, averages for the 12-month period, October 2013—September 2014; and

    (3) Number of long-term unemployed, averages for the 12-month period, October 2013—September 2014.

    Since the Dislocated Worker Activities formula has no floor amount or hold-harmless provisions until PY 2016, funding changes for States directly reflect the impact of changes in unemployment related data listed above.

    Wagner-Peyser Act ES Final Allotments. The appropriated level for PY 2015 for ES grants totals $664,184,000. After reducing the appropriated amount by $1,784,000 for evaluations, a total of $662,400,000 remains available for ES programs. After determining the funding for outlying areas, the Department calculated allotments to States using the formula set forth at section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49e). The Department based PY 2015 formula allotments on each State's share of calendar year 2014 monthly averages of the civilian labor force (CLF) and unemployment. Section 6(b)(4) of the Wagner-Peyser Act requires the Secretary to set aside up to three percent of the total funds available for ES to ensure that each State will have sufficient resources to maintain statewide ES activities. In accordance with this provision, the Department included the three percent set-aside funds in this total allotment. The Department distributed the set-aside funds in two steps to States that have experienced a reduction in their relative share of the total resources available this year from their relative share of the total resources available the previous year. In Step 1, States that have a CLF below one million and are also below the median CLF density were maintained at 100 percent of their relative share of prior year resources. ETA calculated the median CLF density based on CLF data provided by BLS for calendar year 2014. All remaining set-aside funds were distributed on a pro-rata basis in Step 2 to all other States experiencing reductions in relative share from the prior year but not meeting the size and density criteria for Step 1. The distribution of ES funds (Table D) includes $660,785,299 for States, as well as $1,614,701 for outlying areas.

    Under section 7 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, ten percent of the total sums allotted to each State must be reserved for use by the Governor to provide performance incentives for ES offices, services for groups with special needs, and for the extra costs of exemplary models for delivering job services.

    Workforce Information Grants Allotments. Total PY 2015 funding for Workforce Information Grants allotments to States is $32,000,000. The allotment figures for each State are listed in Table E. Funds are distributed by administrative formula, with a reserve of $176,800 for Guam and the Virgin Islands. Guam and the Virgin Islands allotment amounts are partially based on CLF data. The Department distributes the remaining funds to the States with 40 percent distributed equally to all States and 60 percent distributed based on each State's share of CLF for the 12 months ending September 2014.

    Table A—U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, WIOA Youth Activities State Allotments, Comparison of PY 2015 vs PY 2014 State PY 2014 PY 2015 Difference % Difference Total with Evaluations $820,430,000 $831,842,000 $11,412,000 1.39 Total (WIOA Youth Activities) $818,169,000 $829,547,000 $11,378,000 1.39 Alabama 10,363,134 10,973,635 610,501 5.89 Alaska 2,009,628 2,037,653 28,025 1.39 Arizona 16,873,353 18,380,399 1,507,046 8.93 Arkansas 6,814,031 7,694,400 880,369 12.92 California 119,122,833 120,707,084 1,584,251 1.33 Colorado 12,414,406 11,835,030 (579,376) −4.67 Connecticut 9,398,657 9,634,681 236,024 2.51 Delaware 2,009,628 2,037,653 28,025 1.39 District of Columbia 2,216,117 2,329,955 113,838 5.14 Florida 45,067,004 42,774,978 (2,292,026) −5.09 Georgia 27,467,948 27,630,735 162,787 0.59 Hawaii 2,049,527 2,037,653 (11,874) −0.58 Idaho 3,414,748 3,116,131 (298,617) −8.74 Illinois 38,093,547 42,336,174 4,242,627 11.14 Indiana 17,756,443 16,203,657 (1,552,786) -8.74 Iowa 4,739,579 4,781,261 41,682 0.88 Kansas 5,398,508 5,370,179 (28,329) −0.52 Kentucky 12,118,913 13,717,594 1,598,681 13.19 Louisiana 9,327,194 9,194,017 (133,177) −1.43 Maine 3,244,888 3,214,985 (29,903) −0.92 Maryland 11,989,592 12,364,002 374,410 3.12 Massachusetts 14,507,221 16,504,685 1,997,464 13.77 Michigan 30,072,831 31,250,104 1,177,273 3.91 Minnesota 9,947,978 9,078,036 (869,942) −8.74 Mississippi 9,200,818 9,151,084 (49,734) −0.54 Missouri 12,877,148 14,228,439 1,351,291 10.49 Montana 2,152,132 2,152,782 650 0.03 Nebraska 2,394,620 2,425,096 30,476 1.27 Nevada 8,865,521 9,034,617 169,096 1.91 New Hampshire 2,200,035 2,037,653 (162,382) −7.38 New Jersey 25,513,414 23,282,287 (2,231,127) −8.74 New Mexico 4,625,925 5,249,778 623,853 13.49 New York 52,011,703 52,128,262 116,559 0.22 North Carolina 28,871,997 26,347,165 (2,524,832) −8.74 North Dakota 2,009,628 2,037,653 28,025 1.39 Ohio 26,270,342 28,593,170 2,322,828 8.84 Oklahoma 6,258,954 6,941,080 682,126 10.90 Oregon 10,543,691 10,431,168 (112,523) −1.07 Pennsylvania 33,509,103 30,984,178 (2,524,925) −7.54 Puerto Rico 17,265,863 19,489,676 2,223,813 12.88 Rhode Island 3,743,023 4,106,989 363,966 9.72 South Carolina 12,574,365 11,474,747 (1,099,618) −8.74 South Dakota 2,009,628 2,037,653 28,025 1.39 Tennessee 16,496,140 17,503,627 1,007,487 6.11 Texas 52,492,802 54,914,867 2,422,065 4.61 Utah 4,304,671 3,928,231 (376,440) −8.74 Vermont 2,009,628 2,037,653 28,025 1.39 Virginia 13,392,465 13,325,559 (66,906) −0.50 Washington 16,309,501 15,945,865 (363,636) −2.23 West Virginia 3,957,765 3,987,564 29,799 0.75 Wisconsin 13,562,824 14,041,859 479,035 3.53 Wyoming 2,009,628 2,037,653 28,025 1.39 State Total 803,851,042 815,061,036 11,209,994 1.39 American Samoa 196,434 217,678 21,244 10.81 Guam 766,348 738,863 (27,485) −3.59 Northern Marianas 402,258 403,686 1,428 0.35 Palau 75,000 75,000 0 0.00 Virgin Islands 605,383 607,532 2,149 0.35 Outlying Areas Total 2,045,423 2,042,759 (2,664) −0.13 Native Americans 12,272,535 12,443,205 170,670 1.39 Evaluations set aside 2,261,000 2,295,000 34,000 1.50 Table B—U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, WIOA Adult Activities State Allotments, Comparison of PY 2015 Allotments vs PY 2014 Allotments State PY 2014 PY 2015 Difference % Difference Total with Evaluations $766,080,000 $776,736,000 $10,656,000 1.39 Total (WIOA Adult Activities) $763,969,000 $774,593,000 $10,624,000 1.39 Alabama 10,127,957 10,701,084 573,127 5.66 Alaska 1,905,148 1,931,641 26,493 1.39 Arizona 15,910,029 17,323,692 1,413,663 8.89 Arkansas 6,508,494 7,337,318 828,824 12.73 California 114,152,207 115,578,226 1,426,019 1.25 Colorado 11,534,090 10,974,957 (559,133) −4.85 Connecticut 8,642,428 8,856,853 214,425 2.48 Delaware 1,905,148 1,931,641 26,493 1.39 District of Columbia 2,014,101 2,119,523 105,422 5.23 Florida 44,979,171 42,797,775 (2,181,396) −4.85 Georgia 26,369,329 26,506,892 137,563 0.52 Hawaii 2,137,808 1,951,282 (186,526) −8.73 Idaho 3,171,735 2,894,258 (277,477) −8.75 Illinois 35,721,028 39,706,093 3,985,065 11.16 Indiana 16,187,078 14,770,963 (1,416,115) −8.75 Iowa 3,371,916 3,398,273 26,357 0.78 Kansas 4,537,758 4,502,095 (35,663) −0.79 Kentucky 12,441,851 13,954,626 1,512,775 12.16 Louisiana 8,947,905 8,816,204 (131,701) −1.47 Maine 2,958,900 2,927,292 (31,608) −1.07 Maryland 11,120,651 11,464,414 343,763 3.09 Massachusetts 12,850,371 14,722,745 1,872,374 14.57 Michigan 28,122,010 28,780,666 658,656 2.34 Minnesota 8,509,251 7,764,825 (744,426) −8.75 Mississippi 8,783,758 8,730,734 (53,024) −0.60 Missouri 11,979,012 13,246,842 1,267,830 10.58 Montana 2,047,975 2,047,140 (835) −0.04 Nebraska 1,905,148 1,931,641 26,493 1.39 Nevada 8,620,844 8,809,234 188,390 2.19 New Hampshire 1,905,148 1,931,641 26,493 1.39 New Jersey 24,644,654 22,488,633 (2,156,021) −8.75 New Mexico 4,457,154 5,044,948 587,794 13.19 New York 50,339,040 50,421,651 82,611 0.16 North Carolina 27,573,758 25,161,487 (2,412,271) −8.75 North Dakota 1,905,148 1,931,641 26,493 1.39 Ohio 24,343,116 26,518,096 2,174,980 8.93 Oklahoma 6,047,269 6,689,426 642,157 10.62 Oregon 10,108,074 9,995,124 (112,950) −1.12 Pennsylvania 30,619,150 28,195,888 (2,423,262) −7.91 Puerto Rico 18,344,208 21,215,910 2,871,702 15.65 Rhode Island 3,230,712 3,569,777 339,065 10.50 South Carolina 12,134,396 11,072,827 (1,061,569) −8.75 South Dakota 1,905,148 1,931,641 26,493 1.39 Tennessee 16,085,971 17,031,743 945,772 5.88 Texas 50,065,195 52,323,110 2,257,915 4.51 Utah 3,614,740 3,298,507 (316,233) −8.75 Vermont 1,905,148 1,931,641 26,493 1.39 Virginia 12,445,438 12,370,494 (74,944) −0.60 Washington 15,226,047 14,868,344 (357,703) −2.35 West Virginia 4,028,840 4,056,659 27,819 0.69 Wisconsin 11,762,474 12,196,759 434,285 3.69 Wyoming 1,905,148 1,931,641 26,493 1.39 State Total 762,059,077 772,656,517 10,597,440 1.39 American Samoa 182,941 205,921 22,980 12.56 Guam 713,704 698,958 (14,746) −2.07 Northern Marianas 374,568 381,883 7,315 1.95 Palau 75,000 75,000 0 0.00 Virgin Islands 563,710 574,721 11,011 1.95 Outlying Areas Total 1,909,923 1,936,483 26,560 1.39 Evaluations set aside 2,111,000 2,143,000 32,000 1.52 Table C—U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, WIOA Dislocated Worker Activities State Allotments, Comparison of PY 2015 Allotments vs PY 2014 Allotments State PY 2014 PY 2015 Difference % Difference Total with Evaluations $1,222,457,000 $1,236,389,000 $13,932,000 1.14 Total (WIOA Dislocated Worker Activities) $1,219,087,000 $1,232,978,000 $13,891,000 1.14 Alabama 11,599,476 15,012,219 3,412,743 29.42 Alaska 1,633,027 2,184,119 551,092 33.75 Arizona 20,193,454 22,511,715 2,318,261 11.48 Arkansas 7,814,651 8,052,059 237,408 3.04 California 157,376,202 164,063,131 6,686,929 4.25 Colorado 15,822,647 13,622,336 (2,200,311) −13.91 Connecticut 13,243,210 13,612,474 369,264 2.79 Delaware 2,613,882 2,596,904 (16,978) −0.65 District of Columbia 2,998,287 3,443,627 445,340 14.85 Florida 60,315,153 61,786,732 1,471,579 2.44 Georgia 36,939,150 39,981,701 3,042,551 8.24 Hawaii 1,852,830 1,931,277 78,447 4.23 Idaho 3,461,421 2,636,879 (824,542) −23.82 Illinois 54,907,799 58,325,151 3,417,352 6.22 Indiana 22,303,621 17,611,408 (4,692,213) −21.04 Iowa 4,164,521 4,426,239 261,718 6.28 Kansas 5,471,022 4,682,959 (788,063) −14.40 Kentucky 14,256,130 16,220,379 1,964,249 13.78 Louisiana 10,286,901 9,215,660 (1,071,241) −10.41 Maine 3,807,546 3,592,396 (215,150) −5.65 Maryland 16,637,979 17,549,612 911,633 5.48 Massachusetts 18,899,549 21,265,196 2,365,647 12.52 Michigan 36,932,673 40,080,962 3,148,289 8.52 Minnesota 9,452,346 8,332,420 (1,119,926) −11.85 Mississippi 10,617,327 11,047,184 429,857 4.05 Missouri 16,292,492 18,476,297 2,183,805 13.40 Montana 1,659,822 1,699,458 39,636 2.39 Nebraska 2,044,195 2,016,308 (27,887) −1.36 Nevada 12,539,486 13,272,377 732,891 5.84 New Hampshire 2,525,768 2,355,019 (170,749) −6.76 New Jersey 38,580,867 33,968,534 (4,612,333) −11.95 New Mexico 5,180,570 6,691,816 1,511,246 29.17 New York 67,330,827 69,009,253 1,678,426 2.49 North Carolina 38,671,061 31,698,026 (6,973,035) −18.03 North Dakota 549,747 566,170 16,423 2.99 Ohio 32,568,365 33,758,857 1,190,492 3.66 Oklahoma 5,417,077 5,943,501 526,424 9.72 Oregon 13,140,217 13,672,401 532,184 4.05 Pennsylvania 43,100,393 37,184,902 (5,915,491) −13.72 Puerto Rico 14,743,999 20,357,210 5,613,211 38.07 Rhode Island 4,852,880 5,533,256 680,376 14.02 South Carolina 15,546,400 12,481,973 (3,064,427) −19.71 South Dakota 800,633 856,158 55,525 6.94 Tennessee 20,840,426 21,507,643 667,217 3.20 Texas 57,992,167 55,598,809 (2,393,358) −4.13 Utah 3,786,657 2,963,244 (823,413) −21.75 Vermont 779,524 806,732 27,208 3.49 Virginia 15,956,793 17,685,631 1,728,838 10.83 Washington 19,149,875 19,533,856 383,981 2.01 West Virginia 4,272,884 4,814,588 541,704 12.68 Wisconsin 16,187,134 15,763,228 (423,906) −2.62 Wyoming 726,937 728,014 1,077 0.15 State Total 998,838,000 1,012,728,000 13,890,000 1.39 American Samoa 291,924 327,780 35,856 12.28 Guam 1,138,877 1,112,584 (26,293) −2.31 Northern Marianas 597,709 607,872 10,163 1.70 Palau 119,680 119,383 (297) −0.25 Virgin Islands 899,528 914,826 15,298 1.70 Outlying Areas Total 3,047,718 3,082,445 34,727 1.14 National Reserve 217,201,282 217,167,555 (33,727) −0.02 Evaluations set aside 3,370,000 3,411,000 41,000 1.22 Table D—U. S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser), PY 2015 vs PY 2014 Final Allotments State Final PY 2014 Final PY 2015 Difference % Difference Total with Evaluation $664,184,000 $664,184,000 $0 0.00 Total (ES Activities) $664,184,000 $662,400,000 ($1,784,000) −0.27 Alabama 8,502,449 8,491,183 (11,266) 0.13 Alaska 7,219,997 7,200,604 (19,393) 0.27 Arizona 12,467,698 12,473,460 5,762 0.05 Arkansas 5,307,726 5,283,573 (24,153) 0.46 California 79,586,271 79,283,096 (303,175) 0.38 Colorado 10,685,065 10,626,917 (58,148) 0.54 Connecticut 7,561,842 7,565,360 3,518 0.05 Delaware 1,855,182 1,850,199 (4,983) 0.27 District of Columbia 2,123,634 2,088,474 (35,160) 1.66 Florida 38,551,390 38,350,606 (200,784) 0.52 Georgia 19,608,469 19,841,888 233,419 1.19 Hawaii 2,327,227 2,339,563 12,336 0.53 Idaho 6,015,543 5,999,385 (16,158) 0.27 Illinois 27,868,035 27,708,235 (159,800) 0.57 Indiana 12,821,228 12,751,284 (69,944) 0.55 Iowa 5,964,574 6,028,720 64,146 1.08 Kansas 5,526,029 5,498,111 (27,918) 0.51 Kentucky 8,506,643 8,465,309 (41,334) 0.49 Louisiana 8,094,739 8,076,868 (17,871) 0.22 Maine 3,577,386 3,567,777 (9,609) 0.27 Maryland 11,906,489 11,934,682 28,193 0.24 Massachusetts 13,409,175 13,585,040 175,865 1.31 Michigan 21,291,774 21,056,725 (235,049) 1.10 Minnesota 10,993,540 10,920,175 (73,365) 0.67 Mississippi 5,674,402 5,621,814 (52,588) 0.93 Missouri 11,888,860 11,967,561 78,701 0.66 Montana 4,915,931 4,902,727 (13,204) 0.27 Nebraska 5,605,477 5,512,267 (93,210) 1.66 Nevada 6,117,652 6,068,982 (48,670) 0.80 New Hampshire 2,650,012 2,641,511 (8,501) 0.32 New Jersey 19,124,756 18,973,701 (151,055) 0.79 New Mexico 5,516,541 5,501,724 (14,817) 0.27 New York 38,504,428 38,363,357 (141,071) 0.37 North Carolina 19,555,320 19,378,713 (176,607) 0.90 North Dakota 5,005,890 4,992,444 (13,446) 0.27 Ohio 23,710,251 23,445,526 (264,725) 1.12 Oklahoma 6,461,834 6,464,603 2,769 0.04 Oregon 8,138,876 8,093,834 (45,042) 0.55 Pennsylvania 25,781,009 25,557,772 (223,237) 0.87 Puerto Rico 6,911,482 6,836,910 (74,572) 1.08 Rhode Island 2,453,424 2,437,864 (15,560) 0.63 South Carolina 9,079,879 8,992,138 (87,741) 0.97 South Dakota 4,626,593 4,614,166 (12,427) 0.27 Tennessee 12,636,661 12,567,163 (69,498) 0.55 Texas 47,954,459 48,160,966 206,507 0.43 Utah 6,395,863 6,289,510 (106,353) 1.66 Vermont 2,167,359 2,161,537 (5,822) 0.27 Virginia 15,390,720 15,846,585 455,865 2.96 Washington 13,819,721 13,756,839 (62,882) 0.46 West Virginia 5,295,592 5,281,368 (14,224) 0.27 Wisconsin 11,820,318 11,786,589 (33,729) 0.29 Wyoming 3,589,535 3,579,894 (9,641) 0.27 State Total 662,564,950 660,785,299 (1,779,651) 0.27 Guam 310,787 309,952 (835) 0.27 Virgin Islands 1,308,263 1,304,749 (3,514) 0.27 Outlying Areas Total 1,619,050 1,614,701 (4,349) 0.27 Evaluations set aside 0 1,784,000 1,784,000 N/A Table E—U. S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Workforce Information Grants to States, PY 2015 vs PY 2014 Allotments State PY 2014 PY 2015 Difference % Difference Total $32,000,000 $32,000,000 $0 0.00 Alabama 507,835 504,328 (3,507) 0.69 Alaska 289,243 289,343 100 0.03 Arizona 612,836 613,057 221 0.04 Arkansas 407,384 405,110 (2,274) 0.56 California 2,512,037 2,512,646 609 0.02 Colorado 581,206 583,979 2,773 0.48 Connecticut 471,257 472,001 744 0.16 Delaware 298,885 299,203 318 0.11 District of Columbia 289,809 289,948 139 0.05 Florida 1,391,578 1,408,710 17,132 1.23 Georgia 831,404 824,471 (6,933) 0.83 Hawaii 323,731 325,099 1,368 0.42 Idaho 339,000 339,420 420 0.12 Illinois 1,046,809 1,041,040 (5,769) 0.55 Indiana 629,369 635,932 6,563 1.04 Iowa 445,306 450,811 5,505 1.24 Kansas 426,480 426,274 (206) 0.05 Kentucky 498,878 493,479 (5,399) 1.08 Louisiana 499,691 501,858 2,167 0.43 Maine 331,051 331,102 51 0.02 Maryland 626,679 623,467 (3,212) 0.51 Massachusetts 669,155 671,558 2,403 0.36 Michigan 815,743 820,078 4,335 0.53 Minnesota 607,750 608,644 894 0.15 Mississippi 405,143 398,706 (6,437) 1.59 Missouri 610,737 614,280 3,543 0.58 Montana 306,821 307,848 1,027 0.33 Nebraska 370,589 369,401 (1,188) 0.32 Nevada 411,954 411,778 (176) 0.04 New Hampshire 335,427 335,286 (141) 0.04 New Jersey 807,150 791,996 (15,154) 1.88 New Mexico 358,969 357,691 (1,278) 0.36 New York 1,414,730 1,413,628 (1,102) 0.08 North Carolina 820,492 813,419 (7,073) 0.86 North Dakota 293,355 294,439 1,084 0.37 Ohio 944,285 944,193 (92) 0.01 Oklahoma 465,806 464,819 (987) 0.21 Oregon 480,795 480,082 (713) 0.15 Pennsylvania 1,039,220 1,025,094 (14,126) 1.36 Puerto Rico 389,936 386,665 (3,271) 0.84 Rhode Island 312,805 312,352 (453) 0.14 South Carolina 509,004 509,225 221 0.04 South Dakota 299,407 299,746 339 0.11 Tennessee 624,985 614,134 (10,851) 1.74 Texas 1,796,213 1,821,458 25,245 1.41 Utah 413,138 420,602 7,464 1.81 Vermont 287,830 287,500 (330) 0.11 Virginia 759,585 765,965 6,380 0.84 Washington 668,760 666,958 (1,802) 0.27 West Virginia 342,636 341,935 (701) 0.20 Wisconsin 618,083 619,893 1,810 0.29 Wyoming 282,229 282,549 320 0.11 State Total 31,823,200 31,823,200 0 0.00 Guam 93,090 93,090 0 0.00 Virgin Islands 83,710 83,710 0 0.00 Outlying Areas Total 176,800 176,800 0 0.00 Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10328 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office [Docket No. 2015-02] Scope of the Copyright Royalty Judges' Continuing Jurisdiction AGENCY:

    U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs”), acting pursuant to statute, referred novel material questions of substantive law to the Register of Copyrights for resolution. Those questions concerned the scope of the CRJs' authority, under the statutory grant of continuing jurisdiction over ratemaking determinations, to issue a clarifying interpretation of regulations adopted pursuant to such a determination. The Register resolved those questions in a written decision that was transmitted to the CRJs. That decision is reproduced below.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 8, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Ruwe, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8350.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges are tasked with determining and adjusting terms and rates of royalty payments of statutory licenses under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. 801. If, in the course of proceedings before the CRJs, novel material questions of substantive law concerning the interpretation of provisions of title 17 arise, the CRJs are required by statute to refer those questions to the Register of Copyrights for resolution. 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(B).

    On March 9, 2015, the CRJs, acting pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(B), referred novel material questions of substantive law to the Register, concerning the CRJs' authority to issue a clarifying interpretation of regulations adopted in a prior ratesetting determination. On April 8, 2015, the Register resolved those questions in a Memorandum Opinion that she transmitted to the CRJs. To provide the public with notice of the decision rendered by the Register, the Memorandum Opinion is reproduced in its entirety below.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. Before the U.S. Copyright Office Library of Congress Washington, DC 20559

    In the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services

    Docket No. 2006-1 CRB DSTRA (SDARS I) MEMORANDUM OPINION ON A NOVEL QUESTION OF LAW

    In relation to the above-captioned proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs” or “Judges”), questions have arisen about the proper interpretation of 17 U.S.C. 803(c)(4), which provides the CRJs with “continuing jurisdiction” in certain circumstances to amend a written determination after it has issued. The CRJs determined that these were novel material questions of substantive law and, as required by section 802(f)(1)(B), referred them to the Register of Copyrights for resolution. The Register hereby resolves those referred questions.

    I. Procedural Background

    On January 24, 2008, the CRJs published final royalty rates and terms under the section 112(e) and 114 statutory licenses for the period 2007 through 2012 for preexisting satellite digital audio radio services (“SDARS I”). 73 FR 4080 (Jan. 24, 2008).1 In that proceeding, the CRJs set a royalty rate as a percentage of the “Gross Revenues” of the satellite services. 73 FR at 4084. The definition of “Gross Revenues” adopted by the CRJs excluded several categories of revenues received by satellite services, such as revenues from channels and programming that are “exempt from any license requirement or [are] separately licensed,” and revenues attributable to channels and programming that are “offered for a separate charge” and “use only incidental performances of sound recordings.” 73 FR at 4102; 37 CFR 382.11 (2008) (paragraph (3)(vi)(B) & (D) of Gross Revenues definition).

    1 The CRJs' determination in SDARS I was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court affirmed the determination in all but one respect, remanding to the CRJs the single matter of specifying a royalty for the use of the section 112 statutory license. SoundExchange, Inc. v. Librarian of Congress, 571 F.3d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 2009). That last issue was resolved by the CRJs in further proceedings. 75 FR 5513 (Feb. 3, 2010).

    On April 17, 2013, the CRJs adjusted the royalty rates and terms for satellite radio for the period 2013 through 2017 (“SDARS II”). 78 FR 23054 (Apr. 17, 2013) as modified, 78 FR 31842 (May, 28, 2013). In the course of that proceeding, SoundExchange criticized the manner in which Sirius XM had been excluding revenues in reliance on the SDARS I regulations, including its practice of excluding revenues attributable to sound recordings made before February 15, 1972, which are generally not subject to federal copyright protection, and thus do not fall within the section 112(e) and 114 statutory licenses.2 78 FR at 23071. In SDARS II, the CRJs maintained the exclusions from gross revenues it had adopted in SDARS I, but added a new provision specifically addressing the proper treatment of pre-1972 sound recordings. 78 FR at 23079-81.

    2See generally U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music Marketplace 53-54 (Feb. 2014).

    After the CRJs' determination in SDARS II, SoundExchange brought suit against Sirius XM on August 25, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that for the time period covered by SDARS I (2007 through 2012), Sirius XM had underpaid royalties by improperly excluding certain revenues from its gross revenue calculations, including revenues attributable to pre-1972 sound recordings. SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.,—F. Supp. 3d —, 2014 WL 4219591, *3-*5 (D.D.C. Aug. 26, 2014).

    Rather than seeking to have the district court to resolve the dispute itself, Sirius XM asked the court to refer the issues to the CRJs under the administrative law doctrine of “primary jurisdiction” because they “involve interpreting and applying the [CRJs'] regulations on gross revenues.” Id. at *3. As explained by the DC Circuit, under that doctrine, when a court is “adjudicating a claim [that] would `require[] the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body,'” the court can “suspend the judicial process `pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.'” United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 686 F.3d 832, 837 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64 (1956)). SoundExchange disagreed that the doctrine applied, responding that the relevant regulatory definitions were unambiguous, and that the district court should therefore decide the case. SoundExchange, 2014 WL 4219591 at *4.

    The district court agreed with Sirius XM, concluding that “the gross revenue exclusions are ambiguous and do not, on their face, make clear whether Sirius XM's approaches were permissible under the regulations,” and that referral to the CRJs under the primary jurisdiction doctrine was therefore appropriate. Id. In response to SoundExchange's related concern that the CRJs lacked authority to resolve the issues, the district court pointed to 17 U.S.C. 803(c)(4). Id. at *5. Section 803(c)(4) provides as follows:

    Continuing jurisdiction.— The Copyright Royalty Judges may issue an amendment to a written determination to correct any technical or clerical errors in the determination or to modify the terms, but not the rates, of royalty payments in response to unforeseen circumstances that would frustrate the proper implementation of such determination. Such amendment shall be set forth in a written addendum to the determination that shall be distributed to the participants of the proceeding and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    17 U.S.C. 803(c)(4). The district court concluded that “[n]either party is asking for a change to rates; only a clarification of the terms,” and that such a clarification “is within the [CRJs'] continuing jurisdiction.” SoundExchange, 2014 WL 4219591 at *5. Accordingly, the court stayed its proceedings pending a decision by the CRJs clarifying the meaning of the regulations defining Gross Revenues.

    On November 24, 2014, SoundExchange petitioned the CRJs to clarify the definition of Gross Revenues adopted in SDARS I. On December 9, 2014, the CRJs reopened the SDARS I proceedings, observing that SoundExchange's petition raised a threshold jurisdictional question that potentially constituted a novel material question of substantive law that, by statute, must be referred to the Register. In the order reopening proceedings, the CRJs asked the parties to file briefs addressing the CRJs' authority to issue a clarifying interpretation of its regulations. Sirius XM took the position that the Copyright Act or, in the alternative, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), gave the CRJs such authority. SoundExchange disagreed, arguing that no statute gave the CRJs authority to clarify the regulations, and that the case should therefore be returned to the district court for resolution.

    After considering the parties' responses, on March 9, 2015, the CRJs, acting pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(B), referred the following novel material questions of substantive law to the Register, enclosing the briefs the parties had filed:

    (1) Do the Judges have jurisdiction under title 17, or authority otherwise, to interpret the regulations adopted in the captioned proceeding?

    (2) If the Judges have authority to interpret regulations adopted in the course of a rate determination proceeding, is that authority time-limited?

    (3) Would the answer regarding the Judges' jurisdiction or authority be different if the terms at issue regulated a current, as opposed to a lapsed, rate period?

    II. Summary of Parties' Arguments

    The parties' dispute is focused on around the first referred question. The Register understands this question to ask, in essence, whether the CRJs have the power to issue a clarifying interpretation of their regulations.

    SoundExchange asserts that the provision cited by the district court, 17 U.S.C. 803(c)(4), does not give the CRJs authority to clarify the regulations at issue here. First, SoundExchange argues that resolution of legal ambiguity cannot properly be characterized as a correction of a “technical or clerical” error. Second, SoundExchange urges that the separate authority in section 803(c)(4) to “modify the terms, but not the rates, of royalty payments in response to unforeseen circumstances that would frustrate the proper implementation of such determination” does not apply to this case. In particular, it argues that any modification of the definition of “Gross Revenues” would affect the rates of royalty payments, not the terms under which those payments are made, and that the definition of “Gross Revenues” is accordingly not a “term.” In addition, SoundExchange asserts that Sirius XM's decision to exclude certain revenues from its gross revenue calculation was not an “unforeseen circumstance[ ]” that would “frustrate the proper implementation of [the] determination.”

    Sirius XM, in contrast, asserts that section 803(c)(4) empowers the CRJs to interpret the SDARS I regulations, and amend them to prevent an interpretation that is at odds with copyright law or the intent of its earlier determination. According to Sirius XM, such an amendment can either be considered a “technical amendment” that prevents a mistaken interpretation of their determination, or a “modification” of the terms of the royalty payment in response to unforeseen circumstances. In response to SoundExchange's point that a modification of the Gross Revenues definition would constitute an impermissible change in rates, Sirius XM urges that “rates” refers only to the percentage-of-revenue rate in the CRJs' determination, and “terms” refers broadly to “other aspects of the determination required to implement the rates.”

    In the alternative, Sirius XM argues that if section 803(c)(4) did not give the CRJs sufficient authority to clarify the meaning of the regulations, the APA independently authorizes the CRJs to do so. Sirius XM notes that section 803(a)(1) instructs the CRJs to act in accordance with the APA, and that the APA includes a provision authorizing agencies to “issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty” as part of formal adjudications. 5 U.S.C. 554(e). SoundExchange disputes that contention on the ground that, within the meaning of the APA, the CRJs engage in rulemakings, not adjudications, and therefore 5 U.S.C. 554(e) does not apply.

    With respect to the remaining two questions, the parties agree that if the CRJs have authority to interpret regulations adopted in the course of a rate determination proceeding, that authority would not be time limited. In addition, they agree that the CRJs' continuing jurisdiction does not depend on whether a rate period is current or lapsed.

    III. Register's Determination

    Having considered the relevant statutory language and the input from the parties, the Register determines that the CRJs have jurisdiction under section 803(c)(4) of Title 17 to clarify the meaning of the regulations adopted in SDARS I. The Register also determines that this authority is not time-limited, and that the CRJs' authority is the same whether the regulations at issue apply to a current or lapsed rate period.

    A. The CRJs' Continuing Jurisdiction Encompasses the Authority to Issue Clarifying Amendments to Written Determinations.

    As noted above, under section 803(c)(4), the CRJs “may issue an amendment to a written determination to correct any technical or clerical errors in the determination or to modify the terms, but not the rates, of royalty payments in response to unforeseen circumstances that would frustrate the proper implementation of such determination.” 17 U.S.C. 803(c)(4). As an initial matter, the Register accepts the district court's conclusion that the meaning of the relevant regulatory provisions, and the application of those provisions to the particular fact pattern presented here, is uncertain. See SoundExchange, 2014 WL 4219591, at *4 (“[T]he gross revenue exclusions are ambiguous and do not, on their face, make clear whether Sirius XM's approaches were permissible under the regulations.”).

    The Register concludes that the CRJs' power to “correct any technical . . . errors” in determinations encompasses the power to resolve ambiguity in the meaning of regulations adopted pursuant to those determinations.3 Such a correction is “technical” in the sense that it merely clarifies existing regulations to ensure they are applied in the manner intended by the CRJs. As the district court appreciated, the CRJs are in the best position to provide this type of interpretive guidance, given their familiarity with the extensive record on which the regulations are based and their general “technical and policy expertise.” SoundExchange, 2014 WL 4219591 at *4. This approach is also consistent with general principles of administrative law, under which courts regularly defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous regulations. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997). Section 803(c)(4) provides the administrative mechanism by which the CRJs can issue such interpretations.

    3 As explained above, Sirius XM argues that the CRJs' power to “modify the terms, but not the rates, of royalty payments in response to unforeseen circumstances that would frustrate the proper implementation of such determination” provides an alternate source of authority to clarify the SDARS I regulations. 17 U.S.C. 803(c)(4). SoundExchange contends, however, that the definition of “Gross Revenues” is not a “term.” For its part, the district court concluded that the definition was a term. SoundExchange, 2014 WL 4219591 at *5 (“Neither party is asking for a change to rates; only a clarification of terms.”). The Register need not resolve this issue, because the CRJs' separate power to “correct any technical . . . errors” provides a sufficient basis for the CRJs to act in this case. For the same reason, the Register need not address whether the APA separately authorizes the CRJs to clarify the SDARS I regulations.

    This understanding of section 803(c)(4) also comports with the Register's prior reading of that provision. Specifically, the Register has construed section 803(c)(4) as providing the CRJs the authority to amend their regulations to conform with the Register's interpretation of the Copyright Act. In 2009, after the CRJs issued a determination setting the rates and terms of royalty payments for making and distribution of phonorecords of musical works under 17 U.S.C. 115, the Register exercised her statutory authority to correct certain legal errors in that determination. 74 FR 4537 (Jan. 6, 2009). In particular, the Register concluded that a number of regulatory terms that the CRJs had adopted were inconsistent with the Copyright Act, including certain terms related to digital phonorecord deliveries and the retroactivity of promotional royalty rates. See 73 FR at 4541-42. Although the Register lacked the authority actually to amend the regulations adopted by the CRJs, she concluded that the CRJs could “codify the corrections identified and made herein by the Register” by exercising their authority under section 803(c)(4). Id. at 4543. The CRJs subsequently relied on that authority to amend the regulations and excise the erroneous regulatory provisions. 74 FR 6832, 6833 (Feb. 11, 2009). The CRJs explained that doing so would “clarify potential confusion facing users of the license at issue” and “promote an efficient administration of the applicable license.” Id. These same rationales apply with equal force here.

    B. The CRJs' Continuing Jurisdiction Is Not Subject to Time Limits, and Extends to Both Current and Lapsed Rate Periods.

    The Register agrees with the parties that the CRJs' continuing jurisdiction authority is not subject to a time limit. Nothing in the text of section 803(c)(4) indicates a time limit. And, no other provision in Title 17 would otherwise impose a time limit on the CRJs' exercise of that authority. Furthermore, the scope of the CRJs' continuing jurisdiction authority is the same whether the terms at issue concern a current or lapsed rate period. Nothing in the text of section 803(c)(4), or any other provision in Title 17, differentiates between current and lapsed rate periods for purposes of the CRJs' exercise of continuing jurisdiction.

    April 8, 2015

    Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright Office
    [FR Doc. 2015-10305 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0001] Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATE:

    April 27, May 4, 11, 18, 25, June 1, 8, 2015.

    PLACE:

    Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Public and Closed.

    Week of April 27, 2015 Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Tentative) DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), Docket No. 52-033 (Public Meeting) (Tentative)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    9 a.m. Briefing on the Status of Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (Public Meeting) (Contact: Jack Davis, 301—415-223)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Week of May 4, 2015

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 4, 2015.

    Week of May 11, 2015—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 11, 2015.

    Week of May 18, 2015—Tentative Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9 a.m. Briefing on Cumulative Effects of Regulation and Risk Prioritization Initiatives (Public Meeting) (Contact: Steve Ruffin, 301- 415-1985)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 9 a.m. Briefing on the Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting (Public Meeting) (Contact: Nathan Sanfilippo, 301-415-8744)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Week of May 25, 2015—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 25, 2015.

    Week of June 1, 2015—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 1, 2015

    Week of June 8, 205—Tentative Thursday, June 11, 2015 10 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (Public Meeting) (Contact: Edwin Hackett, 301-415-7360)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at [email protected]

    Additional Information

    By a vote of 4-0 on April 28 and 29, 2015, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that an Affirmation Session for DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), Docket No. 52-033, Mandatory Hearing Decision be held with less than one week notice to the public. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 30, 2015.

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, by videophone at 240-428-3217, or by email at [email protected] Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email [email protected] or [email protected]

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Glenn Ellmers, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10384 Filed 4-30-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0103] Information Collection: Renewal of NRC Form 590, Application/Permit for Use of the Two White Flint North (TWF) Auditorium AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites the public to comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The NRC is required to publish this notice in the Federal Register under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is entitled

    “Renewal of NRC Form 590, Application/Permit for Use of the Two White Flint North (TWFN) Auditorium.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by July 6, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0103. 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: Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, Mail Stop: T-5 F53, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0103 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-2015-0103. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2015-0103 on this Web site.

    • 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] A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession No. ML150