Federal Register Vol. 80, No.88,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)

Page Range26181-26436
FR Document

80_FR_88
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 26435 - National Teacher Appreciation Day and National Teacher Appreciation Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 26431 - National Charter Schools Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 26314 - A.B. Watley Group, Inc., Cambridge Heart, Inc., iGenii Inc., and RKO Resources, Inc. (a/k/a Shamika 2 Gold, Inc.); Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 26234 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 26296 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 26226 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission in Part, and Intent To Rescind the Review in Part; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 26224 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 26230 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 26229 - Preliminary Negative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab EmiratesPDF
80 FR 26227 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014PDF
80 FR 26222 - Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 26257 - Information Collection; Novation/Change of Name RequirementsPDF
80 FR 26232 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 26235 - Information Collection Requirements; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Construction and Architect-Engineer ContractsPDF
80 FR 26318 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic StructuresPDF
80 FR 26319 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Financial Responsibility for Licensed Launch ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 26318 - Second Meeting: RTCA Subcommittee 233 (SC 233)PDF
80 FR 26319 - Eighth Meeting: RTCA Subcommittee 228 (SC 228)PDF
80 FR 26291 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Notice To Amend an Existing System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 26301 - Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardPDF
80 FR 26302 - DTE Electric Company; Fermi 3PDF
80 FR 26303 - Compliance With Phase 2 of Order EA-13-109PDF
80 FR 26365 - Excess Uranium Management: Secretarial Determination of No Adverse Impact on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment IndustriesPDF
80 FR 26249 - California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards Regulations; Notice of DecisionPDF
80 FR 26429 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82; Small Entity Compliance GuidePDF
80 FR 26427 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 26426 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Enhancements to Past Performance Evaluation SystemsPDF
80 FR 26424 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Review and Justification of Pass-Through ContractsPDF
80 FR 26423 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: Equal Employment and Affirmative Action for Veterans and Individuals With DisabilitiesPDF
80 FR 26421 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82; IntroductionPDF
80 FR 26264 - Medicare Program; Public Meeting on July 16, 2015 Regarding New and Reconsidered Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test Codes for the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2016PDF
80 FR 26198 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Direct Heating Equipment and Pool HeatersPDF
80 FR 26257 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 26257 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 26298 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Wireless Industrial Technology Konsortium, Inc.PDF
80 FR 26200 - Trade OptionsPDF
80 FR 26298 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.PDF
80 FR 26183 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), Atlantic City, NJPDF
80 FR 26295 - Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof, Notice of Request for Statements on the Public InterestPDF
80 FR 26233 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26234 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26280 - Joint Meeting of the Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 26199 - Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group: Notice of Open Meetings and WebinarPDF
80 FR 26269 - Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls; Draft Guidance for IndustryPDF
80 FR 26235 - U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 26297 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ODVA, Inc.PDF
80 FR 26233 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26299 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired; Survey: Survey of Prison Inmates (Formerly Named the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities)PDF
80 FR 26271 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SYNRIBOPDF
80 FR 26274 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; OVUGELPDF
80 FR 26277 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; OSENIPDF
80 FR 26275 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMPPDF
80 FR 26272 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; GATTEXPDF
80 FR 26268 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENTPDF
80 FR 26273 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGYPDF
80 FR 26276 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Premarket Notification for a New Dietary IngredientPDF
80 FR 26269 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Administrative Practices and Procedures; Formal Evidentiary Public HearingPDF
80 FR 26278 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Device Reporting: Manufacturer, Importer, User Facility, and Distributor ReportingPDF
80 FR 26276 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SIGNIFORPDF
80 FR 26314 - Request for Information on Early Intervention Strategies for Serving Individuals With DisabilitiesPDF
80 FR 26300 - Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 26196 - Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Reasonable Modification of Policies and Practices; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 26236 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive Patent License; Epitracker, LLCPDF
80 FR 26254 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of FloridaPDF
80 FR 26266 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26267 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26317 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Aviation Fabricators, Inc.PDF
80 FR 26283 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 26327 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Office of the Procurement ExecutivePDF
80 FR 26261 - National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality: Request for Nominations for Public MembersPDF
80 FR 26258 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26262 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26289 - Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Fender's Blue Butterfly on Private Lands in Yamhill County, Oregon; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 26217 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 26256 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)PDF
80 FR 26255 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Emergency Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 26241 - Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms; Notice of Conference With North American Energy Standards BoardPDF
80 FR 26248 - FFP Project 92, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 26244 - Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting CommentsPDF
80 FR 26244 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 26247 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 26241 - BP Products North America Inc. v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 26245 - Navigator BSG Transportation & Storage, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
80 FR 26236 - Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Panhandle Backhaul Project and Trunkline Backhaul Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 26239 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Broad Run Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 26245 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 26242 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 26320 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 26196 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP); Amendment 7PDF
80 FR 26317 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Airlines for AmericaPDF
80 FR 26232 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Public Meeting.PDF
80 FR 26306 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 26298 - Notice of Lodging of Stipulation and Proposed Order Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
80 FR 26236 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for LicensingPDF
80 FR 26304 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 26216 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26294 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
80 FR 26310 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of the Specifications for the Selection of Examination Questions and Content Outline for the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification ExaminationPDF
80 FR 26216 - Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Hold a Public Workshop and Prepare an Environmental AssessmentPDF
80 FR 26301 - FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1PDF
80 FR 26290 - Proposed Renewal of Information Collection: OMB Control Number 1094-0001; Alternatives Process in Hydropower LicensingPDF
80 FR 26283 - Notice of Workshop Meeting Regarding Information Sharing and Analysis OrganizationsPDF
80 FR 26182 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lewis and Clark River, Astoria, ORPDF
80 FR 26281 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 26258 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Relocation Allowances-Requirement To Report Agency Payments for RelocationPDF
80 FR 26210 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration PermitsPDF
80 FR 26183 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration PermitsPDF
80 FR 26296 - Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 26282 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 26282 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 26181 - Professional Standards for State and Local School Nutrition Programs Personnel as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010PDF
80 FR 26321 - Deepwater Port License Application Process for Offshore Export FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 26191 - Approval of Alabama's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Birmingham, AlabamaPDF
80 FR 26212 - Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Birmingham, AlabamaPDF
80 FR 26324 - Pipeline Safety: Liquefied Natural Gas Facility User Fee Rate IncreasePDF
80 FR 26300 - Advisory Board; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 26242 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
80 FR 26189 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County; Revisions to Emissions Inventory Requirements, and General ProvisionsPDF
80 FR 26329 - Pay Versus PerformancePDF

Issue

80 88 Thursday, May 7, 2015 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26258-26264 2015-10981 2015-10982 Requests for Nominations: National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality, 26261-26262 2015-10983 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26216 2015-10951
AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 26235 2015-11008 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Membership Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc., 26298 2015-11019 ODVA, Inc., 26297-26298 2015-11007 Wireless Industrial Technology Konsortium, Inc., 26298 2015-11021 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26233-26234 2015-11015 2015-11014 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Meetings: Medicare Program; New and Reconsidered Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test Codes for the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, 26264-26266 2015-11026 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Child Care and Development Fund Annual Aggregate Report, 26267-26268 2015-10987 Child Care Quarterly Case Record Report, 26266-26267 2015-10988 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Lewis and Clark River, Astoria, OR, 26182-26183 2015-10635 New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Atlantic City, NJ, 26183 2015-11017 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 26217-26222 2015-10979
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Trade Options, 26200-26210 2015-11020 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 26234 2015-11112 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, 26235-26236 2015-11072 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

See

Navy Department

RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Enhancements to Past Performance Evaluation Systems, 26426-26427 2015-11030 Equal Employment and Affirmative Action for Veterans and Individuals with Disabilities, 26423-26424 2015-11028 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 26429-26430 2015-11032 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82; Introduction, 26422-26423 2015-11027 Review and Justification of Pass-Through Contracts, 26424-26426 2015-11029 Technical Amendments, 26427-26428 2015-11031 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Novation/Change of Name Requirements, 26257-26258 2015-11074
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Direct Heating Equipment and Pool Heaters, 26198-26199 2015-11025 Meetings: Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group, 26199-26200 2015-11012 NOTICES Excess Uranium Management: Determination of No Adverse Impact on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries, 26366-26419 2015-11035
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Mexico; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County; Revisions to Emissions Inventory Requirements, and General Provisions, 26189-26191 2015-10481 Approval of Alabama's Request to Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Birmingham, 26191-26195 2015-10616 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits, 26183-26189 2015-10628 PROPOSED RULES Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits, 26210-26212 2015-10629 Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Birmingham, AL, 26212-26215 2015-10615 NOTICES Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Florida, 26254-26255 2015-10989 Decisions: California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards Regulations, 26249-26254 2015-11034 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic Structures, 26318-26319 2015-11044 Financial Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities, 26319 2015-11043 Meetings: RTCA Subcommittee 228; Eighth Meeting, 26319-26320 2015-11041 RTCA Subcommittee 233; Second Meeting, 26318 2015-11042 Petition for Exemption; Summaries, 26317-26318 2015-10959 2015-10986 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26255-26257 2015-10977 2015-10978 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: FFP Project 92, LLC, 26248-26249 2015-10975 Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 26247-26248 2015-10972 Combined Filings, 26242-26247 2015-10966 2015-10967 Complaints: BP Products North America Inc. v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., 26241 2015-10971 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Broad Run Expansion Project, 26239-26240 2015-10968 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Panhandle Backhual Project and Trunkline Backhaul Project; Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, et al., 26236-26238 2015-10969 Hydroelectric Applications: Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 26244 2015-10973 Meetings: Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms; Technical Conferences, 26241 2015-10976 Petitions for Declaratory Order: Navigator BSG Transportation and Storage, LLC, 26245 2015-10970 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 26242 2015-10575 Settlement Agreements, 26244-26245 2015-10974 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 26320-26321 2015-10965 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 26257 2015-11024 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 26257 2015-11022 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Fender's Blue Butterfly on Private Lands, Yamhill County, Oregon; Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, 26289-26290 2015-10980 Permit Applications: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 26283-26289 2015-10985 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Administrative Practices and Procedures; Formal Evidentiary Public Hearing, 26269-26271 2015-10996 Medical Device Reporting -- Manufacturer, Importer, User Facility, and Distributor Reporting, 26278-26280 2015-10995 Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient, 26276 2015-10997 Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT, 26268-26269 2015-10999 Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; OSENI, 26277-26278 2015-11002 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls, 26269 2015-11009 Meetings: Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 26280-26281 2015-11013 Regulatory Review Periods for Patent Extensions: COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY, 26273-26274 2015-10998 GATTEX, 26272-26273 2015-11000 HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP, 26275-26276 2015-11001 OVUGEL, 26274-26275 2015-11003 SIGNIFOR, 26276-26277 2015-10994 SYNRIBO, 26271-26272 2015-11004 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service RULES Professional Standards for State and Local School Nutrition Programs Personnel under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act; Correction, 26181-26182 2015-10621 General Services General Services Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Enhancements to Past Performance Evaluation Systems, 26426-26427 2015-11030 Equal Employment and Affirmative Action for Veterans and Individuals with Disabilities, 26423-26424 2015-11028 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 26429-26430 2015-11032 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82; Introduction, 26422-26423 2015-11027 Review and Justification of Pass-Through Contracts, 26424-26426 2015-11029 Technical Amendments, 26427-26428 2015-11031 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Novation/Change of Name Requirements, 26257-26258 2015-11074 Federal Travel Regulation: Relocation Allowances—Requirement to Report Agency Payments for Relocation, 26258 2015-10631 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26281-26282 2015-10634
Hearings Interior Hearings and Appeals Office, Interior Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Alternatives Process in Hydropower Licensing, 26290-26291 2015-10695 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

NOTICES Meetings: Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, 26283 2015-10683
Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Hearings and Appeals Office, Interior Department

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 26291-26294 2015-11040
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, 26230-26232 2015-11086 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China, 26222-26224 2015-11082 Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China, 26226-26229 2015-11083 2015-11088 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 26224-26226 2015-11087 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates, 26229-26230 2015-11085 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness, 26232 2015-11073 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from China, 26296-26297 2015-10627 Complaints: Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing Same, 26294-26295 2015-10950 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof, 26295-26296 2015-11016 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 26296 2015-11094 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

National Institute of Corrections

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Survey of Prison Inmates (formerly named the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities), 26299-26300 2015-11005 Consent Decrees: CERCLA; Stipulation and Proposed Order Amendments, 26298-26299 2015-10955
Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Deepwater Port License Application Process for Offshore Export Facilities, 26321-26324 2015-10619 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Enhancements to Past Performance Evaluation Systems, 26426-26427 2015-11030 Equal Employment and Affirmative Action for Veterans and Individuals with Disabilities, 26423-26424 2015-11028 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 26429-26430 2015-11032 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82; Introduction, 26422-26423 2015-11027 Review and Justification of Pass-Through Contracts, 26424-26426 2015-11029 Technical Amendments, 26427-26428 2015-11031 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Novation/Change of Name Requirements, 26257-26258 2015-11074 National Institute Corrections National Institute of Corrections NOTICES Meetings: NIC Advisory Board, 26300 2015-10584 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 26282 2015-10626 National Institute on Aging, 26282-26283 2015-10625 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan; Amendments, 26196-26197 2015-10960 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26233 2015-11006 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 26232-26233 2015-10958 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations, 26300-26301 2015-10992 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing, 26236 2015-10954 Exclusive Patent Licenses: Epitracker, LLC, 26236 2015-10990 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Licenses; Record of Decisions: DTE Electric Co.; Fermi 3, 26302-26303 2015-11038 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, 26301 2015-10942 Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 26301-26302 2015-11039 Guidance: Compliance With Phase 2 of Order EA-13-109, 26303-26304 2015-11036 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline Safety: Liquefied Natural Gas Facility User Fee Rate Increase, 26324-26327 2015-10614 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Charter Schools Week (Proc. 9272), 26431-26434 2015-11294 National Teacher Appreciation Day and National Teacher Appreciation Week (Proc. 9273), 26435-26436 2015-11295 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Public Workshop, 26216-26217 2015-10943 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Pay Versus Performance, 26330-26364 2015-10429 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 26304-26310 2015-10952 2015-10957 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 26310-26313 2015-10946 Trading Suspension Orders: A.B. Watley Group, Inc., et al., 26314 2015-11116 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Requests for Information: Early Intervention Strategies for Serving Individuals with Disabilities, 26314-26317 2015-10993 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

RULES Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities: Reasonable Modification of Policies and Practices; Correction, 26196 2015-10991
Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office of the Procurement Executive, 26327-26328 2015-10984 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 26330-26364 2015-10429 Part III Energy Department, 26366-26419 2015-11035 Part IV Defense Department, 26422-26430 2015-11030 2015-11028 2015-11032 2015-11027 2015-11029 2015-11031 General Services Administration, 26422-26430 2015-11030 2015-11028 2015-11032 2015-11027 2015-11029 2015-11031 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 26422-26430 2015-11030 2015-11028 2015-11032 2015-11027 2015-11029 2015-11031 Part V Presidential Documents, 26431-26436 2015-11294 2015-11295 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 88 Thursday, May 7, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Parts 210 and 235 [FNS-2011-0030] RIN 0584-AE19 Professional Standards for State and Local School Nutrition Programs Personnel as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document contains a correction to the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2015, “Professional Standards for State and Local School Nutrition Programs Personnel as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.”

DATES:

Effective date: This document is effective July 1, 2015. Compliance with the final rule must begin July 1, 2015, except as noted in specific regulatory provisions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julie Brewer, School Programs Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, at (703) 305-2590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Food and Nutrition Service published a final rule in the Federal Register, 80 FR 11077, on March 2, 2015, to establish professional standards for State and local school nutrition program personnel. The final rule omitted part of a criterion from the hiring standards established in 7 CFR 210.30(b) for local educational agencies with 2,499 or fewer enrolled students. This document corrects the oversight by providing the missing regulatory text for 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(i)(B) and the summary chart in 7 CFR 210.30(b)(2). This document also makes a technical correction in 7 CFR 210.30(b)(3) to ensure readers clearly understand the annual training standards for school nutrition program directors. All other information in the final rule remains unchanged.

Corrections 1. In § 210.30: a. On page 11092, in the second column, revise paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B); b. On page 11093, in the third column, revise the chart in paragraph (b)(2); and c. On page 11094, in the first column, amend the fourth sentence in paragraph (b)(3) by removing the word “cover” and adding in its place the words “include, but is not limited to,”.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 210.30 School nutrition program professional standards.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and either a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors or at least one year of relevant school nutrition program experience;

(2) * * *

Summary of School Nutrition Program Director Professional Standards by Local Educational Agency Size Minimum
  • requirements for
  • directors
  • Student enrollment 2,499 or less Student enrollment 2,500-9,999 Student enrollment 10,000 or more
    Minimum Education Standards (required) (new directors only) Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field. Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; OR OR OR Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and either a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors or at least 1 year of relevant school nutrition program experience; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors; OR OR OR Associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; and at least 1 year of relevant school nutrition program experience;
  • OR
  • High school diploma (or GED) and 3 years of relevant school nutrition program experience.
  • Bachelor's degree in any academic major and at least 2 years of relevant school nutrition program experience.
  • OR
  • Associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; and at least 2 years of relevant school nutrition program experience.
  • Bachelor's degree in any major and at least 5 years of experience in management of school nutrition programs.
    Minimum Education Standards (preferred) (new directors only) Directors hired without an associate's degree are strongly encouraged to work toward attaining associate's degree upon hiring. Directors hired without a bachelor's degree strongly encouraged to work toward attaining bachelor's degree upon hiring. Master's degree, or willingness to work toward master's degree, preferred. At least 1 year of management experience, preferably in school nutrition, strongly recommended.
  • At least 3 credit hours at the university level in food service management plus at least 3 credit hours in nutritional sciences at time of hiring strongly preferred.
  • Minimum Prior Training Standards (required ) (new directors only) At least 8 hours of food safety training is required either not more than 5 years prior to their starting date or completed within 30 calendar days of employee's starting date.
    Dated: April 30, 2015. Jeffrey J. Tribiano, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10621 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0351] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lewis and Clark River, Astoria, OR 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 Oregon State (Lewis and Clark River) Highway Bridge across the Lewis and Clark River, mile 1.0, at Astoria, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate bridge maintenance activities on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open to maritime traffic.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on May 11, 2015 to 5 p.m. on August 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0351] 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 Steven M. Fischer, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Program Administrator, telephone 206-220-7282, email d13-pf-d13bridgesuscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has requested that the Lewis and Clark River Bridge, mile 1.0, remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open to vessel traffic Tuesday through Saturday. The bascule span will be available to open on Mondays from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. when given 3 hours advanced notice. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance activities to include repairing and preserving the bascule drawbridge structural steel. The Lewis and Clark Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 17.3 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The normal operating schedule of the Oregon State highway bridge can be found in 33 CFR 117.899(c). This deviation period is from 7 a.m. on May 11, 2015 to 5 p.m. on August 30, 2015. The deviation allows the bascule span of the Lewis and Clark Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position Tuesdays through Saturdays throughout the deviation period. In addition, the span will be in the closed position on Mondays, but available to open from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. when given 3 hours advanced notice. The bridge will operate as normal on Sundays. Waterway usage on the Lewis and Clark River is primarily small recreational boaters and fishing vessels transiting to and from Fred Wahl Marine Construction Inc.

    The bascule span of the bridge will have a containment system installed which will reduce the vertical clearance by 5 feet from 17.3 feet above mean high water to 12.3 feet above mean high water. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for any emergency if a three-hour notice is given from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday; on Sundays the bridge will be able to open in accordance with 33 CFR 117.899(c), and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels 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: May 1, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10635 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0334] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), Atlantic City, NJ 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 US 40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across Inside Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the American Cancer Society Bike-a-thon. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position to vessels requesting a bridge opening to ensure the biker's safety and that there are no delays.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation [USCG-2015-0334] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “Search” box and click “Search.” Click on the 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 Kashanda Booker, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone (757) 398-6227, email [email protected] If you have questions on reviewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The American Cancer Society on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Transportation has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation of the US 40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across Inside Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. The closure has been requested to ensure the safety of the bikers and spectators that will be participating in the American Cancer Society Bike-a-thon. Under this temporary deviation, the US 40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge will remain in the closed position from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 14, 2015.

    The vertical clearance of this bascule bridge is 10 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited in the open position. The current operating regulation is outlined at 33 CFR 117.733(f), which requires that the bridge shall open on signal, except that from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.

    The majority of the vessels that transit the bridge this time of year are recreational boats. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Atlantic Ocean is an alternate route for vessels with mast heights greater than 10 feet. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners' of the closure periods so that vessels can plan their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. At all other times during the affected period, the bridge will operate as outlined at 33 CFR 117.733(f).

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

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11017 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071; FRL-9926-98-OAR] RIN 2060-AS57 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program regulations to allow for rescission of certain PSD permits issued by the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). We are taking this action in order to provide a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation (Coalition) v. EPA, vacating that rule. These decisions determined that Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule was not required under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and vacated the EPA regulations implementing Step 2. When effective, this action will authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 6, 2015 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by June 8, 2015. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by May 18, 2015, the EPA will hold a public hearing on May 22, 2015 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]. Include docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 566-9744.

    Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online athttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any CD you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, avoid any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions concerning this direct final should be addressed to Mrs. Jessica Montañez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-3407, email at [email protected]. To request a public hearing or questions concerning a public hearing, please contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0641, email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The information in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? II. Does this action apply to me? III. Background A. What is the PSD program? B. What is the Tailoring Rule? C. What is the UARG v. EPA decision and why does the EPA need to revise the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the decision? 1. What is the UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court decision? 2. Why are we revising the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition? IV. Direct Final Action V. Environmental Justice Considerations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executve Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution and Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) L. Determination Under Section 307(d) VII. Judicial Review I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. This action narrowly amends the permit rescission provisions in the federal PSD regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21(w) to allow for the rescission of EPA-issued PSD permits 1 that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule 2 permitting regulations.

    1 For purposes of this rule, the phrases “EPA-issued PSD permits that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule” and “EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits” are intended to have the same meaning. The use of the term “EPA-issued” in both phrases includes PSD permits issued by the EPA as well as permits issued by state or local reviewing authorities exercising federal law authority delegated by an EPA Regional Office under 40 CFR 52.21(u).

    2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v).

    The U.S. Supreme Court determined the permitting requirements under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule to be invalid in UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In further proceedings upon consideration of the Supreme Court decision, the D.C. Circuit amended its judgment in the Coalition case. The Amended Judgment vacated particular provisions of the EPA's regulations implementing Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule.

    This direct final action does not itself rescind any permits; it only provides the regulatory mechanism through which the EPA or state or local program administering the PSD program through a delegation of federal authority from the EPA could rescind, upon request of a source, an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit vacating the regulations. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register publication, we also are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the same federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule, and any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on the proposed rule, see the ADDRESSES section in that separate document in this Federal Register publication.

    II. Does this action apply to me?

    The entities potentially affected by this rule include new and modified stationary sources that obtained an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit under the federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 solely because the source or a modification of the source was expected to emit or increase GHG emissions over the applicable thresholds. This includes (1) sources classified as major for PSD purposes solely on the basis of their potential GHG emissions; and (2) sources emitting major amounts of other pollutants that experienced a modification resulting in an increase of only GHG emissions above the applicable levels in the EPA regulations. Entities affected by this rule may also include state or local reviewing authorities that have been delegated federal authority to implement the federal PSD regulations under 40 CFR 52.21(u) and that have issued Step 2 PSD permits to sources within their jurisdiction. This rule does not address the requirements for approval of a PSD program into a state implementation plan (40 CFR 51.166) or the rescission of PSD permits issued by states and local programs with such approved programs. Stationary sources with questions on the PSD permitting obligations arising from Step 2 PSD permits issued by state or local reviewing authorities under the permitting programs approved into state implementation plans should review the governing statutory provisions and provisions in the applicable approved state or local permitting program to determine how to address any Step 2 PSD permitting issues and consult with the EPA as necessary.

    III. Background A. What is the PSD program?

    Part C of title I of the Act contains the requirements for a component of the major New Source Review (NSR) program known as the PSD program. This program sets forth procedures for the construction review and permitting of new and modified stationary sources of air pollution locating in areas meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (“attainment” areas) and areas for which there is insufficient information to classify an area as either attainment or nonattainment (“unclassifiable” areas).

    The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined in advance of construction of a new source or major modification of an existing source and is pollutant-specific. Once a source is determined to be subject to PSD, among other requirements, the source must demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment,3 and that it will use the Best Available Control Technology (BACT).4

    3 CAA section 165(a)(3).

    4 CAA section 165(a)(4).

    The reviewing authority must provide notice of its preliminary decision on a source's application for a PSD permit, and must provide an opportunity for comment by the public, industry, and other interested persons. After considering and responding to comments, the reviewing authority must issue a final determination on the permit.

    B. What is the Tailoring Rule?

    On June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule, known as the Tailoring Rule, which phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs (75 FR 31514).

    For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title V requirements applied to sources' GHG emissions only if the sources were subject to PSD or title V “anyway” due to their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. These sources are referred to as “anyway sources.” Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, applied the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA to sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG above applicable levels in the EPA regulations.

    C. What is the UARG v. EPA decision and why does the EPA need to revise the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the decision? 1. What is the UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court decision?

    On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application of stationary source permitting requirements to GHGs. In summary, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source (or a modification thereof) is required to obtain a PSD or title V permit,5 and declared that the EPA regulations implementing that approach for determining permitting applicability are invalid. However, the U.S. Supreme Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of conventional pollutants (i.e., non-GHG pollutants), contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. That is, the ruling effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for “anyway sources,” and invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources.

    5 Among other things, title V of the CAA requires all major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources to apply for a title V operating permit that includes emission limitations and other conditions as necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of the CAA. The title V operating permit program is a vehicle for ensuring that air quality control requirements are appropriately applied to facility emission units and for assuring compliance with such requirements, but does not generally impose new substantive air quality control requirements. The title V program is implemented through regulations promulgated under 40 CFR part 70, for programs implemented by state or local agencies and tribes, and 40 CFR part 71, for programs generally implemented by the EPA.

    To describe the EPA's preliminary views on the U.S. Supreme Court decision, on July 24, 2014, the EPA issued a memorandum titled, “Next Steps and Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases Following the Supreme Court's Decision in UARG v. EPA” (Preliminary Views Memo).6 In that memorandum, the EPA explained that it “will no longer require PSD . . . permits for Step 2 sources” (Preliminary Views Memo at 2) and that the EPA expected “to provide additional views in the future with respect to Step 2 sources that had already obtained a PSD permit . . .” (Preliminary Views Memo at 4).

    6http://epa.gov/nsr/documents/20140724memo.pdf.

    The EPA provided additional views regarding EPA-issued Step 2 permits when it issued two memoranda on December 19, 2014. In the memorandum issued by the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and titled, “Next Steps for Addressing EPA-Issued Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Greenhouse Gas Permits and Associated Requirements” (OAR Next Steps Memo),7 the EPA explained that it intended to complete this rulemaking “authorizing the rescission of Step 2 PSD permits.” In the second memorandum, which was issued by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and titled, “No Action Assurance Regarding EPA-Issued Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits and Related Title V Requirements Following Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency” (OECA No Action Assurance Memo),8 OECA issued a narrowly tailored No Action Assurance for sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. The OECA No Action Assurance Memo establishes that the EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement of the terms and conditions relating to GHGs in a source's EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit, and for related GHG terms and conditions that are contained in the source's title V permit, if any.

    7http://epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/Step2PermitRescissinsMemoFinal_12-19-14.pdf.

    8http://epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/OECANoActionAssuranceMemo_December192014.pdf.

    The Supreme Court decisions affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In further proceedings upon consideration of the opinion in UARG, on April 10, the D.C. Circuit in Coalition issued an amended judgment in accordance with that decision. Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-073, 10-1092 and 10-1167 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015) (Amended Judgment). As relevant to this rulemaking action, the court ordered that the EPA regulations under review (including 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.

    We are aware that between the effective date of Step 2 (July 1, 2011) and the date of the UARG v. EPA decision (June 23, 2014), several sources obtained EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits either directly from the EPA or from state or local agencies with delegated PSD programs under 40 CFR 52.21 because the sources (or modifications thereof) were classified as “major” solely on the basis of their GHG emissions. For some of these sources, the appropriate reviewing authorities also issued title V permits that incorporated the terms and conditions of the EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. To ensure this rule covers all stationary sources eligible for rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits, this action provides that owners or operators of stationary sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits with final permit issuance dates from July 1, 2011 to 60 days after the effective date of this rule would be able to request a permit rescission from EPA or delegated reviewing authorities as applicable. For more information on the process for requesting a permit rescission for EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits, see section V of this action titled, “Direct Final Action.”

    2. Why are we revising the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition?

    To implement the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and the amended appeals court judgment vacating the regulations implementing Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, it is necessary to undertake a process to rescind PSD Step 2 permits. The EPA's implementing permitting regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 provide that “[a]ny [PSD] permit issued under this section or a prior version of this section shall remain in effect, unless and until it expires . . . or is rescinded” (40 CFR 52.21(w)(l)).

    Section 52.21(w) provides authority for a source holding a PSD permit to request rescission of the permit and for the EPA to “grant an application for rescission if the applicant shows that this section [40 CFR 52.21] would not apply to the source or modification.” However, as currently written, the scope of this rescission authority is limited to permits issued under 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on or before July 30, 1987. Since any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits were issued under regulations effective after July 30, 1987, the rescission authority in 40 CFR 52.21(w) is not currently available to sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. This rulemaking action is a narrow revision to 52.21(w) solely to enable the rescission of Step 2 PSD permits consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the D.C. Circuit amended judgment.

    This rule does not address any issues concerning the federal PSD permit rescission regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) that are not related to the Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment vacating the Step 2 regulations. We recognize, however, that other circumstances may arise in the future where the appropriate course of action may be permit rescission. We would expect these circumstances to be rare. Under the current rules, a rulemaking would need to be undertaken in each such circumstance as we are doing here. Therefore, the EPA is developing a separate rulemaking action that will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on any other situations where the July 30, 1987 date in 52.21(w) may be an impediment to the rescission of PSD permits under particular circumstances where that might be appropriate.

    IV. Direct Final Action

    In this action, the EPA is revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2) by adding references to 40 CFR 52.21(49)(b)(v)(a) and (b) to allow for rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits upon request by the permitted source, which is consistent with the EPA's understanding of the Supreme Court decision and the amended appeals court judgment vacating the regulations. In addition, the EPA is adding the following sentence to 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) to make clear that PSD requirements no longer apply to Step 2 sources: “As a result of a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, this section does not apply to sources or modifications that meet only the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v).”

    This regulatory action does not make any change to 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) or (4). In addition, it does not affect the standard for determining whether a source is eligible for permit rescission under 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3). It serves only to revise 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2)-(3) of the EPA's federal PSD regulations to authorize the EPA to undertake permit rescissions for EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. As the EPA previously explained in its December 19, 2014, OAR Next Steps Memo, once this rule is final, sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits will be able to seek a permit rescission from the EPA or delegated state or local reviewing authority.

    Specifically, consistent with the 2014 OAR Next Steps Memo at page 3, the EPA expects that PSD permit-holders interested in qualifying for the rescission of an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21(w) will need to provide information to demonstrate that either (1) the source did not, at the time the source obtained its EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit, emit or have the potential to emit any regulated pollutant other than GHGs above the major source threshold applicable to that type of source; or (2) a modification at a source emitting major amounts of a regulated NSR pollutant other than GHGs did not result in an increase in emissions of any regulated pollutant other than GHGs in an amount equal to or greater than the applicable significance level for that pollutant. Furthermore, the EPA intends to consider whether the EPA or another reviewing authority is relying on the EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit for any other regulatory purpose. Rescission of a PSD permit that is no longer required should not extend to eliminate regulatory obligations that remain regarding non GHG-pollutants or inadvertently place the permitted source in a situation where it may be out of compliance with other requirements that the PSD permit satisfied. For example, as noted in the memoranda mentioned previously, a source with an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit may now have other regulatory or permitting obligations (e.g., minor NSR requirements), which generally concern sources emitting pollutants subject to a NAAQS. The source may have previously not needed to obtain a minor source permit because it used its Step 2 permit to satisfy its preconstruction permitting obligations, but it might now need to obtain a minor NSR permit. Until such time as the source and the permitting authority can determine whether and how to replace Step 2 PSD permit conditions for such pollutants with a permit satisfying minor NSR requirements, continued compliance with PSD permit terms and conditions for such permits is important to protect the NAAQS, and rescission may, thus, be premature. Further, if the GHG condition in an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit has been used to satisfy another state or federal requirement, rescission may not be appropriate without assurances that another method will be established for complying with other federal, state, and local requirements (e.g., if the state is presuming the source builds consistent with the efficiency requirement in the EPA-issued Step 2 permit in order to satisfy other state air pollution requirements). In sum, the rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits should not proceed without an understanding of how minor source construction permitting requirements and other legal obligations will be met going forward. Since the EPA generally does not issue construction permits for minor sources except in Indian country, the EPA Regional Offices and sources holding EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits should consult with the appropriate state or local reviewing authorities and develop a plan to ensure that sources remain in compliance with applicable minor source and other legal requirements after rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits.

    As part of the rescission process for EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits, the EPA anticipates that some sources will also want to seek revisions to title V operating permits that include the EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit terms and conditions. Therefore, once an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit is formally rescinded by the EPA or delegated reviewing authority, the EPA or delegated reviewing authority will encourage the applicable title V state or local permitting authorities to take appropriate actions with the sources to resolve any issues related to the incorporation of the EPA-issued PSD Step 2 permit requirements into title V permits that have already been issued and as further described in the OAR Next Steps Memo at page 4. The EPA is not revising its title V regulations in this action because the EPA believes that its existing title V regulations contain sufficient procedures for the actions discussed in the OAR Next Steps Memo and no revisions to EPA's title V regulations are necessary to enable these steps to proceed.

    This action only contains the regulatory revisions necessary to allow for rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits in order to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. In this action, the EPA is not making any other regulatory changes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision or the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. The EPA intends to take additional rulemaking action to remove the vacated provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations and make further revisions to its PSD and title V regulations, as appropriate.

    V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This action amends one provision of the federal PSD program regulations to allow for the rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits in order to conform to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that declared invalid regulations that implemented the requirement that Step 2 sources obtain PSD permits and an amended judgment by the D.C. Circuit vacating those regulations. When effective, this action will authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission. Therefore, this action itself does not compel any specific permit action that will affect the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people. Rather, it ensures that the EPA has the authority to implement the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. Rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits under this rule revision would follow all applicable permitting requirements.

    VI. 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 any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule relieves regulatory burden by providing a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA, which invalidates Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule and of the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit vacating that rule. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector to rescind these EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. Sources can ask for rescission of their EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits at their discretion.

    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. Although the Tribal Air Rule (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011) under the CAA gives tribes the opportunity to request and be granted delegation of the federal PSD program found at 40 CFR 52.21 to issue PSD permits, there are no tribal agencies currently implementing the federal PSD permitting program. As a result, this action will not affect any tribal reviewing authorities. In addition, any tribally-owned sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits have the discretion to request the EPA to rescind their permit. 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

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are contained in the section VI titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations” for this action.

    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 U.S. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines that this action is subject to provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to rulemaking under the CAA. Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.”

    VII. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit within 60 days from May 7, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2) of the CAA).

    Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file any comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register publication, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule to allow the EPA to withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment(s) in the proposed rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, National ambient air quality standards, New source review, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permit rescissions, Preconstruction permitting, Sulfur oxides, Tailoring rule, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 52.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (w)(2) and (3) to read as follows:
    § 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

    (w) * * *

    (2) Any owner or operator of a stationary source or modification who holds a permit for the source or modification may request that the Administrator rescind the permit or a particular portion of the permit if the permit for the source or modification was issued:

    (i) Under § 52.21 as in effect on July 30, 1987 or any earlier version of this section;

    (ii) Under § 52.21 between July 1, 2011 and July 6, 2015 to a source that was classified as a major stationary source under paragraph (b)(1) of this section solely on the basis of potential emissions of greenhouse gases, which were defined as a regulated NSR pollutant through the application of paragraph (b)(49)(v)(a) of this section as in effect during this time period; or

    (iii) Under § 52.21 between July 1, 2011 and July 6, 2015 for a modification that was classified as a major modification under paragraph (b)(2) solely on the basis of an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases, which were defined as a regulated NSR pollutant through the application of paragraph (b)(49)(v)(b) of this section as in effect during this time period.

    (3) The Administrator shall grant an application for rescission if the application shows that this section would not apply to the source or modification. As a result of a decision of the United States Supreme Court, this section does not apply to sources or modifications that meet only the applicability criteria in paragraph (b)(49)(v) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2015-10628 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0636; FRL-9927-24-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County; Revisions to Emissions Inventory Requirements, and General Provisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions add definitions and clarifying changes to the general provisions and add a new emissions inventory regulation that establishes reporting requirements for stationary sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0636. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John Walser (6PD-L), Air Planning Section, telephone (214) 665-7128, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA.

    I. Background

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our February 2, 2015 direct final rule and proposal (80 FR 5471). The rule and proposal stated that if any relevant adverse comments were received by the end of the public comment period on March 4, 2015, the direct final rule would be withdrawn and we would respond to the comments in a subsequent final action. A relevant adverse comment was received during the comment period, and the direct final rule was withdrawn on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 15901). Our February 2, 2015 proposal provides the basis for today's final action. The SIP revisions proposed for approval add definitions and clarifying changes to the general provisions and add a new emissions inventory regulation that establishes reporting requirements for stationary sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.

    II. Response to Comments

    We received one comment letter dated February 20, 2015, from the Sierra Club, regarding our direct final rule.

    Comment: “Acting regional administrator Sam Coleman cannot sign approvals, disapprovals, or any combination of approvals or disapproval, in whole or in part, due to the fact that agency actions on state implementation plans are required to be signed by the regional administrator, Ron Curry, not the current deputy regional administrator as stated in the agency's delegations manual. The manual specifically states that SIP actions can't be redelegated from the regional administrator.”

    Response: As the Acting Regional Administrator, Deputy Regional Administrator Sam Coleman had authority to sign the proposal and direct final action on this State Implementation Plan. On January 15, 2015, the day that the proposal and direct final action were signed, Sam Coleman was acting in the capacity of the Regional Administrator for Ron Curry, who was absent from Region 6 at the time. The following language is listed in the Region 6 Deputy Regional Administrator's position description “In the absence of the Regional Administrator, the Deputy Regional Administrator will perform the duties of the Regional Administrator.” A copy of the Deputy Regional Administrator's position description is included in the docket for this rulemaking. Further, EPA Region 6 Order 1110.11 establishes a line of succession to perform the duties of the Regional Administrator should the Regional Administrator be absent from the office. The Deputy Regional Administrator is the first person listed on that line of succession. A copy of EPA Region 6 Order 1110.11 is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

    The heads of administrative agencies are statutorily vested with the authority to delegate authorities to subordinate officials, 5 U.S.C. 302. Federal Courts have held that rules, including internal delegations and appointments of authority are effective regardless of publication in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations. The EPA Delegations Manual, more specifically Chapter 1-21, provides that the EPA Regional Administrators are delegated the authority, in relevant part, to sign and submit proposed State Implementation Plans, including revisions and compliance schedules. Chapter 1-21 of the EPA Delegations Manual specifically allows the redelegation of these authorities to the Deputies of the Regional Administrators. A copy of Chapter 1-21 of the EPA Delegations Manual is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

    The comment only challenged the Deputy Regional Administrator's authority to sign the Direct Final Action. EPA received no other comments or challenges as to the substance of the proposal or direct final. Therefore, we are finalizing our action to approve this SIP amendment.

    III. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the Act, EPA is approving five revisions to the New Mexico SIP that were submitted on May 6, 2008, November 6, 2009,1 December 15, 2010 and October 18, 2012. We evaluated the state's submittals and determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the CAA section 110 and applicable EPA guidance. In accordance with CAA section 110(l), these revisions will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    1 There are two SIP submittals that were submitted on the same date, November 6, 2009—one revising 20.11.1 NMAC and one revising 20.11.47 NMAC.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.4, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County regulations as described in the Final Action of this rule. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulation.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 6, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart GG—New Mexico 2. In § 52.162(c), the second table titled “EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations” is amended by revising the entry for Part 1 (20.11.1 NMAC) and adding in sequential order an entry for Part 47 (20.11.47 NMAC) to read as follows:
    § 52.1620 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations State citation Title/subject State
  • approval/
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environmental Protection Chapter 11—Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board Part 1 (20.11.1 NMAC) General Provisions 12/15/2010 5/7/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part 47 (20.11.47 NMAC) Emissions Inventory Requirements 10/18/2012 5/7/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-10481 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905; FRL 9927-16-OAR] RIN 2060-AS58 Approval of Alabama's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Birmingham, Alabama AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a request from the state of Alabama for the EPA to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for Jefferson and Shelby counties (“the Birmingham area”). Specifically, the EPA is approving amendments to the regulations to change the RVP standard for the Birmingham area from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline. The EPA has determined that this change to the federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken without prior proposal because the EPA believes that this rulemaking is noncontroversial for the reasons set forth in this preamble, and due to the limited scope of this action.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 6, 2015 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comment by June 8, 2015. If the EPA receives such comments, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905. Please include a total of two copies.

    Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905. Please include two copies. Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patty Klavon, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4476; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

    I. General Information II. Action Being Taken III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement IV. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas V. Alabama's Request To Relax the Federal RVP Requirement for the Birmingham Area VI. Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions I. General Information A. Why is the EPA issuing a direct final rule?

    The EPA is making this revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this revision as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. The rationale for this rulemaking is described in detail below. In the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this revision to the RVP standard that applies in the Birmingham area should adverse comments be filed. If the EPA receives no adverse comment, the EPA will not take further action on the proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment on this rule or any portion of this rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rulemaking. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in Alabama.

    Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS 1 codes Petroleum refineries 324110 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors 424710
  • 424720
  • Gasoline Retail Stations 447110 Gasoline Transporters 484220
  • 484230
  • The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which the EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected by this rule. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    1 North American Industry Classification System.

    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments? 1. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    3. Docket Copying Costs

    You may be required to pay a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.

    II. Action Being Taken

    This direct final rule approves a request from the state of Alabama to change the summertime RVP standard for Jefferson and Shelby counties (“the Birmingham area”) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). In a previous rulemaking, the EPA approved a state implementation plan (SIP) revision from the state of Alabama which provided a technical demonstration that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year in the Birmingham area would not interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Birmingham area. For more information on Alabama's SIP revision, please refer to the April 17, 2015 rulemaking (80 FR 21170).

    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section IV. describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas. Section V. provides information specific to Alabama's request for the Birmingham area. Finally, Section VI. presents the final action in response to Alabama's request.

    III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

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

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

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

    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), the EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, the EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. The EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section IV. of this action.

    The state of Alabama has initiated this change by requesting that the EPA relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard to 9.0 psi for the Birmingham area, which is subject to the 7.8 psi RVP requirement during the summertime ozone season. Accordingly, the state of Alabama provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal RVP requirement in the Birmingham area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. See Section V. of this action for information specific to Alabama's request for the Birmingham area.

    IV. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated to Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for the EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where the EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

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

    Alabama did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when the Birmingham area was redesignated to attainment for either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, Alabama took a conservative approach in developing maintenance plans associated with those redesignation requests by estimating emissions using a federal RVP requirement of 9.0 psi.

    V. Alabama's Request To Relax the Federal RVP Requirement for the Birmingham Area

    In a May 12, 2006 final rule, the EPA approved the Birmingham area's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 71 FR 27631 (May 12, 2006).2 As required, the CAA section 175A maintenance plan provides for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for at least ten years from the effective date of the Birmingham area's redesignation to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This maintenance plan also includes components demonstrating how the Birmingham area will continue to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and provides contingency measures should the Birmingham area violate that NAAQS. The state of Alabama's ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Birmingham area did not remove the state-level 7.0 psi RVP requirement that was in place for the Birmingham area.3

    2 The Birmingham area (i.e., Jefferson and Shelby counties) was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).

    3 In 2001, the EPA approved a state fuel program that imposed a more stringent 7.0 psi requirement for the Birmingham area, per CAA section 211(c)(4)(C). The low-RVP fuel program required that all gasoline sold during the summertime ozone season (June 1-September 15 of each year) in the Birmingham area contain a maximum RVP of 7.0 psi. See 66 FR 56218 (November 7, 2001).

    On March 2, 2012, the state of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a proposed revision to Alabama's SIP removing the state-level RVP requirement to use 7.0 psi RVP gasoline in the Birmingham area during the summertime ozone season. The EPA approved the revision in an April 20, 2012 final rule. See 77 FR 23619. The revision to the Alabama SIP resulted in the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi applying to the Birmingham area.

    On November 14, 2014, the state of Alabama submitted a proposed revision to its SIP demonstrating that removal of the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi for gasoline during the summer ozone season in the Birmingham area would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS. Specifically, the state provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal RVP requirements in the Birmingham area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    The EPA evaluated and approved Alabama's November 14, 2014 SIP revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject to public notice-and-comment. The EPA received two comments on that rulemaking, and those comments were addressed in the final rule for that rulemaking. See 80 FR 21170 (April 17, 2015). The comments received can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0867).

    In this action, the EPA is approving Alabama's request to relax the summertime ozone season RVP standard for the Birmingham area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This is based on the previous approval of Alabama's November 14, 2014 SIP revision, and the fact that the Birmingham area is currently in attainment for all ozone NAAQS.

    VI. Final Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the request from Alabama for the EPA to relax the RVP applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year in the Birmingham area. Specifically, this action amends the applicable RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the Birmingham area (i.e., Jefferson and Shelby counties, Alabama).

    The EPA is making this revision without prior proposal because the EPA views the revision as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this revision to the RVP standard that applies in the Birmingham area should adverse comments be filed. This rule will become effective July 6, 2015 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comments by June 8, 2015.

    If the EPA receives adverse comments on the rule or any portion of the rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. The EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions will become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the subsequent final action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will become effective on July 6, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in the Birmingham area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Birmingham area. This action relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in the Birmingham area during the summertime ozone season (June 1 to September 15 of each year) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h) Volatility Control program. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This final rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

    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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule affects only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in the Birmingham area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Birmingham area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 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 approves a state program.

    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 Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule will relax the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer, possibly resulting in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However, the state of Alabama has demonstrated in the Birmingham area's approved maintenance plan that this action will not interfere with attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section V. of this direct final rule. A copy of Alabama's November 14, 2014 letter requesting that the EPA relax the RVP standard, including the technical analysis demonstrating that the less stringent RVP in the Birmingham area would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS or any other applicable standard, has been placed in the public docket for this action.

    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. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 8, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this direct final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel document of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

    VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 80 as follows:

    PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES 1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).

    2. In § 80.27(a)(2)(ii), the table is amended by: a. Revising the entry for Alabama; and b. Adding footnote 8.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 80.27 Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    Applicable Standards 1 1992 and Subsequent Years State May June July August September Alabama 8 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 8 The standard for Jefferson and Shelby Counties from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through July 6, 2015 was 7.8 psi. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-10616 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 CFR Parts 27 and 37 [Docket No. OST-2006-23985] RIN 2105-AE15 Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Reasonable Modification of Policies and Practices; Correction AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects two typographical errors in the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on March 13, 2015, entitled “Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Reasonable Modification of Policies and Practices.”

    DATES:

    This document is effective July 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jill Laptosky, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Room W96-488, (202) 493-0308, [email protected] For questions related to transit, you may contact Bonnie Graves, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, same address, Room E56-306, (202) 366-0944, [email protected]; and, for rail, Linda Martin, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, same address, Room W31-304, (202) 493-6062, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2015-05646 of March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13253), there were two typographical errors, which are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below. The provisions in this correction document are effective as if they had been included in the document that appeared in the March 13, 2015 Federal Register. Accordingly, the corrections are effective July 13, 2015.

    II. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 2015-05646 of March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13253), make the following corrections:

    § 37.169 [Corrected]
    1. On page 13261, in the second column, in the first paragraph of § 37.169, in the fourth line, remove “§ 37.5(g)(1)” and add “§ 37.5(i)(3)” in its place. Appendix E to Part 37 [Corrected] 2. On page 13261, in the third column, in the first paragraph of Appendix E to Part 37, in the second line, remove “§§ 37.5(g)” and add “§§ 37.5(i)” in its place.
    Issued this 28th day of April, 2015, at Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(c). Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10991 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 RIN 0648-BC09 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP); Amendment 7 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Announcement of location for installation of electronic monitoring equipment.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is announcing that the final location for the May 2015 installations of electronic monitoring (EM) systems required by Amendment 7 will be Fairhaven, MA, in addition to the previously-announced Barnegat Light, NJ. NMFS is also informing vessel owners with Atlantic tunas permits that funding for such EM installation and training is now available on a `first come, first served' basis for a limited number of pelagic longline vessels that were not eligible for Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) based on criteria in Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7). Funding for EM installation and training originally was limited to the 135 vessels eligible for IBQ shares.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for installation dates, times, and locations.

    ADDRESSES:

    Installation of EM systems and equipment during May 2015 is scheduled at the following ports: Fairhaven, MA, and Barnegat Light, NJ. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Warren or Brad McHale at 978-281-9260; or Craig Cockrell at 301-427-8503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield on a continuing basis while preventing overfishing. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS. Management of these species is described in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP may be found online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/documents/fmp/am7/index.html.

    On December 2, 2014, NMFS published the final rule for Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP to, among other things, take actions related to the operation and management of the Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery, including measures applicable to the pelagic longline fishery, such as establishing IBQs and expanding monitoring requirements, including electronic monitoring by camera (79 FR 71510). The regulations implementing the final rule require that an owner or operator of a commercial vessel permitted or required to be permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category and that has pelagic longline gear on board have installed, operate, and maintain an EM system on the vessel. Although most Amendment 7 measures were effective as of January 1, 2015, EM installation must be completed by June 1, 2015, to fish with pelagic longline gear. To facilitate compliance with these requirements and ease any burden on vessel owners, NMFS identified funding for EM equipment, installation and training for the 135 vessels eligible for IBQ under Amendment 7 criteria. NMFS scheduled multiple dates and locations for installation and training on the operation of EM equipment during the months of January through May (79 FR 78310; December 30, 2014). The dates and locations were chosen to reduce the potential for interference with fishing trips and to minimize the distances vessels may have to travel. One of the two locations during the scheduled May time periods (May 11-17; and 19-25) was left undetermined to provide flexibility to consider status of installations from January to the present, and the location of vessels still requiring installation. Based on input from vessel owners, NMFS has determined that the final location will be Fairhaven, MA.

    To encourage vessels to sign up for installation and determine how many of the eligible 135 vessels intended to have an EM system installed, NMFS notified the pelagic longline fleet and set an administrative deadline of April 20, 2015, for eligible vessels to sign up for installation. Based on the number of vessels that already installed EM systems or signed up for installation by the deadline, NMFS has determined that funds are available to pay for installation of EM equipment on a limited number of vessels with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that were not eligible for IBQ shares under Amendment 7 (“non-eligible vessels”). Funding for non-eligible vessels is not guaranteed and will be available on a `first come-first served' basis, as determined by the date scheduled and agreed upon by the vessel owner/operator and Saltwater, Inc. All vessel owners and/or operators must call Saltwater, Inc., the NMFS-approved contractor, at 800-770-3241, to schedule EM installation and training for their vessels at one of the ports specified in Table 1, and to discuss logistics (time, precise location, etc.) with the contractor. All vessel owners and/or operators must call at least a week in advance of the desired date of installation, but are encouraged to contact Saltwater Inc. as soon as possible.

    If a vessel owner and/or operator of a pelagic longline vessel is not able to coordinate installation with the NMFS-approved contracter, Saltwater, Inc., on one of the dates and locations listed in Table 1, the vessel operator is advised to contact Saltwater, Inc., as soon as possible to determine whether another mutually-agreed upon location and date is possible for installation and training. NMFS cannot guarantee that an alternate date will be possible given the limited funding and time available to complete installation of and training on the operation of the EM equipment. Therefore, vessel owners and/or operators will be advised make a concerted effort to adhere to the EM installation schedule in Table 1.

    Table 1—Dates and Locations of Remaining Pre-Scheduled Electronic Monitoring Installations Date range (2015) Name of port May 11 through 17, and May 19 through 25 Fairhaven, Massachusetts. May 11 through 17, and May 19 through 25 Barnegat Light, New Jersey. Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10960 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 88 Thursday, May 7, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0004] RIN 1904-AC94 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Direct Heating Equipment and Pool Heaters AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition to extend test procedure compliance date and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a petition from Williams Furnace Company (Williams) requesting that the Department of Energy (DOE) extend the compliance date for the direct home heating equipment and pool heaters test procedure final rule published on January 6, 2015 by 180 days, with respect to Williams. The compliance date for the direct home heating equipment and pool heaters test procedure final rule is July 6, 2015. Williams states in its petition that due to a clarification in the vented home heating equipment test procedure, this timeframe for compliance does not provide Williams sufficient time to conduct further testing and complete any required design modifications to meet the standard using the new test procedure. DOE seeks comment on Williams' petition to extend the compliance date, with respect to Williams, for the direct heating equipment test procedure by 180 days.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments with respect to Williams' petition until May 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-TP-0004. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    For information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: [email protected]

    Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE published a final rule on January 6, 2015 amending the test procedures for vented home heating equipment and pool heaters (referred to hereafter as “2015 test procedure final rule”). 80 FR 792. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2), effective 180 days after DOE prescribes or establishes a new or amended test procedure, manufacturers must make representations of energy efficiency, including certifications of compliance, using that new or amended test procedure. Accordingly, the mandatory compliance date for the 2015 test procedure final rule is July 6, 2015. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides that on the petition of any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler, filed not later than the 60th day before the expiration of the period involved, the 180-day period may be extended by the Secretary with respect to the petitioner (but in no event for more than an additional 180 days) if the Secretary determines that the requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2) would impose an undue hardship on such petitioner. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3))

    On March 19, 2015, DOE received a petition from Williams requesting that DOE extend the compliance date of the 2015 test procedure final rule by 180 days, with respect to Williams. The basis of the petition is DOE's clarification that section 4.3, “Annual fuel utilization efficiency by the tracer gas method,” of the vented home heating equipment test procedure located at Appendix O to Subpart B of Part 430 (section 4.3), applies only to vented home heating equipment equipped with thermal stack dampers. Under the amended test procedure, only vented home heating equipment equipped with thermal stack dampers may use the tracer gas method to test annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE). Williams states in the petition that based on its observations at a third party lab, it has been using the tracer gas test method to test vented home heating equipment not equipped with thermal stack dampers since 2011. According to the petition, due to the clarification to section 4.3, the compliance time frame to transition to the amended test procedure does not provide Williams sufficient time to conduct further testing and complete any necessary design modifications to its models of vented home heating equipment without thermal stack dampers. Williams states that without the 180-day extension of the July 6, 2015 compliance date, it could potentially be at a competitive disadvantage in the heater marketplace. Williams states that granting the extension will remove the burden of conducting the aforementioned testing and possible design modifications by July 6, 2015 and will allow Williams the necessary time to manage the transition to the amended vented home heating equipment test procedure.

    DOE seeks comment on Williams' petition to extend the July 6, 2015 compliance date for the 2015 test procedure final rule by 180 days, with respect to Williams.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Williams Furnace Company PETITION Before the United States Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy In the Matter of: Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0042, RIN: 1904-AC94, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Direct Heating Equipment and Pool Heaters; Final Rule. 10 CFR part 430 Petition for Reconsideration Via Email: [email protected] Mr. John Cymbalsky Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program, EE-2J U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. SW. Washington, DC 20585 Re: Petition to Extend Implementation Date of July 6, 2015 Test Procedure Dear Mr. Cymbalsky:

    This firm represents Williams Furnace Company (Williams) and respectfully submits this Petition to Extend Implementation Date of July 6, 2015 on behalf of Williams.

    In the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Direct Heating Equipment and Pool Heaters; Final Rule, FR, Vol. 80, No. 3 (6 Jan. 2015), pp. 792-815, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of a Final Rule revising the annual flue utilization efficiency (AFUE) test procedures for vented direct heating equipment and pool heaters. The Final Rule became effective February 5, 2015 and compliance becomes mandatory starting July 6, 2015. For the following reasons, Williams requests a 180-day extension of the July 6, 2015 effective date, which is the maximum allowed by statute.

    Section 4.3 of the Final Rule, “Annual fuel utilization efficiency by the tracer gas method” has been changed to apply only to vented heaters equipped with thermal stack dampers. FR, Vol. 80, No. 3 (6 Jan. 2015), p. 811. Prior to the recent change, the AFUE test procedures stated that “All other types of vented heaters can elect to use the following tracer gas method, as an optional procedure.” It appears that DOE believes that heater manufacturers do not use the tracer gas method to test heaters without thermal stack dampers and do not use such testing results to calculate the AFUE for such units. Therefore, it appears that the DOE considers this a clarification of the AFUE test procedure and not a change to the AFUE test procedure.

    In FR, Vol. 80, No. 3, Section III.C.3. Other Issues, page 798, the DOE states the following:

    “For the reasons described previously, DOE clarifies that the optional use of the tracer gas method does not apply to units without thermal stack dampers. DOE has determined this clarification will not impose any additional burden on manufacturers, since units without thermal stack dampers are already commonly rated using the calculation method in 4.1 or 4.2. Moreover, the DOE has determined that disallowing the tracer gas method for units without thermal stack dampers will not affect efficiency ratings, since it is highly unlikely that manufacturers have rated units without thermal stack dampers using the tracer gas method.”

    Though Williams agrees with the concept of the DOE's “clarification” of the AFUE test procedures for vented heaters without thermal stack dampers, the Final Rule clarification presents a significant issue for Williams and places an unnecessary burden on our company. Williams is a long-time furnace manufacturer which has been in business nearly 100 years. All of Williams' vented heaters are manufactured without thermal stack dampers. Williams has used the tracer gas method for testing AFUE in its vented heaters without thermal stack dampers since May 2011.

    Williams began to use the tracer gas method to test the AFUE in its vented heaters without thermal stack dampers after visiting Intertek Testing Services, Inc. (Intertek) in Cortland, NY, on March 15, 2011. Jesus Rios of Williams met with Intertek's Gregory King and Daniel Bilodeau to discuss and to confirm that Williams' test method for AFUE testing for vented heaters without thermal stack dampers was identical to Intertek's test method for AFUE testing for vented heaters without thermal stack dampers. As you know, Intertek Testing Services, Inc. is the facility approved by and utilized by the DOE.

    While at Intertek, Jesus Rios noticed that Intertek was using a different test method for AFUE testing of vented heaters without thermal stack dampers than Williams was using. Jesus Rios asked Intertek what test method Intertek was using for AFUE testing of vented heaters without thermal stack dampers. Intertek confirmed to Jesus Rios that Intertek was using the tracer gas method to test the AFUE in vented heaters without thermal stack dampers. Subsequently, upon Jesus Rios' return to Williams' facility in Colton, CA, he researched the tracer gas method and contacted Intertek to find out what equipment was necessary to perform the tracer gas method to test the AFUE in vented heaters without thermal stack dampers. Thereafter, Williams purchased the necessary equipment to perform the trace gas method to test the AFUE in vented heaters without thermal stack dampers.

    In May 2011, Williams began using the tracer gas method to test the AFUE in vented heaters without thermal stack dampers after conducting some test runs to make sure Williams was performing the tracer gas method test properly and could confirm that the Williams' tracer as method test results were similar to the tracer gas method test results achieved by Intertek on March 15, 2011, when Intertek tested the Williams' vented heaters without thermal stack dampers. Williams has been using the tracer gas method to test the AFUE in vented heaters without thermal stack dampers continuously since May 2011 up to the present time. The tracer gas method procedure allows for an actual measurement of the draft factor using carbon monoxide, instead of using a standard draft factor of one. Williams believes that the tracer gas method is a more accurate measurement of the AFUE.

    The time frame from now to July 6, 2015, does not provide Williams sufficient time to conduct further testing of and to complete any required design modification to any models of Williams' vented heaters without thermal stack dampers that might be marginally close to passing the required AFUE standards because of the implementation of the Final Rule disallowing the tracer gas method to test the AFUE in vented heaters without thermal stack dampers. Without the 180-day extension of the July 6, 2015 effective date in order to perform the afore-stated testing of and any necessary design modification to its products, Williams could potentially be at a competitive disadvantage in the heater marketplace.

    An extension of the July 6, 2015 date does not disadvantage consumers or hamper the DOE's regulatory activities. Granting the extension of time will allow Williams to improve its products where necessary and to ensure Williams' compliance with the required AFUE standards. Delaying the July 6, 2015 date by 180 days will remove the unnecessary burden on Williams of having to conduct testing on all of models of Williams' vented heaters without thermal stack dampers in the next three and one-half months and will allow Williams the necessary time to manage the transition to the Final Rule revising the AFUE test procedures. For the foregoing reasons, Williams requests that the DOE grant Williams a 180-day extension of the July 6, 2015 effective date of the Final Rule.

    Respectfully submitted, WIEZOREK & PAYNE ANTHONY F. WIEZOREK AFW/le
    [FR Doc. 2015-11025 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007; EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021] Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group: Notice of Open Meetings and Webinar AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings and webinars.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces a series of meetings of the Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group (CAUC CWAF Working Group). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    Unless otherwise specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the meetings will be held at U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Individuals will also have the opportunity to participate by webinar. To register for the webinar and receive call-in information, please register at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=59 .

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meetings will be held:

    • May 11, 2015; • May 12, 2015 (Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201); • May 20, 2015; • May 21, 2015 (950 L`Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC, Room 7140); • June 1-2, 2015; • June 9-10, 2015; and • June 15, 2015 (Webinar only)

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

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

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

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

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11012 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 32 RIN 3038-AE26 Trade Options AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission” or the “CFTC”) is proposing to amend the trade option exemption in its regulations, as described herein, in the following subject areas: Reporting requirements for trade option counterparties that are not swap dealers or major swap participants; recordkeeping requirements for trade option counterparties that are not swap dealers or major swap participants; and certain non-substantive amendments.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE26, by any one of the following methods:

    CFTC Web site: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Comments Online process on the Web site.

    Mail: Send to 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.

    Please submit your comments using only one of these methods.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to 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 CFTC's regulations, 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 a submission from 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 rulemaking 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David N. Pepper, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, at (202) 418-5565 or [email protected]; or Elise Pallais, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 418-5577 or [email protected]; Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    In April 2012, pursuant to section 4c(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA” or the “Act”),1 the Commission issued a final rule to repeal and replace part 32 of its regulations concerning commodity options.2 The Commission undertook this effort to address section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or “Dodd-Frank”),3 which, among other things, amended the CEA to define the term “swap” to include commodity options.4 Notably, § 32.2(a) provides the general rule that commodity option transactions must be conducted in compliance with any Commission rule, regulation, or order otherwise applicable to any other swap.5

    1 7 U.S.C. 6c(b) (providing that “[n]o person shall offer to enter into, enter into or confirm the execution of, any transaction involving any commodity regulated under this chapter which is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as an `option' . . . contrary to any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission prohibiting any such transaction or allowing any such transaction under such terms and conditions as the Commission shall prescribe”).

    2See Commodity Options, 77 FR 25320 (Apr. 27, 2012) (“Commodity Options Release”). The Commission also issued certain conforming amendments to parts 3 and 33 of its regulations. See id. The Commission's regulations are set forth in Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

    3 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

    4See 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(i) (defining “swap” to include “[an] option of any kind that is for the purchase or sale, or based on the value, of 1 or more . . . commodities . . .”); 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(i) (excluding options on futures from the definition of “swap”); 7 U.S.C. 1a(36) (defining an “option” as “an agreement, contract, or transaction that is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, an `option' . . .”). The Commission defines “commodity option” or “commodity option transaction” as “any transaction or agreement in interstate commerce which is or is held out to be of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, an `option,' `privilege,' `indemnity,' `bid,' `offer,' `call,' `put,' `advance guaranty' or `decline guaranty' and which is subject to regulation under the Act and these regulations.” See 17 CFR 1.3(hh).

    5See 17 CFR 32.2.

    In response to requests from commenters, the Commission added a limited exception to this general rule for physically delivered commodity options purchased by commercial users of the commodities underlying the options (the “trade option exemption”).6 Adopted as an interim final rule, § 32.3 provides that qualifying commodity options are generally exempt from the swap requirements of the CEA and the Commission's regulations, subject to certain specified conditions. To qualify for the trade option exemption, a commodity option transaction must meet the following requirements: (1) The offeror is either an eligible contract participant (“ECP”) 7 or a producer, processor, commercial user of, or merchant handling the commodity that is the subject of the commodity option transaction, or the products or byproducts thereof (a “commercial party”) that offers or enters into the commodity option transaction solely for purposes related to its business as such; (2) the offeree is, and the offeror reasonably believes the offeree to be, a commercial party that is offered or enters into the transaction solely for purposes related to its business as such; and (3) the option is intended to be physically settled so that, if exercised, the option would result in the sale of an exempt or agricultural commodity 8 for immediate or deferred shipment or delivery.9

    6See 77 FR at 25326-29. See also 17 CFR 32.2(b); 32.3. The interim final rule continued the Commission's long history of providing special treatment to “trade options” dating back to the Commission's original trade option exemption in 1976. See Regulation and Fraud in Connection with Commodity and Commodity Option Transactions, 41 FR 5108 (Nov. 18, 1976).

    7See 7 U.S.C. 1a(18) (defining “eligible contract participant”); 17 CFR 1.3(m) (further defining “eligible contract participant”).

    8See 7 U.S.C. 1a(20) (defining “exempt commodity” to mean a commodity that is not an agricultural commodity or an “excluded commodity,” as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1a(19)); 17 CFR 1.3(zz)(defining “agricultural commodity”). Examples of exempt commodities include energy commodities and metals.

    9See 17 CFR 32.3(a).

    Commodity option transactions that meet these requirements are generally exempt from the provisions of the Act and any Commission rule, regulation, or order promulgated or issued thereunder, otherwise applicable to any other swap, subject to the conditions enumerated in § 32.3(b)-(d).10 These conditions include: Recordkeeping and reporting requirements; 11 large trader reporting requirements in part 20; 12 position limits under part 151; 13 certain recordkeeping, reporting, and risk management duties applicable to swap dealers (“SDs”) and major swap participants (“MSPs”) in subparts F and J of part 23; 14 capital and margin requirements for SDs and MSPs under CEA section 4s(e); 15 and any applicable antifraud and anti-manipulation provisions.16

    10See 17 CFR 32.3(a), (b)-(d).

    11See 17 CFR 32.3(b).

    12See 17 CFR 32.3(c)(1). Applying § 32.3(c)(1), reporting entities as defined in part 20—swap dealers and clearing members—must consider their counterparty's trade option positions just as they would consider any other swap position for the purpose of determining whether a particular counterparty has a consolidated account with a reportable position. See 17 CFR 20.1. A trade option counterparty would not be responsible for filing large trader reports unless it qualifies as a “reporting entity,” as that term is defined in § 20.1.

    13See 17 CFR 32.3(c)(2). See also Int'l Swaps & Derivatives Ass'n v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 887 F. Supp. 2d 259, 270 (D.D.C. 2012), vacating the part 151 rulemaking, Position Limits for Futures and Swaps, 76 FR 71626 (Nov. 18, 2011).

    14See 17 CFR 32.3(c)(3)-(4). Note that § 32.3(c)(4) explicitly incorporates §§ 23.201 and 23.204, which require counterparties that are SD/MSPs to comply with part 45 recordkeeping and reporting requirements, respectively, in connection with all their swaps activities (including all their trade option activities). See 17 CFR 23.201(c), 23.204(a).

    15See 17 CFR 32.3(c)(5).

    16See 17 CFR 32.3(d). Note that § 32.2 also preserves the continued application of § 32.4, which specifically prohibits fraud in connection with commodity option transactions, to commodity options subject to the trade option exemption. See 17 CFR 32.2, 32.4.

    In adopting § 32.3, the Commission stated that the trade option exemption is generally intended to permit parties to hedge or otherwise enter into commodity option transactions for commercial purposes without being subject to the full Dodd-Frank swaps regime.17 This limited exemption continued the Commission's longstanding practice of providing commercial participants in trade options with relief from certain requirements that would otherwise apply to commodity options.18

    17See 77 FR at 25326, n.39. For example, trade options do not factor into the determination of whether a market participant is an SD or MSP; trade options are exempt from the rules on mandatory clearing; and trade options are exempt from the rules related to real-time reporting of swaps transactions. The provisions identified in this list are not intended to constitute an exclusive or exhaustive list of the swaps requirements from which trade options are exempt.

    18See Regulation and Fraud in Connection with Commodity and Commodity Option Transactions, 41 FR 51808 (Nov. 24, 1976) (adopting an exemption from the general requirement that commodity options be traded on-exchange for commodity option transaction for certain transactions involving commercial parties); Suspension of the Offer and Sale of Commodity Options, 43 FR 16153, 16155 (Apr. 17, 1978) (adopting a rule suspending all trading in commodity options other than such exempt trade options); Trade Options on the Enumerated Agricultural Commodities, 63 FR 18821 (Apr. 16, 1998) (authorizing the off-exchange trading of trade options in agricultural commodities).

    The Commission further explained that the applicable conditions in § 32.3(b)-(d) were primarily intended to preserve a level of visibility into the market for trade options while still reducing the regulatory compliance burden for trade option participants.19 The Commission invited market participants to comment on the trade option exemption, and provided a list of specific questions for commenters' consideration.20

    19See 77 FR at 25326-27.

    20See 77 FR 25329-30. Comments were due on or before June 26, 2012. The comment file is available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1196.

    In the year following the Commission's adoption of the trade option exemption, the Commission's Division of Market Oversight (“DMO”) issued a series of no-action letters granting relief from certain conditions in the trade option exemption.21 CFTC No-Action Letter No. 13-08 (“No-Action Letter 13-08”), which remains in effect, provides that DMO will not recommend that the Commission commence an enforcement action against a market participant that is not an SD or an MSP (a “Non-SD/MSP”) for failing to comply with the part 45 reporting requirements, as required by § 32.3(b)(1), provided that such Non-SD/MSP meets certain conditions, including reporting such exempt commodity option transactions via Form TO 22 and notifying DMO no later than 30 days after entering into trade options having an aggregate notional value in excess of $1 billion during any calendar year (the “$1 Billion Notice”).23

    21See CFTC No-Action Letter No. 12-06 (Aug. 14, 2012), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrlettergeneral/documents/letter/12-06.pdf; CFTC No-Action Letter No. 12-41 (Dec. 5, 2012), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrlettergeneral/documents/letter/12-41.pdf; CFTC No-Action Letter No. 13-08 (Apr. 5, 2013), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrlettergeneral/documents/letter/13-08.pdf.

    22See notes 28-29 and accompanying text, infra.

    23 No-Action Letter 13-08, at 3-4. No-Action Letter 13-08 also grants relief from certain swap recordkeeping requirements in part 45 for a Non-SD/MSP that complies with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in § 45.2, provided that if the counterparty to the trade option at issue is an SD or an MSP, the Non-SD/MSP obtains a legal entity identifier (“LEI”) pursuant to § 45.6. Id. at 4-5. Should the Commission adopt this proposal without significant revision, the relief provided in No-Action Letter 13-08 would be terminated.

    Based on DMO's experience with the trade option exemption following the issuance of No-Action Letter 13-08, and after a review of comments from market participants,24 the Commission is proposing several amendments to the trade option exemption in § 32.3. Generally, these proposed amendments are intended to facilitate use of trade options by commercial market participants to hedge against commercial and physical risks.

    24 In addition to seeking comment following adoption of the trade option exemption itself, see supra note 21, the Commission has sought comment relating to the trade option exemption in connection with other related Commission actions. See e.g., Further Definition of “Swap,” Security-Based Swap,” and “Security-Based Swap Agreement”; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48207 (Aug. 13, 2012); Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection, Comment Request: Form TO, Annual Notice Filing for Counterparties to Unreported Trade Options, 77 FR 74647 (Dec. 17, 2012); Agency Information Collection Activities under OMB Review, 78 FR 11856 (Feb. 20, 2013); Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality, 79 FR 69073 (Nov. 20, 2014). CFTC staff also invited comment in connection with an April 2014 public roundtable regarding issues concerning end users and the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission has reviewed these comment letters and taken into account any significant issues raised therein in issuing this proposal. The related comment files are available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ReleasesWithComments.aspx.

    The Commission is proposing modifications to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in § 32.3(b) that are applicable to trade option counterparties that are Non-SD/MSPs, as well as a non-substantive amendment to § 32.3(c) to eliminate the reference to the now-vacated part 151 position limits requirements. These proposed amendments are generally intended to relax reporting and recordkeeping requirements where two commercial parties enter into trade options with each other in connection with their respective businesses while maintaining regulatory insight into the market for unreported trade options. The Commission requests comment on all aspects of its proposal.

    II. Explanation of the Proposed Rules A. Reporting Requirements for Non-SD/MSPs

    Pursuant to § 32.3(b)(1), the determination as to whether a trade option must be reported pursuant to part 45 is based on the status of the parties to the trade option and whether or not they have previously reported swaps to an appropriate swap data repository (“SDR”) pursuant to part 45.25 If a trade option involves at least one counterparty (whether as buyer or seller) that has (1) become obligated to comply with the reporting requirements of part 45, (2) as a reporting party, (3) during the twelve month period preceding the date on which the trade option is entered into, (4) in connection with any non-trade option swap trading activity, then such trade option must also be reported pursuant to the reporting requirements of part 45. If only one counterparty to a trade option has previously complied with the part 45 reporting provisions, as described above, then that counterparty shall be the part 45 reporting counterparty for the trade option. If both counterparties have previously complied with the part 45 reporting provisions, as described above, then the part 45 rules for determining the reporting counterparty will apply.26

    25See 17 CFR 32.3(b)(1).

    26See 17 CFR 45.8. As discussed above, No-Action Letter 13-08 provides non-time-limited, conditional no-action relief for Non-SD/MSP counterparties to trade options from part 45 reporting requirements. See supra note 22 and accompanying text.

    To the extent that neither counterparty to a trade option has previously submitted reports to an SDR as a result of its swap trading activities as described above, then such trade option is not required to be reported pursuant to part 45. Instead, § 32.3(b)(2) requires that each counterparty to an otherwise unreported trade option (i.e., a trade option that is not required to be reported to an SDR by either counterparty pursuant to § 32.3(b)(1) and part 45) complete and submit to the Commission an annual Form TO filing providing notice that the counterparty has entered into one or more unreported trade options during the prior calendar year.27 Form TO requires an unreported trade option counterparty to: (1) Provide its name and contact information; (2) identify the categories of commodities (agricultural, metals, energy, or other) underlying one or more unreported trade options which it entered into during the prior calendar year; and (3) for each commodity category, identify the approximate aggregate value of the underlying physical commodities that it either delivered or received in connection with the exercise of unreported trade options during the prior calendar year. Counterparties to otherwise unreported trade options must submit a Form TO filing by March 1 following the end of any calendar year during which they entered into one or more unreported trade options.28 In adopting § 32.3, the Commission stated that Form TO was intended to provide the Commission with a level of visibility into the market for unreported trade options that is “minimally intrusive,” thereby allowing it to identify market participants from whom it should collect additional information, or whom it should subject to additional reporting obligations in the future.29

    27 Form TO is set out in appendix A to part 32 of the Commission's regulations.

    28 In 2014, approximately 330 Non-SD/MSPs submitted Form TO filings to the Commission, approximately 200 of which indicated delivering or receiving less than $10 million worth of physical commodities in connection with exercising unreported trade options in 2013.

    29See 77 FR at 25327-28.

    Commenters have generally expressed the opinion that the reporting requirements in § 32.3(b) are overly burdensome for Non-SD/MSPs. Commenters have argued that these costs have discouraged commercial end users from entering into trade options to meet their commercial and risk management needs, thereby reducing liquidity and raising prices.30

    30See American Gas Association (“AGA”) (Dec. 22, 2013) at 3, 16-17 (observing that “widespread concern” regarding the regulatory risk posed by Form TO has led some counterparties to avoid entering into trade options, leading to a rise in the cost of contracting); American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association (“APPA/NRECA/EEI/EPSA”) (Feb. 15, 2013) at 7-8 (stating that § 32.3(b)'s application of the part 45 reporting requirement “imposes a regulatory burden on the non-SD/MSP and may discourage parties from entering into any “swaps” for which it is a reporting party, and from entering into nonfinancial commodity option hedging transactions with parties that are not SD/MSPs.”).

    With respect to the part 45 reporting requirements, commenters have noted that Non-SD/MSPs may be required to comply with part 45 solely on the basis of the “unusual circumstance” of having had to report a single historical or inter-affiliate swap during the same twelve-month period.31 Commenters have further noted that Non-SD/MSPs may not have the infrastructure in place to support part 45 reporting to an SDR and that instituting such infrastructure would impose a costly burden, particularly for small end users.32

    31See International Energy Credit Association (“IECA”) (Feb. 15, 2013) at 3; AGA (June 26, 2012) at 8; APPA/NRECA/EEI/EPSA (June 26, 2012) at 7-8; Coalition of Physical Energy Companies (“COPE”) (June 25, 2012) at 9; Commercial Energy Working Group (“CEWG”) (Jun 26, 2012) at 4.

    32See, e.g., APPA/NRECA/EEI/EPSA (Feb. 15, 2013) at 2 (stating that only SDs and MSPs should be required to report trade options under part 45 out of concern that part 45 would impose an “increased regulatory burden, particularly for small entities”); IECA (Feb. 15, 2013) at 2-3 (stating that, for Non-SD/MSPs, the burden of reporting trade options under part 45 would be “extremely onerous, if not a practical impossibility”); AGA (June 26, 2012) at 9 (recommending that the part 45 reporting requirements not apply to Non-SD/MSPs with respect to their trade option transactions).

    With respect to Form TO reporting, commenters have argued that it is costly and burdensome for Non-SD/MSPs, particularly for small end users, to track, calculate and assemble the requisite data. Commenters have explained that the systems and processes used by many Non-SD/MSPs to create, store, and track their trade options are separate and distinct from their financial systems and are typically not designed to track the kind of information required by Form TO.33 Recent comments offer specific monetary estimates that suggest the costs involved with preparing the Form TO filing may be significant.34

    33See, e.g., CEWG (Feb. 6, 2013) at 1 (“Unlike systems designed to capture and report data for financial transactions, physical systems are primarily designed to manage logistics related to deliveries and inventory quantities at trade locations. Some physical systems of record do not contain market price information, execution venues, or other option characteristics, such as premiums and strike prices, which make reporting under Part 45 additionally challenging.”). See also Coalition for Derivative End Users (“Coalition”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 10; Commercial Energy Working Group and Commodity Markets Council (“CEWG/CMC”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 5; ICEA (Dec. 22, 2012) at 9; American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Large Public Power Council (“APPA/NRECA/LPPC”) (Apr. 17, 2014) at 4; AGA (June 26, 2012) at 7.

    34See American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public Power Council (“APPA/NRECA/EEI/EPSA/LPPC”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 9 (stating that one of its members spent more than $100,000 in information technology costs to implement a mechanism to track exercises of nonfinancial commodity options); IECA (Dec. 22, 2014) at 8 (estimating, based on its survey of market participants, that completing Form TO and complying with No-Action Letter 13-08 requires 80 minutes per contract); Southern Company Services, Inc., acting on behalf of and as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Power Company (“Southern”) at 8-9 (estimating that, for Southern, two full-time employees require 30 minutes to two hours per contract to complete Form TO, at an average cost of $200 per contract and a total annual cost of about $12,000); Transcript of Staff End-User Roundtable (James Allison, ConocoPhillips) at 161 (estimating the marginal cost of Form TO is “on the order of” one full-time employee and possibly higher for smaller entities with less in the way of compliance systems and procedures), transcript available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/transcript040314.pdf.

    1. Proposed Action: Eliminate Part 45 Reporting for Non-SD/MSPs

    As discussed above, Commission regulation § 32.3(b)(1) requires that a Non-SD/MSP counterparty to a trade option that has become obligated to report a non-trade option swap within the past calendar year must comply with part 45 reporting requirements. The Commission proposes to amend § 32.3(b) such that a Non-SD/MSP will under no circumstances be subject to part 45 reporting requirements with respect to its trade option activities.35 This amendment is intended to reduce burdens for Non-SD/MSP trade option counterparties, many of whom, as commenters explained, face technical and logistical impediments that prevent timely compliance with part 45 reporting requirements.

    35 Note that trade option counterparties that are SD/MSPs would continue to comply with the swap data reporting requirements of part 45, including where the counterparty is a Non-SD/MSP, as they would in connection with any other swap. See 17 CFR 32.3(b)(4).

    2. Proposed Action: Eliminate the Form TO Notice Filing Requirement

    The Commission proposes to amend Commission regulation § 32.3(b) such that a Non-SD/MSP would not be required to report otherwise unreported trade options on Form TO. The Commission further proposes to delete Form TO from appendix A to part 32. These amendments are intended to reduce reporting burdens for Non-SD/MSP trade option counterparties, which, commenters have explained, may face significant costs in preparing Form TO.

    The Commission preliminarily believes that there are surveillance benefits from Form TO data but recognizes that completing Form TO imposes costs and burdens on Non-SD/MSPs, especially small end users. Moreover, Non-SD/MSPs would, under the proposal, remain subject, via § 32.3(b), to the recordkeeping requirements in § 45.2, which require market participants to maintain full and complete records and to open their records to inspection upon the Commission's request.36 Consequently, the Commission would remain able to collect additional information concerning unreported trade options as necessary to fulfill its regulatory mission.37

    36See 17 CFR 45.2(b), 45.2(h). As discussed infra at notes 53-55 and accompanying text, the Commission proposes to maintain recordkeeping requirements in § 32.3(b)-(c) for trade option participants, subject to certain clarifying amendments.

    37See 17 CFR 1.31(a)(2), 45.2(h).

    3. Proposed Action: New $1 Billion Notice Provision for Non-SD/MSPs

    The Commission proposes to amend § 32.3(b) by adding a requirement that Non-SD/MSP trade option counterparties must provide notice by email to DMO within 30 days after entering into trade options, whether reported or unreported, that have an aggregate notional value in excess of $1 billion in any calendar year (the “1 Billion Notice”).38 In the alternative, a Non-SD/MSP may provide notice by email to DMO that it reasonably expects to enter into trade options, whether reported or unreported, having an aggregate notional value in excess of $1 billion during any calendar year (the “Alternative Notice”).39

    38 As discussed above, the no-action relief provided by No-Action Letter 13-08 to Non-SD/MSP trade option counterparties from part 45 reporting requirements is also conditioned on the Non-SD/MSP providing DMO with a $1 Billion Notice. See supra note 24 and accompanying text. In 2013 and 2014, DMO received $1 Billion Notices from nine and sixteen Non-SD/MSPs, respectively. Most of these $1 Billion Notices were filed on behalf of large energy companies.

    39 Non-SD/MSPs who provide the Alternative Notice would not be required to demonstrate that they actually entered into trade options with an aggregate notional value of $1 billion or more in the applicable calendar year. Collectively, the $1 Billion Notice and the Alternative Notice are referred to as the “Notice Requirement.”

    For purposes of the proposed Notice Requirement, the aggregate notional value of trade options entered into, or expected to be entered into, should be calculated by multiplying (1) the maximum volume of the commodities that could be bought or sold pursuant to the trade options entered into by (2) the strike or exercise price per unit of the commodity. If the strike or exercise price is not a fixed number in the trade option agreement and, instead, is to be determined pursuant to a reference price source that is not determinable at the time the trade option is entered into, then the foregoing calculation should be based on a current market price of the reference commodity at the time the option is entered into. For example, if the trade option involves crude oil that is deliverable on, or similar to, crude oil that is deliverable on the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”), then the price of the nearby NYMEX crude oil futures contract may be used as the market price of the commodity at the time the trade option is entered into.40

    40 The forgoing guidance with regard to how to calculate the notional value of trade options is similar to that provided in No-Action Letter 13-08 but has been revised to clarify that the focus of the $1 Billion Notice is the value of the trade option at time of contract initiation, not at exercise.

    In light of the other proposed amendments that would generally remove reporting requirements for Non-SD/MSP counterparties to trade options, the proposed Notice Requirement would provide the Commission insight into the size of the market for unreported trade options and the identities of the most significant market participants. Additionally, the proposed Notice Requirement would help guide the Commission's efforts to collect additional information through its authority to obtain copies of books or records required to be kept pursuant to the CEA and the Commission's regulations should market circumstances dictate.41

    41See supra note 38 and accompanying text.

    B. Recordkeeping requirements for Non-SD/MSPs

    Commission regulation § 32.3(b) provides that in connection with any commodity option transaction that is eligible for the trade option exemption, every counterparty shall comply with the swap data recordkeeping requirements of part 45, as otherwise applicable to any swap transaction.42 In discussing the trade option exemption conditions, however, the Commission noted in the preamble to the Commodity Options Release that “[t]hese conditions include a recordkeeping requirement for any trade option activity, i.e., the recordkeeping requirements of 17 CFR 45.2,” and did not reference or discuss any other provision of part 45 that contains recordkeeping requirements.43

    42See 17 CFR 32.3(b).

    43See 77 FR at 25327.

    Pursuant to Commission regulation § 45.2, records must be maintained by all trade option participants and made available to the Commission as specified therein.44 However, § 45.2 applies different recordkeeping requirements, depending on the nature of the counterparty. For example, if a trade option counterparty is an SD/MSP, it would be subject to the recordkeeping provisions of § 45.2(a). If a counterparty is a Non-SD/MSP, it would be subject to the less stringent recordkeeping requirements of § 45.2(b).45 In adopting § 32.3(b), the Commission stated that the recordkeeping condition was intended to ensure that trade option participants are able to provide pertinent information regarding their trade options activity to the Commission, if requested.46

    44 17 CFR 32.3(b); 45.2(h).

    45 In the case of Non-SD/MSPs, the primary recordkeeping requirements are set out in § 45.2(b), which essentially requires keeping basic business records—i.e., “full, complete and systematic records, together with all pertinent data and memoranda, with respect to each swap in which they are a counterparty.” Non-SD/MSPs are also subject to the other general recordkeeping requirements of § 45.2, such as the requirement that records must be maintained for 5 years and must be retrievable within 5 days. See 17 CFR 45.2(b).

    46See 77 FR at 25327.

    Additional recordkeeping requirements in part 45, separate and apart from those specified in § 45.2 and which would apply to all trade option counterparties by operation of § 32.3(b) include: 47

    47 As discussed above, No-Action Letter 13-08 provides no-action relief from certain swap recordkeeping requirements in part 45 for a Non-SD/MSP that complies with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in § 45.2, provided that if the counterparty to the trade option at issue is an SD or an MSP, the Non-SD/MSP obtains an LEI pursuant to § 45.6 and also provides DMO with a $1 Billion Notice. See supra note 24 and accompanying text.

    • each swap must be identified in all recordkeeping by the use of a unique swap identifier (“USI”); 48

    48 17 CFR 45.5.

    • each counterparty to any swap must be identified in all recordkeeping by means of a single LEI; 49 and

    49 Each counterparty to any swap subject to the Commission's jurisdiction must be identified in all recordkeeping and all swap data reporting pursuant to part 45 by means of a single LEI as specified in § 45.6. See 17 CFR 45.6.

    • each swap must be identified in all recordkeeping by means of a unique product identifier (“UPI”) and product classification system.50

    50 17 CFR 45.7.

    1. Proposed Action: Modify the Recordkeeping Requirements for Non-SD/MSPs

    The Commission proposes to amend § 32.3(b) to clarify that trade option counterparties that are Non-SD/MSPs need not identify their trade options in all recordkeeping by means of either a USI or UPI, as required by §§ 45.5 and 45.7.51 Rather, with respect to part 45 recordkeeping requirements, trade option counterparties that are Non-SD/MSPs must only comply with the applicable recordkeeping provisions in § 45.2,52 with the following qualification: The Non-SD/MSP trade option counterparty must obtain an LEI pursuant to § 45.6 and provide such LEI to its counterparty if that counterparty is an SD/MSP.53

    51See supra notes 49 and 49 and accompanying text.

    52 Trade option counterparties that are SD/MSPs would continue to comply with the swap data recordkeeping requirements of part 45, as they would in connection with any other swap. See 17 CFR 32.3(b)(4).

    53 For the avoidance of doubt, Non-SD/MSPs would not otherwise be required to comply with § 45.6.

    These amendments are intended to reduce recordkeeping burdens for Non-SD/MSP trade option counterparties, while allowing a trade option counterparty that is an SD/MSP to comply with applicable part 45 reporting obligations by properly identifying its Non-SD/MSP trade option counterparty by that counterparty's LEI in all recordkeeping as well as all swap data reporting, just as the SD/MSP would for any other swap.54

    54 An SD/MSP that otherwise would report the trade option at issue pursuant to § 32.3(b)(1) is required to identify its counterparty to the trade option by that counterparty's LEI in all recordkeeping as well as all swap data reporting. See, e.g., 17 CFR 23.201, 23.204, and 45.6. See supra note 36 and 17 CFR 45.6.

    C. Non-substantive amendment to Commission regulation § 32.3(c)

    Commission regulation § 32.3(c)(2) subjects trade options to part 151 position limits, to the same extent that part 151 would apply in connection with any other swap.55 However, as stated above, part 151 has been vacated.56 Furthermore, trade options are not subject to position limits under the Commission's current part 150 position limit regime.57

    55See 17 CFR 32.3(c)(2).

    56See supra note 13 and accompanying text.

    57 Under current § 150.2, position limits apply to agricultural futures in nine listed commodities and options on those futures. Since trade options are not options on futures, § 150.2 position limits do not currently apply to such transactions. See 17 CFR 150.2.

    Therefore, since position limits do not currently apply to trade options, the Commission proposes to amend § 32.3(c) by deleting § 32.3(c)(2), including the reference to vacated part 151. This would not be a substantive change. Although commenters have requested assurance that position limits will not apply to trade options in the future,58 the Commission preliminarily believes that any future application of position limits would be best addressed in the context of the pending position limits rulemaking, which remains in the proposed rulemaking stage.59

    58See, e.g., Coalition (Dec. 22, 2014) at 11; AGA (Apr. 17, 2014) at 4; IECA (Apr. 17. 2014) at 28; Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (April 17, 2014) at 5; CEWG (Feb. 6, 2013) at 3; COPE (June 26, 2012) at 6.

    59 On December 12, 2013, the Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish speculative position limits for 28 exempt and agricultural commodity futures and options contracts and the physical commodity swaps that are economically equivalent to such contracts, including trade options. See Position Limits for Derivatives, Proposed Rules, 78 FR 75680 (Dec. 12, 2013) (“Position Limits Proposal”). Therein, the Commission proposed replacing the cross-reference to vacated part 151 in § 32.3(c)(2) with a cross-reference to amended part 150 position limits. See 78 FR at 75711. As an alternative in the Position Limits Proposal, the Commission proposed to exclude trade options from speculative position limits and proposed an exemption for commodity derivative contracts that offset the risk of trade options. Also note that under the Position Limits Proposal, trade options based on commodities or delivery points other than those underlying the core referenced futures contracts specified in the Position Limits Proposal would not be subject to speculative position limits. The Commission recently extended the comment period for the Position Limits Proposal until March 28, 2015. See 80 FR 10022 (Feb. 25, 2015).

    III. Related Matters A. Cost Benefit Analysis 1. Background

    As discussed above, the Commission is proposing amendments to the trade option exemption in § 32.3 that would: (1) Eliminate the part 45 reporting requirement for Non-SD/MSPs; (2) eliminate the Form TO filing requirement; (3) require those Non-SD/MSPs that have the most significant volume in trade options to provide DMO with either (i) the $1 Billion Notice or (ii) the Alternate Notice; and (4) clarify that Non-SD/MSPs are required to comply with the swap data recordkeeping requirements of § 45.2 only, as opposed to all part 45 recordkeeping requirements; (5) require Non-SD/MSPs that enter into exempt trade options with SD/MSPs to obtain an LEI pursuant to § 45.6 and provide it to their SD/MSP counterparties; (6) eliminate reference to the now-vacated part 151 position limits.60 In issuing this proposal, the Commission has reviewed all relevant comment letters and taken into account significant issues raised therein.61

    60 As stated above, Non-SD/MSPs would not otherwise be required to comply with § 45.6.

    61See supra note 24. See also note 59 (stating that the Commission has determined to address the application of position limits to trade options in the pending position limits rulemaking).

    The Commission believes that the baseline for this cost and benefit consideration is existing § 32.3. Although No-Action Letter 13-08, as discussed above, currently offers no-action relief that is substantially similar to the relief that the proposed amendments would grant certain market participants and end users, as a no-action letter, it only represents the position of the issuing Division or Office and cannot bind the Commission or other Commission staff.62 Consequently, the Commission believes that No-Action Letter 13-08 should not set or affect the baseline against which the Commission considers the costs and benefits of the proposal.

    62See 17 CFR 140.99(a)(2). See also No-Action Letter 13-08 at 5.

    2. Costs

    The Commission believes that the proposal would, overall, reduce the regulatory burdens and associated costs imposed by the conditions for relief in § 32.3(b). Although the Commission understands that some Non-SD/MSPs may experience costs associated with tracking the aggregate notional value of their trade option transactions for purposes of the $1 Billion Notice,63 Non-SD/MSPs that reasonably expect to enter into trade options in excess of $1 billion could opt to avoid those tracking costs by instead submitting the Alternative Notice. The Commission also believes that many Non-SD/MSPs may avoid any costs associated with the $1 Billion Notice because they would fall significantly below the $1 billion threshold and thus would not need to track and calculate their aggregate trade option activity.64 Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposal would otherwise significantly reduce the regulatory burdens imposed by § 32.3(b), particularly through the elimination of part 45 reporting requirements for trade option counterparties that are Non-SD/MSPs and the Form TO filing requirement, each of which commenters have described as burdensome.65 The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposal would not impose any additional costs on any other market participants, the markets themselves, or the general public. The Commission invites comment regarding the nature and extent of these and any other costs that could result from adoption of the proposal and, to the extent they can be quantified, monetary and other estimates thereof.

    63See Coalition for Derivatives End-Users (Dec. 22, 2014) at 10; American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public Power Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Dec. 22, 2014) at 9.

    64 As stated in note 38, supra, of the 330 Non-SD/MSPs who submitted Form TO filings in 2014, only sixteen also submitted a $1 Billion Notice to DMO.

    65See supra note 34 (citing recent comment letters offering costs estimates for compliance with the Form TO reporting requirement).

    3. Benefits

    The Commission believes that the proposal would provide relief for Non-SD/MSPs entering into trade options by eliminating the part 45 and Form TO reporting obligations. The Commission believes that the proposed Notice Requirement would also support the regulatory goals of ensuring market integrity and protecting the public by allowing the Commission insight into the size of the market for unreported trade options and the ability to identify significant market participants, who the Commission may wish to contact if concerns about the market for trade options arise. The Commission invites comment regarding the nature and extent of these and any other benefits that could result from adoption of the proposal—including benefits to other market participants, the market itself or the general public—and, to the extent they can be quantified, monetary and other estimates thereof.

    4. Section 15(a) Factors

    Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.66 Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15(a) factors.

    66 7 U.S.C. 19(a).

    a. Protection of Market Participants and the Public

    The Commission recognizes that there may be trade-offs between reducing regulatory burdens and ensuring that the Commission has sufficient information to fulfill its regulatory mission. The proposed amendments to § 32.3 are intended to reduce some of the regulatory burdens on end users while still maintaining insight into the market for trade options to protect the public.

    b. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Markets

    The Commission believes that the proposed amendments to § 32.3 could increase efficiency for participants in the market for trade options by reducing the reporting burdens on Non-SD/MSPs, allowing them to reallocate those resources to other more efficient purposes. The Commission also believes that the proposed Notice Requirement would promote market integrity by providing the Commission with information to use in its market oversight role, thereby fulfilling the purposes of the CEA.67 The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments to § 32.3 will not have any competitiveness impact.

    67See, e.g., CEA section 3(b), 7 U.S.C. 5 (stating that it is a purpose of the CEA to deter disruptions to market integrity).

    c. Price Discovery

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments to § 32.3 would likely not have a significant impact on price discovery. Given that trade options are not subject to the real-time reporting requirements applicable to other swaps, meaning that current prices of consummated trade options are likely not available to many market participants, the Commission preliminarily believes any effect on price discovery would be negligible.

    d. Sound Risk Management Practices

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments would not have a meaningful effect on the risk management practices of the affected market participants and end users. Although the proposal is intended, in part, to reduce some of the regulatory burdens on certain market participants and end users, affected Non-SD/MSPs would still be required to maintain complete and accurate records in a manner that is readily available for production to regulators.

    e. Other Public Interest Considerations

    The Commission has not identified any other public interest considerations for this rulemaking.

    5. Request for Comment

    The Commission invites comment on all aspects of its preliminary consideration of the costs and benefits associated with the proposal and the five factors the Commission is required to consider under CEA section 15(a). In addressing these areas and any other aspect of the Commissions preliminary cost-benefit considerations, the Commission encourages commenters to submit any data or other information they may have quantifying and/or qualifying the costs and benefits of the proposal.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (the “RFA”) 68 requires that Federal agencies consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities” 69 and, if so, the agencies must provide a regulatory flexibility analysis reflecting the impact. Whenever an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any rule, pursuant to the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,70 a regulatory flexibility analysis or certification typically is required.71

    68 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    69See 5 U.S.C. 601(6) (defining “small entity” to include a “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction,” as those terms are defined in the RFA and by reference to the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 et seq.).

    70 5 U.S.C. 553. The Administrative Procedure Act is found at 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

    71See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603-605.

    As discussed above, the proposed amendments would affect the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for Non-SD/MSP counterparties relying on the trade option exemption in § 32.3. Pursuant to the eligibility requirements in § 32.3(a), such a Non-SD/MSP may be an ECP and/or a commercial party (i.e., a producer, processor, or commercial user of, or a merchant handling the exempt or agricultural commodity that is the subject of the commodity option transaction, or the products or by-products thereof) offering or entering into the trade option solely for purposes related to its business as such. Although the Commission has previously determined that ECPs are not small entities for RFA purposes,72 the Commission is not in a position to determine whether non-ECP commercial parties affected by the amendments would include a substantial number of small entities on which the rule would have a significant economic impact because § 32.3 does not subject such entities to a minimum net worth requirement, allowing commercial entities of any economic status to enter into exempt trade options. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission offers for public comment this initial regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of the proposal on small entities:

    72See Opting Out of Segregation, 66 FR 20740, 20743 (Apr. 25, 2001).

    1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered.

    The Commission is proposing to modify the trade option exemption in § 32.3 in response to comments from Non-SD/MSPs that the regulatory burdens currently imposed by § 32.3 are unnecessarily burdensome.

    2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposal.

    The objective of the proposal is to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting obligations for Non-SD/MSPs while still providing the Commission insight into the size of the market for unreported trade options and the identities of the most significant participants in the market. As stated above, the legal basis for the proposed rule is the Commission's plenary options authority in CEA section 4c(b).

    3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.

    The small entities to which the proposed amendments may apply are those commercial parties that would not qualify as ECPs and/or that fall within the definition of a “small entity” under the RFA, including size standards established by the Small Business Administration.73 Although more than 300 Non-SD/MSPs have reported their use of trade options to the Commission through Form TO, the limited information provided by Form TO is not sufficient for the Commission to determine whether and how many of those Non-SD/MSPs qualify as small entities under the RFA.

    73See id. See also 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (defining “small business” to have the same meaning as the term “small business concern” in the Small Business Act); 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1) (defining “small business concern” to include an agricultural enterprise with annual receipts not in excess of $750,000); 13 CFR 121.201 (establishing size standards for small business concerns).

    4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

    The proposed amendments would relieve Non-SD/MSPs, which may include small entities, from certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would otherwise apply to them. While the proposal would impose a new requirement on certain Non-SD/MSPs to provide DMO by email with either the $1 Billion Notice or the Alternative Notice annually, the Commission does not believe that this requirement would impact many small entities, if any at all. Given the significant volume of trade options required to trigger the proposed Notice Requirement, the Commission expects that it would apply to only a small number of entities and that such entities would likely not be small entities.74 The Commission's view is supported by DMO's experience with the $1 Billion Notice provision in No-Action Letter 13-08: As indicated above, DMO received a $1 Billion Notice from only sixteen of the more than 300 Non-SD/MSPs that filed a Form TO in 2014, and all such entities are generally well-known in their respective industries.75

    74See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (defining a “small business concern” generally to include an enterprise that is “not dominant in its field of operation”).

    75 See supra note 37 and accompanying text.

    Filing the $1 Billion Notice would require affected Non-SD/MSPs to track and aggregate the notional values of their trade options. The Commission expects that this general information should be readily compiled and aggregated using a spreadsheet or other existing software and would not require any professional skills beyond those typically held by any commercial party. Furthermore, Non-SD/MSPs that reasonably expect to enter into trade options with an aggregate notional value in excess of $1 billion during the calendar year may, in line with the Alternative Notice, simply send an email to DMO to that effect, thereby avoiding having to track the notional values of their trade options.

    5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule.

    The Commission is unaware of any Federal rules that could duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposal.

    6. A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. These may include, for example, (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.

    A potential alternative to relieving Non-SD/MSPs, which may include small entities, from certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be to either (1) not amend the current rule, which would maintain recordkeeping and reporting requirements that Non-SD/MSPs have represented are onerous, or (2) create a rule with more specific reporting parameters for specific entities. While the proposal would impose the new annual Notice Requirement on certain Non-SD/MSPs, overall, the Commission believes that the proposed amendments would have a positive economic impact on Non-SD/MSPs that are small entities because they would generally relax reporting requirements across all trade option counterparties that are Non-SD/MSPs. Although the proposal could expressly limit application of the Notice Requirement to entities that do not meet the RFA definition of a small entity, the Commission does not believe that is necessary because, as stated above, the Commission does not expect many small entities to be affected by that requirement, if any at all. Furthermore, even if a small entity were to enter into trade options with an aggregate notional value in excess of $1 billion during a calendar year, the Commission believes that such information would nevertheless be important to the Commission's insight into the market for otherwise unreported trade options and may cause the Commission to adjust the threshold for notice reporting above $1 billion.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (“PRA”) are, among other things, to minimize the paperwork burden to the private sector, ensure that any collection of information by a government agency is put to the greatest possible uses, and minimize duplicative information collections across the government.76 The PRA applies to all information, “regardless of form or format,” whenever the government is “obtaining, causing to be obtained [or] soliciting” information, and includes required “disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions,” when the information collection calls for “answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on, ten or more persons.” 77 The PRA requirements have been determined to include not only mandatory but also voluntary information collections, and include both written and oral communications.78 Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). The Commission seeks to amend the OMB control number 3038-0106—Form TO, Annual Notice Filing for Counterparties to Unreported Trade Option. Therefore the Commission is submitting this proposal to OMB for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.

    76See 44 U.S.C. 3501.

    77See 44 U.S.C. 3502.

    78See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(1).

    With the exception of the proposed Notice Requirement, the Commission believes that these proposed rules will not impose any new information collection requirements that require approval of OMB under the PRA. As a general matter, the proposed rules would relax reporting and recordkeeping requirements for Non-SD/MSPs entering into trade options with each other in connection with their respective businesses, including the withdrawal and removal of Form TO. As such, the proposed rules will not result in the creation of any new information collection subject to OMB review or approval under the PRA, except for the annual Notice Requirement. Therefore, these proposed rules do not, by themselves, impose any new information collection requirements other than those that already exist in connection with trade options pursuant to part 32 of the Commission's regulations, except for the proposed Notice Requirement.

    As noted above, the Commission proposes to add the Notice Requirement for trade option counterparties that are Non-SD/MSPs, which requirement is considered to be a collection of information within the meaning of the PRA. Accordingly, the Commission is amending OMB control number 3038-0106 and submitting to OMB an information collection request for review and approval. If approved, this new collection of information will be mandatory.

    The Commission anticipates that affected Non-SD/MSPs may incur certain costs in complying with the proposed $1 Billion Notice, including those related to calculating the aggregate notional value of trade options entered into, and to drafting the notice email and submitting it to DMO. There are no additional capital costs associated with this collection because all respondents are already required to create and store detailed records of their trade option transactions pursuant to § 32.3(b). The Commission estimates that twenty respondents will file a total of one response each annually, and the estimated average number of hours per response would be two. Therefore, the Commission estimates the total burden hours associated with OMB control number 3038-0106 to be 40 hours.

    The Commission notes that the proposed amendments would relieve trade option counterparties that are Non-SD/MSPs from certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements under part 45. The Commission believes that these proposed amendments would not cause a material net reduction in the current part 45 PRA burden estimates (OMB control number 3038-0096) to the extent that such reduced recordkeeping and reporting burdens for trade option counterparties that are Non-SD/MSPs would be insubstantial when compared to the overall part 45 PRA burden estimate as it relates to Non-SD/MSPs.

    The Commission specifically invites public comment on the accuracy of its estimate that no additional information collection requirements or changes to existing collection requirements, other than the proposed Notice Requirement, would result from the proposal.

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 32

    Commodity futures, consumer protection, fraud, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposes to amend 17 CFR part 32 as set forth below:

    PART 32—REGULATION OF COMMODITY OPTION TRANSACTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6c, and 12a, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Revise § 32.3 to read as follows:
    § 32.3 Trade options.

    (a) Subject to paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, the provisions of the Act, including any Commission rule, regulation, or order thereunder, otherwise applicable to any other swap shall not apply to, and any person or group of persons may offer to enter into, enter into, confirm the execution of, maintain a position in, or otherwise conduct activity related to, any transaction in interstate commerce that is a commodity option transaction, provided that:

    (1) Such commodity option transaction must be offered by a person that has a reasonable basis to believe that the transaction is offered to an offeree as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. In addition, the offeror must be either:

    (i) An eligible contract participant, as defined in section 1a(18) of the Act, as further jointly defined or interpreted by the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission or expanded by the Commission pursuant to section 1a(18)(C) of the Act; or

    (ii) A producer, processor, or commercial user of, or a merchant handling the commodity that is the subject of the commodity option transaction, or the products or by-products thereof, and such offeror is offering or entering into the commodity option transaction solely for purposes related to its business as such;

    (2) The offeree must be a producer, processor, or commercial user of, or a merchant handling the commodity that is the subject of the commodity option transaction, or the products or by-products thereof, and such offeree is offered or entering into the commodity option transaction solely for purposes related to its business as such; and

    (3) The commodity option must be intended to be physically settled, so that, if exercised, the option would result in the sale of an exempt or agricultural commodity for immediate or deferred shipment or delivery.

    (b) In connection with any commodity option transaction entered into pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, every counterparty that is not a swap dealer or major swap participant shall:

    (1) Comply with the swap data recordkeeping requirements of § 45.2 of this chapter, as otherwise applicable to any swap transaction;

    (2) Obtain a legal entity identifier pursuant to § 45.6 of this chapter if the counterparty to the transaction involved is a swap dealer or major swap participant, and provide such legal entity identifier to the swap dealer or major swap participant counterparty; and

    (3) Notify the Division of Market Oversight through an email to [email protected]:

    (i) No later than 30 days after entering into trade options, whether reported or unreported, having an aggregate notional value in excess of $1 billion during any calendar year, or

    (ii) Provide notice that the Non-SD/MSP reasonably expects to enter into trade options, whether reported or unreported, having an aggregate notional value in excess of $1 billion during any calendar year.

    (c) In connection with any commodity option transaction entered into pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the following provisions shall apply to every trade option counterparty to the same extent that such provisions would apply to such person in connection with any other swap:

    (1) Part 20 of this chapter (Swaps Large Trader Reporting);

    (2) Subpart J of part 23 of this chapter (Duties of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants);

    (3) Sections 23.200, 23.201, 23.203, and 23.204 of this chapter (Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants); and

    (4) Section 4s(e) of the Act (Capital and Margin Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

    (d) In addition, any person or group of persons offering to enter into, entering into, confirming the execution of, maintaining a position in, or otherwise conducting activity related to a commodity option transaction in interstate commerce pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall remain subject to part 180 of this chapter (Prohibition Against Manipulation) and § 23.410 of this chapter (Prohibition on Fraud, Manipulation, and other Abusive Practices) and the antifraud, anti-manipulation, and enforcement provisions of sections 2, 4b, 4c, 4o, 4s(h)(1)(A), 4s(h)(4)(A), 6, 6c, 6d, 9, and 13 of the Act.

    (e) The Commission may, by order, upon written request or upon its own motion, exempt any person, either unconditionally or on a temporary or other conditional basis, from any provisions of this part, and the provisions of the Act, including any Commission rule, regulation, or order thereunder, otherwise applicable to any other swap, other than § 32.4 of this chapter, part 180 of this chapter (Prohibition Against Manipulation), and § 23.410 of this chapter (Prohibition on Fraud, Manipulation, and other Abusive Practices), and the antifraud, anti-manipulation, and enforcement provisions of sections 2, 4b, 4c, 4o, 4s(h)(1)(A), 4s(h)(4)(A), 6, 6c, 6d, 9, and 13 of the Act, if it finds, in its discretion, that it would not be contrary to the public interest to grant such exemption.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2015, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

    The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendices to Trade Options—Commission Voting Summary, Chairman's Statement, and Commissioners' Statements Appendix 1—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Wetjen, Bowen, and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman Timothy G. Massad

    I am pleased to support the staff's recommendation to issue a proposed rulemaking to revise the rules regarding trade options, which are a subset of commodity options. Specifically, the Commission is proposing to reduce reporting and recordkeeping requirements for end-users that transact in trade options in connection with their businesses, including by eliminating the requirement to file form TO. These products are commonly used by commercial participants, so this action should help those participants continue to do so cost-effectively.

    We will continue to look at ways that we can make sure commercial end-users can use these markets effectively and to make sure that the new regulatory framework for swaps does not impose unintended consequences or burdens for them. An important part of this effort has been, and shall continue to be, fine-tuning our rules so that commercial companies can continue to conduct their daily operations efficiently.

    This proposed rulemaking would relax reporting and recordkeeping requirements where two commercial parties enter into trade options with each other in connection with their respective businesses. These proposed amendments are generally intended to reduce burdens for end-users, many of whom, as commenters explained, face logistical impediments and significant costs in connection with reporting their trade options.

    This proposed rulemaking reduces and clarifies requirements for end-users that use trade options in connection with their businesses, and the proposed amendments would allow the Commission to maintain regulatory insight into the market for otherwise unreported trade options. End-users would remain subject to the recordkeeping requirements in § 45.2, which require market participants to maintain full and complete records and to open their records to inspection upon the Commission's request. Additionally, the proposed $1 billion notice requirement would provide the Commission insight into the size of the market for unreported trade options and the identities of the most significant market participants.

    I look forward to receiving public comment on this proposed rulemaking.

    Appendix 3—Concurring Statement of Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen

    Today, we are approving a proposed rule that would implement changes to the Commission's Trade Option exemption to reduce the burden on commercial entities seeking to hedge risks associated with their physical businesses. I support these changes. However, based upon comments the Commission has received and meetings that I have had with members of the public, I believe the Commission should consider additional clarifications to better ensure legal certainty for the manufacturing, energy and agricultural industries' ability to address their commercial risks.

    In the manufacturing, agriculture and energy sectors, a wide variety of physically-delivered instruments are used to secure companies' commercial needs for a physical commodity. These instruments, although they call for physical delivery, often contain some element of optionality that can lead to questions about their appropriate regulatory treatment. These contracts, particularly in the energy sector, are all commonly referred to as physical contracts, and they, according to what I have been told, often receive similar treatment from both a business operations and an accounting standpoint within the entities that use them.

    Further, these physical contracts are often handled and accounted for separately from other derivatives, such as futures contracts or cash-settled swaps, according to market participants. Treating some portion of these physical contracts as swaps simply because they may contain some characteristics of commodity options can lead to significant costs and difficulties. For instance, companies may have to reconfigure their business systems to parse transactions where there was, before Dodd Frank, no need to undertake such a reconfiguration.

    Many commenters and people I have met have expressed particular concerns regarding how instruments having elements of both forward contracts and some volumetric optionality should be regulated. In a separate release, the Commission plans to finalize guidance on how forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality relate to the forward contract exclusion from the swap definition. While that release will help address the circumstances under which volumetric optionality embedded in a forward contract do not cause the forward contract to be a “swap”, my understanding is that additional relief may still be helpful to commercial market participants seeking to hedge their physical needs with instruments that contain a forward contract with volumetric optionality.

    Market participants have also expressed concerns about the appropriate treatment of “peaking supply contracts” which are often used by companies to manage the risks attendant to their need for physical commodities that may be used to generate electricity, run an operating plant, or manufacture or supply other goods and services.

    For both types of instruments, I think, the Commission could benefit from getting comments on potential avenues for addressing concerns that have been raised about their appropriate treatment.

    Instruments Containing a Forward Contract With Volumetric Variability

    As noted in the proposal, the trade option exemption is intended to permit parties to hedge or otherwise enter into commodity option transactions for commercial purposes without being subject to the general Dodd-Frank swaps regime. The exemption continues the long Commission policy of exempting them from requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act that would otherwise apply to commodity options. It provides an exemption for contracts meeting the requirements of the trade option exemption from regulation as swaps to the extent they would otherwise be subject to regulation by virtue of being a “commodity option”.

    Both forward contracts and trade options play an important role in managing the physical commodity risks attendant to commercial operations. According to industry participants, there can be difficulty in separating out, for regulatory purposes, the “option” component of an instrument containing both a forward contract and an element that might be considered a commodity option. My understanding is that these overall instruments are typically used to address a commercial entity's physical requirements for a particular commodity as part of its ongoing commercial operation and that the commodity option component is often used to manage uncertainty in the commercial supply and demand factors that affect a commercial entities' need for a particular physical commodity. Additionally, these instruments are often highly customized and the various components not always easy to separate and classify, according to industry participants.

    Given these concerns, I think it would be helpful to get comment upon whether the Commission should consider a new § 32.3(f) as part of the trade option exemption being proposed today. Such an exemption would exempt qualifying trade options from the swap reporting and recordkeeping requirements that would otherwise apply to them as trade options so long as they: (1) Are not severable nor separately marketable from the forward contract component of overall instrument, (2) are related to and entered into concurrently with the forward contract component of overall instrument, and (3) for which the physical commodity underlying the trade option component is the same as that underlying the forward contract component of the overall instrument.

    The text of such additional exemption would read as follows:

    § 32.3(f) Instruments Containing a Forward Contract with Volumetric Variability. In the case of an instrument containing a forward contract with volumetric variability that meets the definition of a trade option (as defined by paragraph (a)), the component of such instrument that is a trade option shall be subject to only the requirements of paragraph (d) provided:

    (1) The volumetric variability is not severable nor separately marketable from the forward contract component,

    (2) the volumetric variability is related to and entered into concurrently with the forward contract component, and

    (3) the physical commodity underlying the volumetric variability is the same as that underlying the forward contract component.”

    Supply Contracts for a Specified Portion of an Entity's Physical Need for a Commodity (e.g., peaking supply contracts)

    As noted above, concerns have also been raised about the appropriate treatment of peaking supply contracts which are often used by companies to manage the risks attendant to their need for physical commodities that may be used to generate electricity, run an operating plant, or manufacture or supply other goods and services.

    Market participants have raised concerns about whether or not these contracts could be considered commodity options. In instances where these contracts represent a reservation of a portion of supplier's capacity to provide a particular commodity and not a transaction for the commodity itself, it seems possible these contracts may not be commodity options. One test that has been proposed to determine whether or not such contracts are commodity options is whether:

    1. The subject of the agreement, contract or transaction is a binding, sole-source, obligation of a supplier of a physical commodity to stand ready to meet a specified portion of a commercial consumer's physical need for a commodity through providing for the physical delivery of that commodity to the specified commercial consumer or its designee in connection with the physical obligation,

    2. The payment provided by the commercial consumer to the commercial supplier for such agreement, contract or transaction is in the nature of a reservation charge to provide the service of standing ready to meet the physical needs of the commercial consumer,

    3. Payment for any commodity delivered under such agreement, contract or transaction is at the market price for that commodity at the time of delivery (i.e., the agreement, contract, or transaction is not used to hedge price risk), and

    4. The agreement, contract or transaction is necessary to meet the commercial consumer's projected physical needs or is required by regulation.

    I think the Commission would benefit from receiving comments on this proposed test and peaking supply contracts more generally as it appears to be one of the significant outstanding issues regarding instruments that may or may not be trade options.

    Together, these two additional items may help address outstanding concerns that have been expressed by commercial market participants, and I think the Commission would benefit by getting comment upon them.

    Appendix 4—Statement of Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo

    I support the Commission's proposed amendments to the interim final trade options rule. These are common sense reforms that will alleviate certain recordkeeping and reporting burdens that § 32.3 currently imposes on end-users that use trade options to manage commercial risk. The deletion of the reference in § 32.3(c)(2) to part 151 position limits is also appropriate in light of the fact that part 151 was vacated by the court in Int'l Swaps & Derivatives Ass'n v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 887 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D.D.C. 2012).

    I strongly disagree, however, with the Commission's statement that it preliminarily believes that any future application of position limits would be best addressed in the context of the pending position limits rulemaking. Simply put, position limits for trade options are not “necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent” excessive speculation. Section 4a(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The final trade options rule should make clear that trade options are exempt from position limits.

    As the Commission recognized in promulgating the interim final rule establishing the trade options exemption, “position limits apply only to speculative positions. . . . Trade options, which are commonly used as hedging instruments or in connection with some commercial function, would normally qualify as hedges, exempt from the speculative position limit rules.” Commodity Options, 77 FR 25320, 25328 n.50 (Apr. 27, 2012).

    By definition, the offeree to a trade option “must be a producer, commercial user of, or a merchant handling the commodity that is the subject of the commodity option transaction, or the products or by-products thereof,” and must restrict the use of trade options “solely for purposes related to its business as such.” § 32.3(a)(2). Moreover, the “option must be intended to be physically settled, so that, if exercised, [it] would result in the sale of an exempt or agricultural commodity for immediate or deferred shipment or delivery.” § 32.3(a)(3). Given these parameters, the risk that trade options could be used to engage in speculation, much less excessive speculation, is so remote as to be virtually non-existent.

    Applying a position limits regime to trade options and requiring commercial end-users to seek bona fide hedge treatment for those transactions, which was floated as a possibility in the pending proposed position limits rule, would not be an acceptable outcome. See Position Limits for Derivatives, 78 FR 75680, 75711 (Dec. 12, 2013). As commenters to the proposed position limits rule have pointed out, there is no regulatory benefit to imposing position limits on instruments that inherently are not speculative in nature, and doing so “will distort commodity markets and impede economically efficient behavior” by discouraging the use of trade options. Natural Gas Supply Association Comment Letter dated Aug. 4, 2014 at 13. A comment letter filed by the Edison Electric Institute and the Electric Power Supply Association (Joint Associations) cites persuasive examples of how application of the proposed position limits rule would eliminate the ability of market participants to enter into multi-month and multi-year trade options. See Joint Associations Comment Letter dated Feb. 7, 2014 at 6-7; see also American Gas Association Comment Letter dated Feb. 10, 2014 at 5 (the lack of a contractual upper limit in the way that natural gas options are structured make position limit reporting impossible).

    The Commission has the authority in section 4a(a)(7) of the CEA to exempt “any person or class of persons, any swap or class of swaps, any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery or class of such contracts, any option or class of options, or any transaction or class of transactions from any requirement it may establish . . . with respect to position limits.”

    As long as the specter of position limits hangs over trade options, market participants that have used these instruments for decades as a cost effective means of ensuring a reliable supply of a physical commodity and to hedge commercial risk will be reluctant to use them. As I have said before, commercial end-users, including commercial end-users of everyday trade options, were not the cause of the financial crisis and the federal government should stop treating them like they were.

    I urge my fellow Commissioners to eliminate this regulatory uncertainty sooner, rather than later, by exercising our section 4a(a)(7) authority in connection with this trade options rulemaking. I encourage further public comment on the issue.

    [FR Doc. 2015-11020 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071; FRL-9926-97-OAR] RIN 2060-AS57 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program regulations to allow for rescission of certain PSD permits issued by the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). We are proposing to take this action in order to provide a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation (Coalition) v. EPA, vacating that rule. These decisions determined that Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule was not required by the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and vacated the EPA regulations implementing Step 2. When effective, this action would authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2 GHG PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are amending the federal PSD program regulations as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by June 8, 2015.

    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the EPA by May 18, 2015, requesting to speak at a public hearing on this action, the EPA will hold a public hearing on May 22, 2015 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The EPA will not hold a hearing if one is not requested. Please check the EPA's Web page at http://www.epa.gov/nsr on May 19, 2015 for the announcement of whether the hearing will be held.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071, by mail to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Jessica Montañez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-3407, email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What are the details for the potential public hearing?

    If there is a public hearing, it will be held at the EPA, Building C, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709; the room number will be announced on the NSR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/nsr. If requested, the hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning this action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing will be held at U.S. government facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. These requirements took effect July 21, 2014. If your driver's license is issued by American Samoa, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire or New York, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal buildings where the public hearings will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and military identification cards. For additional information for the status of your state regarding REAL ID, go to http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. If held, the public hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. and continue until 5:00 p.m., if necessary, depending on the number of speakers. The EPA may end the hearing early if all registered speakers have had an opportunity to speak, but no earlier than 2:00 p.m. Persons wishing to present oral testimony that have not made arrangements in advance should register by 2:00 p.m. the day of the hearing. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes per commenter. The EPA encourages commenters to provide written versions of their oral testimonies either electronically (on computer disk or CD-ROM) or in paper copy. Verbatim transcripts and written statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.

    If you want to request a hearing and present oral testimony at the hearing, you should notify, on or before May 18, 2015, Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C504-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0641, email [email protected] The hearing will be strictly limited to the subject matter of the proposal, the scope of which is discussed below. Any member of the public may file a written comment by the close of the comment period. Written comments should be submitted to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071 at the addresses given above for submittal of comments. If a hearing is held, the hearing schedule, including the list of speakers, will be posted on the EPA's Web page at http://www.epa.gov/nsr. A verbatim transcript of the hearing, if held, and written comments will be made available for copying during normal working hours at the EPA Docket Center address given above for inspection of documents.

    II. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    The EPA is proposing to take action to amend the federal PSD program regulation at 40 CFR 52.21 to allow existing PSD permits that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule 1 for GHGs to be rescinded. This proposed action narrowly amends the permit rescission provisions in the federal PSD regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21(w) to allow for the rescission of EPA-issued PSD permits 2 that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule permitting regulations.

    1 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v).

    2 The terms “EPA-issued PSD permits that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule” and “EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits” both refer to PSD permits issued by the EPA as well as by delegated reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule.

    The U.S. Supreme Court determined the permitting requirements under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule to be invalid in UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In further proceedings upon consideration of the Supreme Court decision, the D.C. Circuit amended its judgment in the Coalition case. The Amended Judgment vacated particular provisions of the EPA's regulations implementing Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule.

    This proposed action does not itself rescind any permits; it only proposes the regulatory mechanism through which the EPA could then rescind, upon request of a source, an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. Furthermore, we have published a direct final rule amending these federal PSD program regulations in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for the proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal Register.

    Neither this rule or direct final rule address any issues concerning the federal PSD permit rescission regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) that are not related to the Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. The EPA is developing a separate rulemaking action that will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on others circumstances where 40 CFR 52.21(w) may limit the ability to rescind PSD permits that are no longer necessary.

    III. Does this action apply to me?

    The entities potentially affected by this rule include new and modified stationary sources that were required to obtain an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit under the federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 solely because the source or a modification of the source was expected to emit or increase GHG emissions over the applicable thresholds. This includes (1) sources classified as major for PSD purposes solely on the basis of their potential GHG emissions; and (2) sources emitting major amounts of other pollutants that experienced a modification resulting in an increase of only greenhouse gas emission above the applicable levels in the EPA regulations. Entities affected by this rule may also include state or local reviewing authorities that have been delegated federal authority to implement the federal PSD regulations under 40 CFR 52.21(u) and that have issued Step 2 PSD permits to sources within their jurisdiction. This rule does not address the requirements for approval of a PSD program into a state implementation plan (40 CFR 51.166) or the rescission of PSD permits issued by states and local programs with such approved programs. Stationary sources with questions on the PSD permitting obligations arising from Step 2 PSD permits issued by state or local reviewing authorities under the permitting programs approved into state implementation plans should review the governing statutory provisions and provisions in the applicable approved state or local permitting program to determine how to address any Step 2 PSD permitting issues and consult with the EPA as necessary.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, National ambient air quality standards, New source review, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permit rescissions, Preconstruction permitting, Sulfur oxides, Tailoring rule, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10629 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905; FRL 9927-15-OAR] RIN 2060-AS58 Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Birmingham, Alabama AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request from the state of Alabama for the EPA to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for Jefferson and Shelby counties (“the Birmingham area”). Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend the regulations to change the RVP standard for the Birmingham area from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline. The EPA has preliminarily determined that this change to the federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015 unless a public hearing is requested by May 22, 2015. If the EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905. Please include a total of two copies.

    Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905. Please include two copies. Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patty Klavon, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4476; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

    I. General Information II. Public Participation III. Background and Proposal IV. Direct Final Rule V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews VI. Legal Authority I. General Information A. This Proposed Rule Is Published Parallel to a Direct Final Rule

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is making this revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views these revisions as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. The rationale for this rulemaking is described both in this proposal and in the direct final rule.

    The regulatory text for this proposed rule is included in the direct final rule, and parties should review that rule for the regulatory text. If the EPA receives no adverse comment, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment on this rule or any portion of this rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rulemaking. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in Alabama.

    Examples of potentially
  • regulated entities
  • NAICS 1 codes
    Petroleum refineries 324110 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors 424710 424720 Gasoline Retail Stations 447110 Gasoline Transporters 484220 484230 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which the EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected by this rule. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments? 1. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    3. Docket Copying Costs

    You may be required to pay a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.

    II. Public Participation

    The EPA will not hold a public hearing on this matter unless a request is received by the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble by May 22, 2015. If the EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

    III. Background and Proposal A. Summary of the Proposal

    The EPA is proposing to approve a request from the state of Alabama to change the summertime RVP standard for Jefferson and Shelby counties (“the Birmingham area”) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). In a previous rulemaking, the EPA approved a state implementation plan (SIP) revision from the state of Alabama which provided a technical demonstration that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year in the Birmingham area would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the Birmingham area or with any other applicable CAA requirement. For more information on Alabama's SIP revision, please refer to the April 17, 2015 rulemaking (80 FR 21170).

    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III.B. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section III.C. describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas. Section III.D. provides information specific to Alabama's request for the Birmingham area. Finally, Section IV. briefly discusses the associated direct final rule.

    B. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

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

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

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

    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), the EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, the EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. The EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section III.C.

    The state of Alabama has initiated this change by requesting that the EPA relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard to 9.0 psi for the Birmingham area, which is subject to the 7.8 RVP requirement during the summertime ozone season. Accordingly, the state of Alabama provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal RVP requirements in the Birmingham area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS or with any other applicable CAA requirement.

    C. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated to Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for the EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where the EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

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

    Alabama did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when the Birmingham area was redesignated to attainment for either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, Alabama took a conservative approach in developing maintenance plans associated with those redesignation requests by estimating emissions using a federal RVP requirement of 9.0 psi.

    D. Alabama's Request to Relax the Federal RVP Requirement for the Birmingham Area

    In a May 12, 2006 final rule, the EPA approved the Birmingham area's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 71 FR 27631 (May 12, 2006).2 As required, the CAA section 175A maintenance plan provides for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for at least ten years from the effective date of the Birmingham area's redesignation to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This maintenance plan also includes components demonstrating how the Birmingham area will continue to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and provides contingency measures should the Birmingham area violate the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The state of Alabama's ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Birmingham area did not remove the state-level 7.0 psi RVP requirement that was in place for the Birmingham area.3

    2 The Birmingham area (i.e., Jefferson and Shelby counties) was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).

    3 In 2001, the EPA approved a state fuel program that imposed a more stringent 7.0 psi requirement for the Birmingham area, per CAA section 211(c)(4)(C). The low-RVP fuel program required that all gasoline sold during the summertime ozone season (June 1-September 15 of each year) in the Birmingham area contain a maximum RVP of 7.0 psi. See 77 FR 23620 (April 20, 2012).

    On March 2, 2012, the state of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a proposed revision to Alabama's SIP removing the state-level RVP requirement to use 7.0 psi RVP gasoline in the Birmingham area during the summertime ozone season. The EPA approved the revision in an April 20, 2012 final rule. See 77 FR 23619. The revision to the Alabama SIP resulted in the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi applying to the Birmingham area.

    On November 14, 2014, the state of Alabama submitted a proposed revision to its SIP demonstrating that removal of the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi for gasoline during the summertime ozone season in the Birmingham area would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS. Specifically, the state provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal RVP requirement in the Birmingham area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    The EPA evaluated and approved Alabama's November 14, 2014 SIP revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject to public notice-and-comment. The EPA received two comments on that rulemaking, and those comments were addressed in the final rule for that rulemaking. See 80 FR 21170 (April 17, 2015). The comments received can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0867).

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's request to relax the summertime ozone season RVP standard for the Birmingham area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend the applicable RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the Birmingham area. This is based on the previous approval of Alabama's November 14, 2014 SIP revision, and the fact that the Birmingham area is currently in attainment for all ozone NAAQS.

    IV. Direct Final Rule

    A direct final rule that would make the same changes as those proposed in this action appears in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. The EPA is taking direct final action on these revisions because the EPA views the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. The EPA has explained the reasons for the amendments in this proposal and in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received, no further action will be taken on the proposal, and the direct final rule will become effective as provided in that action.

    If the EPA receives adverse comments on the rule or any portion of the rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. The EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions are being withdrawn. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the subsequent final action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    The changes to the regulatory text proposed in this document are identical to those for the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. For further information, including the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal Register.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For a complete discussion of all the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    VI. Legal Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10615 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 88 Thursday, May 7, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 1, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. 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 (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. 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 by June 8, 2015. 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.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Specialty Crop Block Grant Program—2008 Farm Bill.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0248.

    Summary of Collection: The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program—Farm Bill (SCBGP-FB) is authorized under section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note, amended under section 10109 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, the Farm Bill). Section 10109 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to States to be used by State departments of agriculture solely to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is needed for the implementation of the SCBGP-FB, to determine a State department of agriculture's eligibility in the program, and to certify that grant participants are complying with applicable program regulations.

    Description of Respondents: State Agriculture Departments.

    Number of Respondents: 56.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,624.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10951 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Hold a Public Workshop and Prepare an Environmental Assessment AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to hold a public workshop and prepare an Environmental Assessment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) intends to hold a public scoping workshop and prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) in connection with possible impacts related to the construction and operation of a new gas-fired combustion turbine generation facility. The project, Hill County Generation Facility, is proposed by Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Brazos), of Waco, Texas. RUS may provide financial assistance for the project. The public scoping workshop is scheduled for Thursday, May 21, 2015, from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. in the Community Hall of the First Presbyterian Church at 106 N. Lamar, Itasca, TX 76055.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis E. Rankin, Environmental Protection Specialist, RUS, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Stop 1571, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1571, Telephone: (202) 720-1953 or email: [email protected]; or Dave McDaniel, Brazos Electric Power, 7616 Bagby Avenue, Waco, Texas 76712, Telephone: (254) 750-6324 or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Brazos is proposing to construct a new gas-fired combustion turbine generation facility and is evaluating a potential site located in Hill County, Texas. The 40 acre site is located in the northeast corner of Hill County approximately 8 miles east of Itasca, Texas on FM 66 just west of the Hill County line. Associated facilities include a 4.5 mile gas pipeline and new switching facilities to connect the generation plant to existing transmission lines crossing the site.

    Comments regarding the proposed project may be submitted in writing at the public scoping workshop or in writing no later than June 21, 2015, to RUS at the address provided above.

    An Environmental Assessment (EA) will be prepared for the proposed project. Based on a review of the EA and other relevant information, RUS will determine if the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary. Should RUS determine that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary, it will prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact.

    Any final action by RUS related to the proposed project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations and completion of the environmental review procedures as prescribed by RUS' Environmental Policies and Procedures.

    Richard Fristik, Acting Director, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10943 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 150403337-5337-01] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Amendment to Privacy Act System of Records, “OIG Investigative Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-12.”

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix I, “Federal Agency Responsibility for Maintaining Records about Individuals,” DOC OIG proposes to amend the system of records entitled “OIG Investigative Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-12,” to reflect a new investigative case management system and an electronic discovery tool; update OIG routine uses; update OIG's practices for storing, retrieving, and safeguarding records in the system; and generally update the system's notice. OIG's changes will generally improve the organization, security, ability to search, and reporting capability of OIG's investigative records. Accordingly, “OIG Investigative Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-12,” is proposed to be amended as shown below. DOC OIG invites public comment on the amended system announced in this publication.

    DATES:

    Comment date: To be considered, written comments on the proposed amended system must be submitted on or before June 8, 2015.

    Effective Date: Unless comments are received, the amended system of records will become effective, as proposed, on the date a subsequent notice is published in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please address comments to the OIG Office of Counsel, Room 7896, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; by email to [email protected]; or by facsimile to (202) 501-7335. For further information, general questions, and privacy-related issues, please contact the Office of Counsel at (202) 482-5992.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, authorizes DOC OIG to conduct investigations to detect and prevent fraud, waste, mismanagement and abuse, and to promote economy and efficiency, in the DOC's programs and operations. OIG uses records in this system in the course of investigating individuals and entities suspected of criminal, civil, or administrative misconduct, and in supporting related judicial and administrative proceedings. OIG's Office of Investigations (OI) maintains and manages OIG's investigative records. DOC OIG proposes to amend the system of records entitled “OIG Investigative Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-12,” published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 15038) and January 19, 2012 (77 FR 2692) to reflect a new investigative case management system and an electronic discovery tool; update OIG routine uses; update OIG's practices for storing, retrieving, and safeguarding records in the system; and generally update the system's notice. Specifically, the following sections of the system of records are proposed to be amended: Categories of Individuals Covered by the System; Categories of Records in the System; Routine Uses; Storage; Retrievability; Safeguards; and System Manager.

    The updates to the system will not involve the collection of additional categories of information, but will provide methods for data tracking, organization, and retrieval previously unavailable. OIG's changes will generally improve the organization, security, ability to search, and reporting capability of investigative records. For the public's convenience, DOC OIG restates below in its entirety the system of records, including the proposed amendments.

    SYSTEM NAME: COMMERCE/DEPT-12, OIG Investigative Records. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU).

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Regional Offices, and investigative site(s) used in the course of OIG investigation(s).

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    In connection with its investigative duties, DOC OIG maintains records in its records system on the following categories of individuals insofar as they are relevant to any investigation or preliminary inquiry undertaken to determine whether to commence an investigation: Subjects of investigations; complainants; witnesses; confidential and non-confidential informants; contractors; subcontractors; recipients of Federal funds and their contractors/subcontractors and employees; individuals interacting with DOC employees or management; current, former, and prospective DOC employees; alleged violators of DOC rules and regulations; union officials; individuals who are investigated and/or interviewed; persons suspected of violations of administrative, civil, and/or criminal provisions; grantees; sub-grantees; lessees; licensees; persons engaged in official business with the DOC; or other persons identified by the OIG or by other agencies, constituent units of the DOC, and members of the general public in connection with the authorized functions of the OIG.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    The system contains investigative reports and materials gathered or created with regard to investigations of administrative, civil, and criminal matters by DOC OIG and other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, non-governmental, international, foreign regulatory, or foreign law enforcement agencies or entities. Categories of records may include: Complaints; requests to investigate; information contained in criminal, civil, or administrative referrals; statements from subjects and/or witnesses; affidavits, transcripts, police reports, photographs, and/or documents relative to a subject's prior criminal record; medical records; accident reports; materials and intelligence information from other governmental investigatory or law enforcement organizations; information relative to the status of a particular complaint or investigation, including any determination relative to criminal prosecution, civil, or administrative action; general case management documentation; subpoenas and evidence obtained in response to subpoenas; evidence logs; pen registers; correspondence; personal information, including financial and biometric data; forensic computer images; records of investigation; and other data and evidence collected or generated by OIG's Office of Investigations while conducting its official duties.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    The Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, as amended.

    PURPOSE:

    The records contained in this system are used by DOC OIG to carry out its statutory responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, as amended, to conduct and supervise investigations, prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, and promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in DOC programs and operations. The records are used in the course of investigating individuals and entities suspected of criminal, civil, or administrative misconduct and in supporting related judicial and administrative proceedings.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current license, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DOC decision concerning the assignment, hiring, or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.

    2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of discovery or settlement negotiations.

    3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.

    4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.

    5. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether disclosure thereof is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    6. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management for personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.

    7. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the General Services Administration (GSA) during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose and any other relevant (i.e. GSA or DOC) directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make determinations about individuals.

    8. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency or entity, whether Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international, charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting a violation of any law, rule, regulation or order. Routine use for law enforcement purposes also includes disclosure to individuals or to agencies, whether Federal, State, local, foreign, or international, when necessary to further the ends of an investigation.

    9. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or of any other agency that is responsible for representing DOC interests in connection with judicial, administrative or other proceedings. This includes circumstances in which (1) the DOC or OIG, or any component thereof; (2) any employee of the DOC or OIG in his or her official capacity; (3) any employee of the DOC or OIG in his or her individual capacity, where DOJ has agreed to represent or is considering a request to represent the employee; or (4) the United States or any of its components, is a party to pending or potential litigation or has an interest in such litigation; in which the DOC or OIG is likely to be affected by the litigation, or in which the DOC or OIG determines that the use of such records by the DOJ is relevant and necessary to the litigation; provided, however, that in each case, the DOC or OIG determines that disclosure of records to the DOJ or representative is a use of the information that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected. Records may also be disclosed to representatives of DOJ and other U.S. Government entities, to the extent necessary, to obtain their advice on any matter relevant to an OIG investigation.

    10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any source from which additional information is requested in order to obtain information relevant to: A decision by either the DOC or OIG concerning the hiring, assignment, or retention of an individual or other personnel action; the issuance, renewal, retention, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance, retention, or revocation of a license, grant, award, contract, or other benefit to the extent the information is relevant and necessary to a decision by the DOC or OIG on the matter.

    11. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, international, or other public authority in response to its request in connection with: The hiring, assignment, or retention of an individual; the issuance, renewal, retention, or revocation of a security clearance; the reporting of an investigation of an individual; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance, retention, or revocation of a license, grant, award, contract, or other benefit conferred by that entity to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting entity's decision on the matter.

    12. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the event that a record, either by itself or in combination with other information, indicates a violation or a potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto; or a violation or potential violation of a contract provision. In these circumstances, the relevant records in the system may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency or entity, whether Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, order, or contract.

    13. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any source from which additional information is requested, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to solicit information relevant to any investigation, audit, or evaluation.

    14. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a foreign government or international organization pursuant to an international treaty, convention, implementing legislation, or executive agreement entered into by the United States.

    15. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to contractors, grantees, consultants, or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity for the DOC or OIG, who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities. When appropriate, recipients will be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 as provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).

    16. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to representatives of the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Government Ethics, and other Federal agencies in connection with their efforts to carry out their responsibilities to conduct examinations, investigations, and/or settlement efforts, in connection with administrative grievances, complaints, claims, or appeals filed by an employee, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205-06.

    17. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a grand jury agent pursuant to a Federal or State grand jury subpoena or to a prosecution request that such record be released for the purpose of its introduction to a grand jury.

    18. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Departments of the Treasury and Justice in circumstances in which OIG seeks to obtain, or has in fact obtained, an ex parte court order to obtain tax return information from the Internal Revenue Service.

    19. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any Federal official charged with the responsibility to conduct qualitative assessment reviews of internal safeguards and management procedures employed in investigative operations for purposes of reporting to the President and Congress on the activities of OIG. This disclosure category includes other Federal Offices of Inspectors General and members of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and officials and administrative staff within their investigative chain of command, as well as authorized officials of DOJ and its component, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    20. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) it is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) it is determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identify theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by OIG, DOC, or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    21. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public or to the media for release to the public when the matter under investigation has become public knowledge or the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of the Inspector General audit, inspection, review, or investigative process, or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DOC employees, officers or individuals covered by the system, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    22. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to Congress, congressional committees, or the staffs thereof, in order to fulfill the Inspector General's responsibility, as mandated by the Inspector General Act of 1978, to keep the Congress, in connection with its oversight and legislative functions concerning the administration of programs and operations administered or financed by DOC, fully and currently informed concerning fraud and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies concerning the administration of programs and operations administered or financed by DOC.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    None.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Paper records and other media (photographs, audio recording, diskettes, CDs, etc.) are stored in locked containers in a secured area. Electronic records are maintained on servers, which house OIG's case management system and electronic discovery tool. Servers are maintained in a secured, restricted-area facility.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Electronic searches may be performed by search criteria that include case numbers, names of individuals or organizations, and other key word search variations.

    Paper records are retrieved by indices cross-referenced to file numbers.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Paper records are kept in locked cabinets, secured rooms, in a guarded building, and used only by authorized screened personnel. Electronic records are stored on servers maintained in a locked facility that is secured at all times by security systems and video cameras. Data in the system are encrypted and password protected. Access to electronic records is restricted to DOC OIG staff and contractors individually authorized to access the case management or electronic discovery system. Passwords are changed periodically, in accordance with OIG policy. Backup tapes are stored in a locked and controlled room in a secure off-site facility.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the DOC OIG Records Retention Schedules approved by the National Archives and Records Administration.

    SYSTEM MANAGER NAME AND ADDRESS:

    Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Room 7898c, Office of Inspector General, United States Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    The Inspector General has exempted this system from the procedures of the Privacy Act relating to individuals' requests for notification of the existence of records on themselves.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:

    The Inspector General has exempted this system from the access procedures of the Privacy Act.

    CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURE:

    The Inspector General has exempted this system from the contest procedures of the Privacy Act.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    DOC OIG collects information from a wide variety of sources, including information from the DOC and other Federal, State, and local agencies, subjects, witnesses, complainants, victims, confidential and non-confidential sources, individuals, and non-governmental entities.

    SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:

    Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the head of any agency may exempt any system of records within the agency from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, if the agency or component that maintains the system performs as its principal function any activities pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. The Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, as amended, mandates the Inspector General to recommend policies for, and to conduct, supervise and coordinate activities in the Department and between the Department and other Federal, State and local government agencies with respect to all matters relating to the prevention and detection of fraud in programs and operations administered or financed by the Department, and to the identification and prosecution of participants in such fraud. Under the Act, whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law, the Inspector General must report the matter expeditiously to the Attorney General. In addition to these principal functions pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, the Inspector General may receive and investigate complaints on information from various sources concerning the possible existence of activities constituting violations of law, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuses of authority or substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. The provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 from which exemptions are claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) are as follows: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); 5 U.S.C. 552a(d); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1), (2) and (3); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) and (8); 5 U.S.C. 552a(f); 5 U.S.C. 552a(g).

    To the extent that the exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) is held to be invalid, then the exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5) are claimed for all material which meets the criteria of these three subsections.

    Provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 from which exemptions are claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5) are as follows: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); 5 U.S.C. 552a(d); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); 5 U.S.C. 552a(f).

    Reasons for exemptions: In general, the exemption of this information and material is necessary in order to accomplish the law enforcement function of the Office of Inspector General, to prevent disclosure of classified information as required by Executive Order, to prevent subjects of investigations from frustrating the investigatory process, to prevent the disclosure of investigative techniques, to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources, to maintain access to sources of information, and to avoid endangering these sources and law enforcement personnel. The detailed reasons for exemptions are as follows.

    Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2):

    (1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that upon request, an agency must give an individual named in a record an accounting which reflects the disclosure of the record to other persons or agencies. This accounting must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this provision would alert subjects of an investigation to the existence of the investigation and that such persons are subjects of that investigation. Since release of such information to subjects of an investigation would provide the subjects with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation, it could result in the altering or destruction of documentary evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.

    (2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4), (d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (f) and (g) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; the agency procedures relating to access to records and the contest of information contained in such records; and the civil remedies available to the individual in the event of adverse determinations by an agency concerning access to or amendment of information contained in records systems. This system is exempt from the foregoing provisions for the following reasons: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual, or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigative and enforcement proceedings, deprive co-defendants of a right to a fair trial or other impartial adjudication, constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of others, disclose the identity or confidential sources, reveal confidential information supplied by these sources and disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

    (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose investigative techniques and procedures and cause sources to refrain from giving such information because of fear of reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality. This would compromise the ability to conduct investigations, and to identify, detect, and apprehend violators.

    (4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:

    a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of a criminal or other investigation.

    b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.

    c. In any investigation the Inspector General may obtain information concerning the violations of laws other than those within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law enforcement, the Inspector General should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.

    d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator which related to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.

    (5) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(2) requires an agency to collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, and privilege under Federal programs. The application of the provision would impair investigations of illegal acts, violations of the rules of conduct, merit system and any other misconduct for the following reasons:

    a. In certain instances the subject of an investigation cannot be required to supply information to investigators. In those instances, information relating to a subject's illegal acts, violations of rules of conduct, or any other misconduct, etc., must be obtained from other sources.

    b. Most information collected about an individual under investigation is obtained from third parties such as witnesses and informers. It is not feasible to rely upon the subject of the investigation as a source for information regarding his or her activities.

    c. The subject of an investigation will be alerted to the existence of an investigation if any attempt is made to obtain information from the subject. This could afford the individual the opportunity to conceal any criminal activities to avoid apprehension.

    d. In any investigation, it is necessary to obtain evidence from a variety of sources other than the subject of the investigation in order to verify the evidence necessary for successful litigation.

    (6) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) requires that an agency must inform the subject of an investigation who is asked to supply information of:

    a. The authority under which the information is sought and whether disclosure of the information is mandatory or voluntary,

    b. The purposes for which the information is intended to be used,

    c. The routine uses which may be made of the information, and

    d. The effects on the subject, if any, of not providing the requested information.

    The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows:

    (i) The disclosure to the subject of the investigation as stated in (b) above would provide the subject with substantial information relating to the nature of the investigation and could impede or compromise the investigation.

    (ii) If the subject were informed of the information required by this provision, it could seriously interfere with undercover activities requiring disclosure of undercover agents' identity and impairing their safety, as well as impairing the successful conclusion of the investigation.

    (iii) Individuals may be contacted during preliminary information-gathering in investigations before any individual is identified as the subject of an investigation. Informing the individual of the matters required by this provision would hinder or adversely affect any present or subsequent investigations.

    (7) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) requires that records be maintained with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in making any determination about an individual. Because the law defines “maintain” to include the collection of information, complying with this provision would prevent the collection of any data not shown to be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete at the moment of its collection. In gathering information during the course of an investigation it is not possible to determine this prior to collection of the information. Facts are first gathered and then placed into a logical order which objectively proves or disproves criminal behavior on the part of the suspect. Material which may seem unrelated, irrelevant, incomplete, untimely, etc., may take on added meaning as an investigation progresses. The restrictions in this provision could interfere with the preparation of a complete investigative report.

    (8) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(8) requires an agency to make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual when any record of such individual is made available to any persons under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record. The notice requirements of this provision could prematurely reveal an ongoing criminal investigation to the subject of the investigation.

    Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1):

    (1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that an agency make accountings of disclosures of records available to individuals named in the record at their request. These accountings must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this provision would alert subjects of an investigation to the existence of the investigation, and that such persons are subjects of that investigation, information which if known might cause damage to national security.

    (2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; and the agency procedures relating to access to records, and the contest of information contained in such records. This system is exempt from the foregoing provisions for the following reasons: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigations undertaken in connection with national security; or could disclose the identity of sources kept secret to protect national security or reveal confidential information supplied by these sources.

    (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose the identity of sources kept secret to protect national security.

    (4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:

    a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of an investigation involving national security matters.

    b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.

    c. In any investigation the Inspector General may obtain information concerning the violators of laws other than those within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. In the interests of effective law enforcement, the Inspector General should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.

    d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator which relate to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.

    Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5):

    (1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that an agency make accountings of disclosures of records available to individuals named in the records at their request. These accountings must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this provision would alert subjects of an investigation to the existence of the investigation and that such persons are subjects of that investigation. Since release of such information to subjects of an investigation would provide the subject with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation, it could result in the altering or destruction of documentary evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.

    (2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; and the agency procedures relating to access to records and the contest of information contained in such records. This system is exempt from the foregoing provisions for the following reasons: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigative and enforcement proceedings; co-defendants of a right to a fair trial; constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of others; disclose the identity of confidential sources and reveal confidential information supplied by these sources; and disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

    (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose investigative techniques and procedures and cause sources to refrain from giving such information because of fear of reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality. This would compromise the ability to conduct investigations, and to make fair and objective decisions on questions of suitability for Federal employment and related issues.

    (4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:

    a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of an investigation.

    b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after that information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.

    c. In any investigation the Inspector General may obtain information concerning the violations of laws other than those within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law enforcement, the Inspector General should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.

    d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator which relate to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Brenda Dolan, Departmental Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10979 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-932] Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is conducting the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel threaded rod (“STR”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”),1 for the period of review (“POR”), April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014. The Department selected two respondents for individual review, Gem-Year Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Gem-Year”), and the RMB/IFI Group.2 We preliminary determine that Gem-Year and the RMB/IFI Group failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with the Department's request for information, warranting the application of facts otherwise available with adverse inferences, pursuant to sections 776(a)-(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). As a part of the application of adverse facts available (“AFA”), we preliminarily determine to treat Gem-Year and the RMB/IFI Group as part of the PRC-wide entity.3 If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 14, 2009) (“Order”).

    2 RMB Fasteners Ltd., IFI & Morgan Ltd., and Jiaxing Brother Standard Part Co., Ltd. (collectively “the RMB/IFI Group”).

    3See Department Memorandum, “Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Hancock or Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-4047, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On May 29, 2014, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel threaded rod from the PRC for the period, April 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014, for 92 companies.4 On June 18, 2014, Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of 83 companies.5 On September 23, 2014, the Department rescinded this administrative review with respect to 83 companies named in the Initiation Notice based on the timely withdrawal of requests for review,6 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).7 Accordingly, nine companies remain under review for these preliminary results.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 79 FR 30809 (May 29, 2014) (“Initiation Notice”).

    5See Letter to the Department from Petitioner, “Fifth Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China: Petitioner's Withdrawal of Review Requests for Specific Companies” (June 18, 2014).

    6See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 56768, (September 23, 2014) (“Partial Rescission Notice”).

    7Id.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes steel threaded rod. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading 7318.15.5051, 7318.15.5056, 7318.15.5090, and 7318.15.2095 of the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.8

    8 For a full description of the scope of the Order, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    PRC-Wide Entity

    As noted above, a review was requested, but not rescinded, for nine companies. Aside from the mandatory respondents, Gem-Year and RMB/IFI Group, the remaining seven companies are not eligible for separate rate status or rescission because none submitted a completed separate rate application or certification.9 Accordingly, these seven companies are part of the PRC-wide entity. Additionally, the Department preliminarily determines that Gem-Year and the RMB/IFI Group, the mandatory respondents, failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities to comply with requests for information, and therefore, neither is eligible for a separate rate. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily finds, based on AFA, that the PRC-wide entity also includes these two companies.10

    9 These companies are: (1) Fastco (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd., (2) Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd., (3) Jiaxing Brother Standard Part, (4) Midas Union Co., Ltd., (5) Shanghai P&J International Trading Co., Ltd., (6) New Pole Power System Co. Ltd., and (7) Zhejiang Morgan Brother Technology Co., Ltd.

    10See section 776(b) of the Act.

    The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.11 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change, (i.e., 206 percent).12

    11See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    12See Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 71743, 71744 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“4th AR STR Final Results”).

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.13 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    13 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided at Appendix II to this notice.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that, for the period April 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014, the companies identified in Appendix I to this notice are part of the PRC-wide entity.

    Public Comment & Opportunity To Request a Hearing

    Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.14 Rebuttals to case briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.15 Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (a) a statement of the issue, (b) a brief summary of the argument, and (c) a table of authorities.16 Parties submitting briefs should do so pursuant to the Department's electronic filing system, ACCESS.

    14See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    15See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1)-(2).

    16See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.17 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.18 If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.19

    17See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    18Id.

    19See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.20 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

    20See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    For any individually examined respondent whose weighted average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final results, the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.21 Where either a respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.22 We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate.

    21See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    22See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases.23 Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during the administrative review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.24

    23 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    24Id.

    In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For any companies listed that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter.

    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Companies Subject to the Administrative Review That Are Preliminarily Determined To Be Part of the PRC-Wide Entity Fastco (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. Gem-Year Industrial Co., Ltd. Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd. Jiaxing Brother Standard Part Co., Ltd., IFI & Morgan Ltd. and RMB Fasteners Ltd. (collectively “RMB/IFI Group”) Jiaxing Brother Standard Part. Midas Union Co., Ltd. New Pole Power System Co. Ltd. Shanghai P&J International Trading Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Morgan Brother Technology Co. Ltd. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum: Summary 1. Background 2. Verification 3. Respondent Selection 4. Scope of the Order 5. Questionnaires 6. Non-Market Economy Country 7. PRC-Wide Entity 8. Separate Rates 9. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference 10. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2015-11082 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-821] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Thailand.1 This review covers 33 companies. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2013, through July 31, 2014. We preliminarily find that subject merchandise has been sold at less than normal value by the one company subject to this review, Beyond Packaging Co., Ltd. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004) (Order).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665 and 202-482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags, which are currently classified under subheading 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS number is provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.2 The written description is dispositive.

    2See memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of the 2013/2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.

    Rescission of Review in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Except for Beyond Packaging Co., Ltd. (Beyond Packaging), the petitioners 3 withdrew their request for an administrative review of the remaining 32 companies identified in the Initiation Notice4 within the 90-day period.5 The petitioners were the only party to request a review of these companies. Accordingly, we are rescinding this administrative review, in part, with respect to these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    3 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 79 FR 58729 (September 30, 2014) (Initiation Notice). The Initiation Notice incorrectly lists one of the companies as 2PK Inetrplas Co., Ltd., instead of 2PK Interplas Co., Ltd. This error was corrected in Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 79 FR 64565 (October 30, 2014).

    5See letter from King & Spalding LLP on behalf of the petitioners entitled “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Partial Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review” dated December 16, 2014.

    Methodology

    In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we relied on facts available with an adverse inference with respect to Beyond Packaging, the sole company selected for individual examination and sole company in this review. Thus, we preliminarily assigned a rate of 122.88 percent as the weighted-average dumping margin for Beyond Packaging. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included in Appendix I attached to this notice. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin on PRCBs from Thailand exists for the period August 1, 2013, through July 31, 2014, at the following rate:

    Company Rate
  • (percent)
  • Beyond Packaging Co., Ltd 122.88
    Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.6 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.7

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    7See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    When submitting a document to the Department via the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, the document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date on which it is due.

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the final results, if we continue to rely on adverse facts available to establish Beyond Packaging's weighted-average dumping margin, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 122.88 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by Beyond Packaging.

    For the companies for which the review is rescinded, the antidumping duty shall be assessed at the rate equal to the cash deposit of the estimated antidumping duty required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). We will instruct CBP accordingly.

    We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PRCBs from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Beyond Packaging will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 4.69 percent.9 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    9See Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 75 FR 48940 (August 12, 2010).

    Notifications to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum A. Summary B. Background C. Scope of the Order D. Rescission of Review in Part E. Discussion of the Methodology 1. Use of Facts Otherwise Available a. Use of Facts Available b. Application of Facts Available With an Adverse Inference c. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available 2. Duty Absorption F. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-11087 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-984] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission in Part, and Intent To Rescind the Review in Part; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on drawn stainless steel sinks (sinks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 6, 2012, through December 31, 2013. We preliminarily find that Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We are rescinding the review with respect to Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd. (Zhaoshun), Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Superte), Zhongshan Newecan Enterprise Development Corporation Limited (Newecan), Zhongshan Silk Imp. & Exp. Group Co., Ltd. of Guangdong (Zhongshan Silk). Further, we preliminarily find that Shunde Native Produce Import and Export Co., Ltd. of Guangdong (Native Produce) did not have any reviewable entries during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Meek or Joshua Morris, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778 and (202) 482-1779, respectively.

    Scope of the Order

    Drawn stainless steel sinks are sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of sinks. The products covered by this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided as Appendix I to this Notice.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each program found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.1

    1See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    In making the preliminary findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because the Government of the PRC did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we applied an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.2 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Partial Rescission

    As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the companies Zhaoshun, Superte, Newecan, and Zhongshan Silk timely withdrew their requests for administrative review of themselves.3 No other parties requested reviews of these companies. The Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), is therefore rescinding this administrative review with respect to Zhaoshun, Superte, Newecan, and Zhongshan Silk.4

    3 As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Native Produce also submitted a withdrawal of its request for review. It did so, however, after the 90-day deadline pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and was, therefore, untimely.

    4See Appendix II for the full list of companies for which this review is being rescinded.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments and Intent To Rescind the Review in Part

    Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by Native Produce, we preliminarily determine that Native Produce did not have any reviewable entries during the POR. Absent any evidence of shipments being placed on the record, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), in the final results, we intend to rescind the administrative review of this company. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for Dongyuan for the period August 6, 2012, through December 31, 2013. We calculated a rate for 2012, which will be applicable to entries made during the period August 6, 2012, through December 31, 2012, and a rate for 2013, which will be applicable to entries during the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. We preliminarily find that the net subsidy rates for Dongyuan are as follows:

    Company Subsidy
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • 2013
  • Subsidy
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • 2012
  • Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd 9.83 3.91
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice.5 Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the day on which these preliminary results are published in the Federal Register.6 Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted by no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs.7 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding should submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.8 The summary of the argument should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    5See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.9 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, on a date and at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    9See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.10 An electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e. in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 18022 and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 5 p.m. ET on the due date.11

    10See generally 19 CFR 351.303.

    11See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedure, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including our analysis of and responses to issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuing these preliminary results.

    Assessment Rates

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we assigned a subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    For the rescinded companies, countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period August 6, 2012, through December 31, 2013, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Also in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Dongyuan, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review 5. Intent to Rescind, in Part, the Administrative Review 6. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 7. Subsidy Valuation Information 8. Analysis of Programs 9. Recommendation Appendix II—Companies for Which the Review Is Rescinded 1. Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd. 2. Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd. 3. Zhongshan Silk Imp. & Exp. Group Co., Ltd. of Guangdong 4. Zhongshan Newecan Enterprise Development Corporation Limited
    [FR Doc. 2015-11088 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-983] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks (drawn sinks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The administrative review covers 11 exporters, of which the Department selected two as mandatory respondents for individual examination (i.e., Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) and Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd. (Yingao)). The period of review (POR) is October 4, 2012, through March 31, 2014.

    The Department preliminarily finds that Dongyuan and Yingao both made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian C. Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 and (202) 482-1823, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order include drawn stainless steel sinks. Imports of subject merchandise are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.1

    1 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated April 30, 2015 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), issued concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov; the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is also available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Enforcement and Compliance's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as the Appendix to this notice.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    Because Feidong Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shunde Native Produce Import & Export Co, Ltd. of Guangdong, and Zhongshan Silk Import & Export Group Co., Ltd. of Guangdong did not demonstrate they were entitled to a separate rate, the Department preliminarily finds these companies to be part of the PRC-wide entity.2 The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity is 76.53 percent.3

    2See Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Pursuant to the Department's change in practice, the Department no longer considers the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65970 (November 4, 2013). Under this practice, the NME entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change.

    3 The PRC-wide rate determined in the investigation was 76.53 percent. See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 21592 (April 11, 2013). This rate was adjusted for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass through to determine the cash deposit rate (76.45 percent) collected for companies in the PRC-wide entity. See explanation in Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Investigation, Final Determination, 78 FR 13019 (February 26, 2013).

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 4, 2012, through March 31, 2014:

    Exporters Weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd.* 2.14 Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd 0.81 Guangdong New Shichu Import & Export Company Limited * 2.14 Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd 5.55 Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd.* 2.14 Zhongshan Newecan Enterprise Development Corporation Limited * 2.14 Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd.* 2.14 * This company demonstrated that it qualified for a separate rate in this administrative review. The rate for this company is the average of the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Dongyuan and Yingao. See the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to the parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.4 Rebuttals to case briefs may be filed no later than five days after the written comments are filed and all rebuttal comments must be limited to comments raised in the case briefs.5

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c).

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.6 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.7

    6See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    7See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.8 The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of this review.

    8See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    For each individually-examined respondent in this review (i.e., Dongyuan and Yingao) which has a weighted-average dumping margin which is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer- (or customer-) specific per-unit duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's (or customer's) examined sales to the total sales quantity associated with those sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).9 Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    9 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    For the respondents which were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review and which qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the average of the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Dongyuan and Yingao in the final results of this review.

    For the final results, if we continue to treat the three companies identified above as part of the PRC-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 76.45 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by those companies.

    The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.10

    10 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (NME Antidumping Proceedings).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, which is 76.45 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results of reviews in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Methodology A. Non-Market Economy Country B. Separate Rates Determination C. The PRC-Wide Entity D. Surrogate Country 1. Economic Comparability 2. Significant Producer of Comparable Merchandise 3. Data Availability E. Date of Sale F. Fair Value Comparisons 1. Determination of Comparison Method 2. Export Price 3. Value-Added Tax 4. Normal Value G. Factor Valuation Methodology H. Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act I. Currency Conversion V. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2015-11083 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-520-803] Preliminary Negative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 29, 2014, pursuant to allegations by Polyplex USA LLC and Flex USA Inc., the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether imports of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from the Kingdom of Bahrain (Bahrain) produced by JBF Bahrain S.P.C. (JBF Bahrain) are circumventing the antidumping order on PET Film from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). We preliminarily determine that PET Film produced by JBF Bahrain in Bahrain is not circumventing the order of PET Film from the UAE,1 pursuant to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 2008) (Order).

    DATES:

    Effective: May 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. Polyethylene terephthalate film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.2

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Preliminary Decision Memorandum for Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with these results and herby adopted by this notice.

    Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

    This anti-circumvention inquiry covers PET Film produced in Bahrain by JBF Bahrain from inputs (PET chips and silica chips) manufactured in the UAE, and that is subsequently exported from Bahrain to the United States.

    Methodology

    The Department has conducted this preliminary determination of circumvention in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(h). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit in room 7046 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    3Id.

    Preliminary Findings

    As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has preliminarily determined that the process of completion or assembly of PET Film produced by JBF Bahrain is not minor or insignificant, pursuant to section 781(b)(2) of the Act, nor is the value of the merchandise produced in the UAE a significant portion of the value of PET film exported from Bahrain to the United States, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that PET Film produced by JBF Bahrain in Bahrain using inputs from the UAE, and exported from Bahrain to the United States, is not circumventing the Order.

    Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose the analysis used in these preliminary findings within five days of publication of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(b)(2), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may not be filed later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.4 Case and rebuttal briefs, when submitted, must comport with the requirements contained in 19 CPR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    Any interested party who wishes to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days after the day of publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). A request should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.5 Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs.

    5See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Final Determination

    According to 19 CFR 351.225(f)(5), the Department will normally issue a final scope ruling in a circumvention inquiry within 300 days of the date of the initiation inquiry. Because of the extensive cost, investment, and research and development information required for this analysis from JBF, the Department is extending the deadline for the final ruling in this inquiry. The final determination with respect to this anti-circumvention inquiry, including results of the Department's analysis of any written comments, will be issued no later than July 31, 2015.

    This preliminary negative circumvention determination is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Scope of the Anticircumvention Inquiry 5. Statutory Framework 6. Statutory Analysis 7. Summary of Statutory Analysis
    [FR Doc. 2015-11085 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-912] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is amending the Final Results1 of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR Tires”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) to correct a ministerial error. The period of review (“POR”) is September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013.

    1See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012- 2013, 80 FR 20197 (April 15, 2015) (“Final Results”) and accompanying Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China; 2012-2013” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    DATES:

    Effective: May 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Medley, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-4987.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 10, 2015, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results. 2 On April 15, 2015, we received a ministerial error allegation from Petitioners 3 regarding the Department's margin calculation for Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd./Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd. (collectively, “GTC”).4

    2See Memorandum, “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Disclosure of Calculations for Final Results,” dated April 10, 2015.

    3 Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (collectively, “Petitioners”).

    4See Letter from the Petitioners to the Department, titled “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from China (A-570-912): Petitioners' Clerical Error Comments, GTC,” dated April 15, 2015. See also Memorandum to the File, titled “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd.,” dated April 8, 2015 (“GTC's Analysis Memorandum”).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.5

    5 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Ministerial Error

    Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” We analyzed Petitioners' ministerial error comments and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made a ministerial error in our calculation of GTC's margin for the Final Results by inadvertently neglecting to include two of GTC's inputs in the total material cost buildup for normal value.6

    6See GTC's Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I.

    In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results. 7 The revised weighted-average dumping margins are detailed below.

    7See Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, titled “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Ministerial Error Allegation for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Amended Final Results

    As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

    Exporter Weighted
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd./Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd 11.41 Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited 11.41 Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd 11.41 PRC-Wide Entity 8 105.31
    Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).9 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review.

    8 The PRC-Wide Entity includes Double Coin Holdings Ltd. (“Double Coin”).

    9See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14, 2012) (“NME Antidumping Proceedings”).

    For customers or importers of GTC for which we do not have entered value, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales.10 For customers or importers of GTC for which we received entered-value information, we have calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment rates based on importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates.11 For the non-examined separate rate companies, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 11.41 percent. For the PRC-wide entity, including Double Coin, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 105.31 percent.

    10See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    11Id.

    Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy cases,12 for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

    12See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the amended final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin identified in the “Amended Final Results” section; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate (or exporter-producer chain rate) published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 105.31 percent; 13 and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13 In the “Cash Deposit Requirements” section of the Final Results, the Department inadvertently listed the PRC-wide cash deposit rate as 105.24 percent. The correct PRC-wide cash deposit rate is 105.31 percent.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    These amended final results of review are issued and published in accordance with section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930 Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11086 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public Meetings AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).

    DATES:

    This conference call meeting will be held on May 21, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    Call In Information: The conference call will have webinar capabilities. Participants can join the event directly at: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?i=PW3670392&p=4490607&t=c. For those whose computers are compatible to the webinar system, this will give you both the ability to look at the document and hear the conversations of the meeting participants. For those that do not hear the audio from this site, you will have to call 1-877-951-7311 and input the passcode: 4490607 for audio.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or Email: [email protected])

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Committee was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). It provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and provides advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. For more information about the Committee visit: http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/.

    Matters To Be Considered

    Committee members are expected to deliberate and vote on the Trade and Competitiveness subcommittee's recommendation to Secretary Pritzker, which generally urges the Administration to expand market access for U.S. firms to international markets, implement the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), support customs trade transformation initiatives, and ensure our trading partners' compliance with our trade agreements. This recommendation, available at: http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/documents/May%2021%202015%20Conf%20Call/ACSCC%20trade%20ltr%20to%20SPP%20TC%20Subcomm.pdf, has been reviewed and discussed over the last several open meetings of the ACSCC, most recently at the April 16 meeting. The Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services will post the final agenda and the recommendation on its Web site at least one week prior to the meeting. The conference call will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Access lines are limited. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. David Long, Director, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11073 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD925 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Public Meeting. AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Council's Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Monitoring Committee will meet via webinar to develop recommendations for future MSB specifications.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be Thursday, May 21, 2015, at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar, but anyone can also attend at the Council office address (see below). The webinar link is: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/msbmoncom2015/. Please call the Council at least 24 hours in advance if you wish to attend at the Council office.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org will also have details on webinar access and any background materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council's Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Monitoring Committee will meet to develop recommendations for future MSB specifications. There will be time for public questions and comments. The Council utilizes the Monitoring Committee recommendations at each June Council meeting when setting the subsequent years' MSB specifications.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10958 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Permits for Incidental Taking of Endangered or Threatened Species.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0230.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extensions of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 13.

    Average Hours per Response: 80 hours for a permit application (including Habitat Conservation Plans), 40 minutes for transfer of an incidental take permit; 8 hours for a permit report.

    Burden Hours: 394.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) imposed prohibitions against the taking of endangered species. In 1982, Congress revised the ESA to allow permits authorizing the taking of endangered species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The corresponding regulations (50 CFR part 222.222) established procedures for persons to apply for such a permit. In addition, the regulations set forth specific reporting requirements for such permit holders.

    The regulations contain three sets of information collections: (1) Applications for incidental take permits, (2) applications for certificates of inclusion, and (3) reporting requirements for permits issued. Certificates of inclusion are only required if a general permit is issued to a representative of a group of potential permit applicants, rather than requiring each entity to apply for and receive a permit.

    The required information is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on endangered species, to make the determinations required by the ESA prior to issuing a permit, and to establish appropriate permit conditions.

    When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA requires the Secretary to issue whatever regulations are deemed necessary or advisable to provide for conservation of the species. In many cases those regulations reflect blanket application of the section 9 take prohibition. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recognizes certain exceptions to that prohibition, including habitat restoration actions taken in accord with approved state watershed action plans. While watershed plans are prepared for other purposes in coordination with or fulfillment of various state programs, a watershed group wishing to take advantage of the exception for restoration activities (rather than obtaining a section 10 permit) would have to submit the plan for NMFS review.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Frequency: Annually and on occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    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: May 4, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11006 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0019] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice corrects the docket number and extends the comment period in a notice published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2015, (80 FR 22168), notifying the public of a proposed new information collection titled “Consumer Complaint Intake System Company Portal Boarding Form Information Collection System,” in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The document contained an incorrect docket number for submitting comments. The correct docket number is CFPB-2015-0019. The date for receiving comments has been extended accordingly.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the notice titled Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request published April 21, 2015, at 80 FR 22168, is extended. Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before June 8, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

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

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 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:

    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 email box.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 21, 2015, in FR Doc. 80-22168, on page 22168, in the second column, correct the docket number to read [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0019].

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Ashwin Vasan, Chief Information Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11015 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0016] 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, “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Regulation P) 12 CFR 1016.”

    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: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Regulation P) 12 CFR 1016.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0010.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 29,544.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 366,134

    Abstract: Section 502 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) (Pub. L. 106-102) generally prohibits a financial institution from sharing nonpublic personal information about a consumer with nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various disclosure requirements (including provision of initial privacy notices, annual notices, notices of revisions to the institution's privacy policy, and opt-out notices) and the consumer has not elected to opt out of the information sharing. The CFPB promulgated Regulation P (12 CFR 1016) to implement the GLBA's notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution's ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties.

    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. 2015-11014 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    Tuesday May 12, 2015, 9 a.m.-11 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Commission Meeting—Open to the Public

    Matter To Be Considered:

    Decisional Matter: Fiscal Year 2015 Mid-Year Review and Operating Plan.

    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.

    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11112 Filed 5-5-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Meeting Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the United States Air Force (USAF) Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) Summer Session Board Meeting will take place on 24 June 2015 at the SAFTAS Conference and Innovation Conference Center, located on the plaza level of 1550 Crystal Drive in Crystal City, Virgina. The meeting will occur from 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 June 2015. The session that will be open to the general public will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on 24 June 2015. The purpose of this Air Force Scientific Advisory Board quarterly meeting is to conduct a final review and receive FACA approval of FY15 SAB studies, which consist of: (1) Cyber Vulnerabilities of Embedded Systems on Air And Space Systems, (2) Enhanced Utility of Unmanned Air Vehicles In Contested and Denied Environments, (3) Utility of Quantum Systems for the Air Force. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, a number of sessions of the USAF SAB Summer Session Board meeting will be closed to the public because they will discuss classified information and matters covered by section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

    Any member of the public that wishes to attend this meeting or provide input to the USAF SAB must contact the Designated Federal Officer at the phone number or email address listed below at least five working days prior to the meeting date. Please ensure that you submit your written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting commencement date. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions and respond to them prior to the start of the meeting identified in this noice. Written statements received after this date may not be considered by the USAF SAB until the next scheduled meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The USAF SAB meeting organizer, Major Mike Rigoni at, [email protected] or 240-612-5504, United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 1500 West Perimeter Road, Ste. #3300, Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762.

    Henry Williams, Civ, DAF, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11008 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2015-0021] Information Collection Requirements; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through August 31, 2015. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for three additional years.

    DATES:

    DoD will consider all comments received by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0255, using any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB Control Number 0704-0255 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Tresa Sullivan, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting, (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tresa Sullivan, 571-372-6089.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Information Collection in Support of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 236, Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, and related clauses at DFARS 252.236; OMB Control Number 0704-0255.

    Needs and Uses: DoD contracting officers need this information to evaluate contractor proposals for contract modifications; to determine that a contractor has removed obstructions to navigation; to review contractor requests for payment for mobilization and preparatory work; to determine reasonableness of costs allocated to mobilization and demobilization; and to determine eligibility for the 20 percent evaluation preference for United States firms in the award of some overseas construction contracts.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 342,315.

    Number of Respondents: 3,353.

    Responses per Respondent: Approximately 1.

    Annual Responses: 3,369.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 101 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Summary of Information Collection

    DFARS 236.570(a) prescribes use of the clause at DFARS 252.236-7000, Modification Proposals—Price Breakdown, in all fixed-price construction solicitations and contracts. The clause requires the contractor to submit a price breakdown with any proposal for a contract modification.

    DFARS 236.570(b) prescribes use of the following clauses in fixed-price construction contracts and solicitations as applicable:

    (1) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7002, Obstruction of Navigable Waterways, requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of obstructions in navigable waterways.

    (2) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7003, Payment for Mobilization and Preparatory Work, requires the contractor to provide supporting documentation when submitting requests for payment for mobilization and preparatory work.

    (3) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7004, Payment for Mobilization and Demobilization, permits the contracting officer to require the contractor to furnish cost data justifying the percentage of the cost split between mobilization and demobilization, if the contracting officer believes that the proposed percentages do not bear a reasonable relation to the cost of the work.

    DFARS 236.570(c) prescribes use of the following provisions in solicitations for military construction contracts that are funded with military construction appropriations and are estimated to exceed $1,000,000:

    (1) The provision at DFARS 252.236-7010, Overseas Military Construction—Preference for United States Firms, when contract performance will be in a United States outlying area in the Pacific or in a country bordering the Arabian Gulf, requires an offeror to specify whether or not it is a United States firm.

    (2) The provision at DFARS 252.236-7012, Military Construction on Kwajalein Atoll—Evaluation Preference, when contract performance will be on Kwajalein Atoll, requires an offeror to specify whether it is a United States firm, a Marshallese firm, or other firm.

    Manuel Quinones, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11072 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The following invention is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and made available for licensing by the Department of the Navy: U.S. Patent Application No. 14/591660—“Use of heptadecanoic acid (C17:0) to detect risk of and treat hyperferritinemia and metabolic syndrome”.

    ADDRESSES:

    Request for copies of invention disclosures cited should be directed to Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Code 72120, 53560 Hull St., Bldg. A33 Room 2531, San Diego, CA 92152-5001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Suh, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, Code 72120, 53560 Hull St., Bldg. A33 Room 2531, San Diego, CA 92152-5001, telephone 619-553-5118, Email: [email protected].

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10954 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive Patent License; Epitracker, LLC AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Epitracker, LLC, a revocable, nonassignable, partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the Government-Owned inventions described in U.S. Patent Application No. 14/591660—“Use of heptadecanoic acid (C17:0) to detect risk of and treat hyperferritinemia and metabolic syndrome”.

    DATES:

    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, no later than May 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, Code 72120, 53560 Hull St., Bldg. A33 Room 2531, San Diego, CA 92152-5001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Suh, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, Code 72120, 53560 Hull St., Bldg. A33 Room 2531, San Diego, CA 92152-5001, telephone 619-553-5118, E-Mail: [email protected]

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10990 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-94-000; Docket No. CP15-96-000; Docket No. CP15-93-000] Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Panhandle Backhaul Project and Trunkline Backhaul Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will analyze the environmental impacts of the Panhandle Backhaul Project and Trunkline Backhaul Project, involving the modification and upgrades of existing facilities by Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (Panhandle) and Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline), in the Commission's environmental impact statement (EIS) currently under preparation for the Rover Pipeline Project in Docket No. CP15-93-000. The Panhandle Backhaul Project would modify existing facilities in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The Trunkline Backhaul Project would modify existing facilities in Illinois, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Both projects would increase backhaul capacity to flow natural gas volumes from the Rover Pipeline Project. The Commission will use the EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the projects are in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Panhandle Backhaul Project and Trunkline Backhaul Project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about these two projects. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 1, 2015.

    If you sent comments on these projects to the Commission before the opening of these dockets on February 23, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-94-000 for the Panhandle Backhaul Project and Docket No. CP15-96-000 for the Trunkline Backhaul Project to ensure they are considered as part of these proceedings.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for these projects. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of these proposed projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement or lease to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the projects, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the projects' docket numbers (CP15-94-000 for the Panhandle Backhaul Project and CP15-96-000 for the Trunkline Backhaul Project) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Proposed Projects

    Panhandle and Trunkline are proposing the upgrades and modifications to allow for bi-directional flow of natural gas on their existing pipeline systems. Modifications and upgrades along the Panhandle system would occur at existing facilities in Lenawee County, Michigan; Allen and Defiance Counties, Ohio; Hamilton, Marion, Parke, and Vermillion Counties, Indiana; and Douglas County, Illinois. The Panhandle Backhaul Project would include:

    New pipe, valves, fittings, and associated materials to allow for bi-directional flow at the Edgerton, Zionsville, Montezuma, and Tuscola Compressor Stations; minor piping, pressure controls, valves, fittings, and associated materials at Edgerton 10 Gate, Zionsville 3 Gate, and Tuscola 6 Gate; and tap valves and associated piping for an interconnect with the proposed Rover Pipeline Project at the Rover Defiance Compressor Station.

    Modifications and upgrades along the Trunkline system would occur at existing facilities in Douglas and Wayne Counties, Illinois; Dyer County, Tennessee; and Tate County, Mississippi. The Trunkline Backhaul Project would include:

    New pipe, valves, fittings, and associated materials to allow for bi-directional flow at the Johnsonville, Joppa, Dyersburg, and Independence Compressor Stations; new pipe, valves, fittings, meters, regulators, and other associated materials at the Bourbon Meter Station; and tap valves and associated piping for an interconnect with the Panhandle Backhaul Project at the Tuscola Compressor Station.

    The general locations of the Panhandle and Trunkline project facilities are shown in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the Panhandle facilities would disturb a total of 230.2 acres of land on or surrounding Panhandle's permanent right-of-way or lands leased or owned by Panhandle. Any land disturbance associated with the modifications and upgrades would occur within previously disturbed areas.

    Construction of the Trunkline facilities would disturb a total of 204.3 acres of land within the existing facility sites or within Trunkline's permanent right-of-way. Any land disturbance associated with the modifications and upgrades would occur within previously disturbed areas.

    The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed projects under these general headings:

    Geology and soils; land use; socioeconomics; water resources, cultural resources; vegetation and wildlife; air quality and noise; endangered and threatened species; public safety; and cumulative impacts

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed projects or portions of the projects, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The FERC staff is in the process of preparing an EIS for the Rover Pipeline Project. Five other agencies are participating as cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. With this notice, we are asking other agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues related the Panhandle and/or Trunkline projects to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s) (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on historic properties.4 The EIS will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106. We note that Panhandle has a signed categorical exclusion with Illinois SHPO and Trunkline has signed categorical exclusions with Illinois and Tennessee SHPOs. These categorical exclusions exempt work activities within existing facilities from further review by the SHPOs.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the projects develop. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EIS for these projects will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the projects. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed projects.

    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EIS scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceedings. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the projects is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-94, CP15-96, CP15-93). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10969 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-77-000] Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Broad Run Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Broad Run Expansion Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) in Kanawha County, West Virginia; Madison, Powell, and Boyd Counties, Kentucky; and Davidson County, Tennessee. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 1, 2015.

    If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on January 30, 2015, you will need to file these comments in Docket No. CP15-77-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    Tennessee provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP15-77-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    Tennessee proposes to build four new compressor stations, and add compression and modify two existing compressor stations to transport up to 200,000 dekatherms per day. Tennessee also proposes to improve efficiency and reduce certain emissions by replacing older existing compression facilities on its system with newer compressor units.

    The Project would include construction and operation of the following facilities:

    • Two new compressor stations in Kanawha County, West Virginia, to be known as the Tyler Mountain Compressor Station (CS 118A) and the Rocky Fork Compressor Station (CS 119A);

    • a new compressor station in Madison County, Kentucky, to be known as the Richmond Compressor Station (CS 875);

    • a new compressor station in Davidson County, Tennessee, to be known as the Pinnacle Compressor Station (CS 563); and

    • modifications (including abandonment and replacement of certain compression units, system components, and associated facilities) at the existing Clay City Compressor Station in Powell County, Kentucky (CS 106), and the existing Catlettsburg Compressor Station in Boyd County, Kentucky (CS 114).

    The general location of the proposed facilities is shown in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the facilities would disturb about 270 acres of land. Following construction, Tennessee would maintain about 213 acres for permanent operation of the Project; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We note that some comments were filed prior to this notice. We want to assure those commentors that their concerns filed after January 30, 2015 will be considered in the scope of our environmental review; you do not need to resubmit comments. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project under these general headings:

    • Air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this Project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the Project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the Project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include compressor stations, the construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on comments that we have received. These include the potential for noise disturbance, impacts on air quality, and impacts on nearby organic farming. As mentioned above, we will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-77). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10968 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. OR15-25-000] BP Products North America Inc. v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on April 30, 2015, pursuant to section 1(4), 1(6), 3(1), 8, 9, 13(1), 15(1), and 16(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. App. §§ 1(4), 1(6), 3(1), 8, 9, 13(1), 15(1), and 16(1); Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206; and section 343.2 of the Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.2, BP Products North America Inc. (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (Sunoco or Respondent), challenging the justness and reasonableness of: (1) Executed Throughput and Deficiency Agreements with certain shippers; and (2) Sunoco's revisions to its prorationing policy for its pipeline operating between Marysville, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio (Sunoco Pipeline), as more fully explained in the complaint.

    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the Respondents.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 1, 2015.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10971 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD15-11-000] Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms; Notice of Conference With North American Energy Standards Board

    Take notice that, on June 10, 2015, Commission staff will lead a technical conference, pursuant to the Commission's April 16, 2015 Order Instituting Proceeding to Develop Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms,1 that will include the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and interested members of the public and industry to discuss the transition to a new submission format for certain forms and NAESB's assistance in the process of developing standards for the submission of data to the Commission for the following Commission forms: Forms 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q electric, 3-Q gas, 6, 6-Q, FERC-60, and FERC-714. The technical conference will explore a transition to XML format, as well as the protocols and standards needed to provide metadata that will enable the Commission to develop a database to track the information submitted to the Commission in those forms.

    1Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms, 151 FERC ¶ 61,025 (2015).

    The technical conference will be held from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in the Commission Meeting Room. The conference is open to the public. Pre-registration through the Commission's Web site (https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-10-15-form.asp) is encouraged but not required.

    The Commission will post information on the technical conference on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the conference. The conference will also be webcast and transcribed. The webcast will be available through a link on the Commission's Calendar of Events available at http://www.ferc.gov. An email account has been created for off-site participants to submit questions for the question and answer session at the technical conference. At any time prior to and during the technical conference, please email questions to [email protected] The Capitol Connection provides technical support for webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. For technical support, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703) 993-3100. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.; contact them at (202) 347-3700.

    Background material can be found on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov; click on Documents & Filings, then Forms, and finally on eForms Refresh), and will also be available on NAESB's Web site (www.naesb.org). Notices of any subsequent meetings will be posted on both the Commission's and NAESB's Web sites.

    The Commission will accept comments following the conference, with a deadline of June 30, 2015.

    Conferences held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about this conference, please contact Robert Hudson (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, at (202) 502-6620 or [email protected], or Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs at (202) 502-8368 or [email protected]

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10976 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP13-193-000 3-9-15 Elizabeth Morra.1 2. CP15-26-000 4-27-15 Mildred H. Danch. Exempt: 1. CP15-93-000 4-8-15 FERC Staff.2 2. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-000 4-14-15 U.S. Department of the Interior. 3. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-000 4-15-15 FERC Staff.3 4. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-000 4-17-15 Hon. Peter A. DeFazio. 5. CP14-347-000 4-17-15 Ambassador Kim Beazley, Australia. 6. CP14-96-000 4-20-15 Linda D. Puglisi, Town Supervisor. 1 Phone record. 2 Email record. 3 Phone record. Dated: April 30, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10575 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1246-011; ER10-1982-012; ER10-1253-011; ER10-1252-011; ER13-764-012; ER14-1927-003; ER12-2498-012; ER12-2499-012; ER14-1776-005; ER12-1566-006; ER14-1548-004; ER11-3987-007.

    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc., CED White River Solar, LLC, CED White River Solar 2, LLC, Alpaugh 50, LLC, Alpaugh North, LLC, Broken Bow Wind II, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 3, LLC, Mesquite Solar 1, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Consolidated Edison, Inc. subsidiaries.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5645.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1436-009; ER14-152-004; ER13-1793-006; ER10-3099-012; ER12-1260-008; ER10-2329-006; ER14-153-003; ER14-154-003; ER10-3300-009; ER13-2386-003; ER10-3143-015.

    Applicants: Eagle Point Power Generation LLC, Elgin Energy Center, LLC, Hazle Spindle, LLC, RC Cape May Holdings, LLC, Stephentown Spindle, LLC, Vineland Energy LLC, Gibson City Energy Center, LLC, Grand Tower Energy Center, LLC, La Paloma Generating Company, LLC, Lakeswind Power Partners, LLC, Sabine Cogen, LP.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Rockland Sellers.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5647.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2178-013; ER14-2145-003; ER14-2144-003; ER14-1524-005; ER13-1536-007; ER12-2311-011; ER12-2201-011; ER12-1829-011; ER12-1223-016; ER11-3989-016; ER11-2056-018; ER11-2014-021; ER11-2013-021; ER11-2011-020; ER11-2010-021; ER11-2009-020; ER11-2005-021; ER10-3308-022; ER10-2184-024; ER10-2182-027; ER10-2181-027; ER10-2180-024; ER10-2179-027; ER10-2172-024; ER10-1143-020; ER10-1081-021; ER10-1080-020; ER10-1078-020; ER10-1048-021; ER10-1020-020.

    Applicants: AV Solar Ranch 1, LLC, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Beebe 1B Renewable Energy, LLC, Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, CER Generation, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, Constellation Power Source Generation, LLC, Cow Branch Wind Power, LLC, CR Clearing, LLC, Criterion Power Partners, LLC, Exelon Framingham LLC, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Exelon New Boston, LLC, Exelon West Medway, LLC, Exelon Wind 4, LLC, Exelon Wyman, LLC, Fourmile Wind Energy, LLC, Handsome Lake Energy, LLC, Harvest II Windfarm, LLC, Harvest Windfarm, LLC, Michigan Wind 1, LLC, Michigan Wind 2, LLC, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, PECO Energy Company, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC, Wildcat Wind, LLC, Wind Capital Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Exelon MBR Entities.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5652.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1458-000.

    Applicants: East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5599.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-685-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-04-30 ELMP Compliance Filing to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5547.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1619-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): CCSF IA—49th Quarterly Filing of Facilities Agreements to be effective 3/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5565.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1620-000.

    Applicants: Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Change in Status to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5567.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1621-000.

    Applicants: Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Change in Status to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5575.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1622-000.

    Applicants: Constellation Energy Services, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Change in Status to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5582.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1623-000.

    Applicants: Constellation Energy Services of New York, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Change in Status to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5585.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1624-000.

    Applicants: Constellation NewEnergy, Inc..

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Change in Status to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5587.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1625-000.

    Applicants: Exelon Generation Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Change in Status to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5588.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1626-000.

    Applicants: High Mesa Energy, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Change in Status to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5590.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-22-000; ES15-23-000; ES15-24-000; ES15-25-000; ES15-26-000; ES15-27-000; ES15-28-000; ES15-29-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., et. al. for FPA Section 204 authorizations.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5651.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA15-1-000.

    Applicants: NextEra Companies.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the NextEra Companies.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5646.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: LA15-1-000.

    Applicants: Auburndale Peaker Energy Center, LLC, Bethpage Energy Center 3, LLC, Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P., Calpine Energy Services, L.P., Calpine Fore River Energy Center, LLC, Calpine Gilroy Gogen, L.P., Calpine Greenleaf, Inc., Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic Marketing, LLC, Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC, Calpine Newark, LLC, Calpine Power America—CA, LLC, Calpine Vineland Solar, LLC, CCFC Sutter Energy, LLC, CES Marketing IX, LLC, CES Marketing X, LLC, CPN Bethpage 3rd Turbine, Inc., Creed Energy Center, LLC, Delta Energy Center, LLC, Garrison Energy Center LLC, Geysers Power Company, LLC, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, Goose Haven Energy Center, LLC, Hermiston Power, LLC, KIAC Partners, Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility, LLC, Los Medanos Energy Center, LLC, Mankato Energy Center, LLC, Metcalf Energy Center, LLC, Morgan Energy Center, LLC, Nissequogue Cogen Partners, O.L.S. Energy-Agnews, Inc., Osprey Energy Center, LLC, Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC, Pastoria Energy Facility L.L.C., Pine Bluff Energy, LLC, Power Contract Financing, L.L.C., RockGen Energy, LLC, Russell City Energy Company, LLC, South Point Energy Center, LLC, TBG Cogen Partners, Westbrook Energy Center, LLC, ZION ENERGY, LLC.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the Calpine MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5597.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/15.

    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: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10966 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2310-207] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Application for Temporary Variance of License Requirement.

    b. Project No.: 2310-207.

    c. Date Filed: April 24, 2015.

    d. Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: Drum-Spaulding Project.

    f. Location: South Yuba River and Bear River in Placer and Nevada counties, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Ezra Becker, License Coordinator, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (415) 973-3082.

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. John Aedo, (415) 369-3335, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is May 29, 2015 (30 days from April 29, 2015). This corrects the earlier parenthetical deadline, which incorrectly stated April 29, 2015. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2310-207) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a temporary variance of the minimum flow requirements at streamflow gage YB-292, located in Mormon Ravine above Newcastle Powerhouse. Specifically, the licensee requests that the instantaneous 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) minimum flow requirement be reduced to 3 cfs from May 11 to October 15, 2015. During this time the licensee would also maintain a target flow of 5 cfs, based on a 24-hour average flow at gage YB-292. The licensee states that the variance is necessary due to reduced water deliveries in the upstream canal system during the ongoing drought and the large fluctuations caused by irregular water withdrawals in the canal system made by other users.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license surrender. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10973 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting Comments

    Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Settlement Agreement.

    b. Project No.: P-7320-042.

    c. Date filed: April 30, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP (Erie).

    e. Name of Project: Chasm Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Salmon River in Franklin County, New York. The project does not occupy any federal lands.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602.

    h. Applicant Contact: Steven Murphy, Licensing Manager, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 33 West 1st Street South, Fulton, New York, 13069, (315) 598-6130 or email at [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre at (202) 502-8902 or email at [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments: May 21, 2015. Reply comments due May 31, 2015.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-7320-042.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Erie filed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of itself and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Council of Trout Unlimited, and the Town of Malone, New York. The purpose of the Settlement Agreement is to resolve among the signatories various issues associated with issuance of a new license for the project, including impoundment fluctuation, base flows, bypassed reach flows, fish protection and passage, recreational enhancements, stream flow and water level monitoring, and invasive species management. Erie requests that the Commission accept and incorporate the agreed-upon items into any new license that may be issued for the project.

    l. A copy of the settlement agreement is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10974 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR15-24-000] Navigator BSG Transportation & Storage, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 29, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Navigator BSG Transportation & Storage, LLC filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking an order approving the overall tariff, rate, and priority service structure for its proposed new crude pipeline system (Project). The Project will transport crude oil from West Texas counties in Permian Basin to points of interconnection with long-haul take away pipelines, as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 21, 2015.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10970 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-79-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Wind I, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Cameron Wind I, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-80-000.

    Applicants: 67RK 8me LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of 67RK 8me LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5325.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-81-000.

    Applicants: 65HK 8me LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of 65HK 8me LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5327.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3460-008; ER12-1301-006.

    Applicants: Bayonne Energy Center, LLC, Zone J Tolling Co., LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change In Status of Bayonne Energy Center, LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5308.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-673-007; ER12-672-007; ER10-1533-011; ER10-2374-009; ER12-674-008; ER12-670-008, ER15-359-004.

    Applicants: Brea Generation LLC, Brea Power II, LLC, Macquarie Energy LLC, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Rhode Island Engine Genco, LLC, Rhode Island LFG Genco, LLC, Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Brea Generation LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5357.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1627-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Beech Ridge Energy Service Agreements 3086, 3087, and 4118; Queue M24 to be effective 3/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1628-000.

    Applicants: Tuana Springs Energy, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Change in Status to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1629-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., NSTAR Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: NSTAR Electric Company; Filing to Comply with FERC Audit Report to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1630-000.

    Applicants: US Borax, Inc.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1631-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of SA 717—Construction Agreement with Idaho Power Co to be effective 5/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1632-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Filing of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1633-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy II LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Filing of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1634-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Filing of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1635-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Beech Ridge Energy Service Agreement 4118; Queue M24 to be effective 3/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1636-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amended SGIA and Distribution Service Agreement with SEPV Palmdale East, LLC to be effective 5/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5220.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1637-000.

    Applicants: Bayonne Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revised MBR Tariff re 784 to be effective 11/27/2013.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1638-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Conesville, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1639-000.

    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): May 2015 Membership Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5269.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1640-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Dicks Creek, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5270.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1641-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Fayette II, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5271.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1642-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Hanging Rock II, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1643-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Killen, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5273.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1644-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Lee II, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5274.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1645-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Miami Fort, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5275.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1646-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Reliability Related Clean-up (Claim10Claim30) to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1647-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Stuart, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5278.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1648-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Washington II, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5280.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1649-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Zimmer, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices of Succession of Reactive Power Rate Schedules to be effective 4/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5281.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1650-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Zonal Demand Curve to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5345.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1651-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): OATT Amendment to Schedule 4 and Schedule 13 to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5372.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1652-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 5th Amendment to Extend the PG&E-SVP Interconnection Agreement to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5416.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    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: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10967 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 137-178] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Application for Temporary Variance of License Requirement.

    b. Project No.: 137-178.

    c. Date Filed: April 24, 2015, and supplemented April 29, 2015.

    d. Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: Mokelumne River Project.

    f. Location: Mokelumne River, South Fork Mokelumne River, Bear River, and their tributaries in Amador, Alpine, and Calaveras counties, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Ezra Becker, License Coordinator, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (415) 973-3082.

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. John Aedo, (415) 369-3335, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is May 29, 2015 (30 days from April 29, 2015). This corrects the earlier parenthetical deadline, which incorrectly stated April 29, 2015. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-137-178) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission approval of a temporary variance of the minimum and pulse flow requirements at the project Upper Lakes under the requirements of the project license and Condition No. 7 of the U.S. Forest Service's (FS) section 4(e) Conditions. Specifically, the license requests that the 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) minimum flow requirement be reduced to 2 cfs below Lower Blue and Meadow Lakes from May 1, 2015 through the June 30, 2015. The licensee also requests Commission approval to forego the 5-day, 20 cfs pulse flow requirement in 2015 at Upper Blue, Lower Blue, and Meadow Lakes. The licensee states that the temporary variance is necessary to conserve water in order to ensure minimum flow releases through the fall and to maintain an adequate level to recreation opportunities at the Upper Lakes this summer.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license surrender. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10972 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14276-002] FFP Project 92, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.

    b. Project No.: 14276-002.

    c. Date Filed: April 16, 2015.

    d. Applicant: FFP Project 92, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Kentucky River Lock and Dam No. 11 Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The proposed project would be located on the Kentucky River in Estill and Madison Counties, Kentucky, at the existing Kentucky River Lock and Dam No. 11 which is owned by the Commonwealth of Kentucky and operated by the Kentucky River Authority. The project would not affect federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's regulations and Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013.

    h. Applicant Contact: Elvir Mujanovic, Vice President of Finance, Rye Development, LLC, 745 Atlantic Avenue, 8th floor, Boston, MA 02111; Telephone (781) 856-2030; [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Sarah Salazar, (202) 502-6863 or [email protected]

    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    k. Project Description: The proposed project would be located at the Commonwealth of Kentucky's existing Kentucky River Lock and Dam No. 11, which was originally constructed from 1904 to 1906 by the U.S. Corps of Engineers for the purpose of transportation. There is a single lock chamber with a total length of 148 feet and width of 52 feet on the south end of the dam. However, a concrete bulkhead and miter gates were installed in front of the lock structure and it is no longer being used for navigational purposes. The Kentucky River Authority currently operates the dam to maintain the upriver channel depth and an impoundment to withdraw water for municipal drinking water purposes. The impoundment also serves the purposes of providing opportunities for recreation and habitat for fish and wildlife.

    The proposed project would be operated in a run-of-river mode. The proposed project would include: (1) The existing 579-acre impoundment, with a normal pool elevation of 585.60 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988; (2) the existing 208-foot-long, 35-foot-high fixed crest dam; (3) a new 3.5-foot-high adjustable crest gate attached to the top of the dam that would be used to maintain the water surface elevation of the impoundment during project operations (i.e., when inflow would be diverted from the spillway to the proposed turbines); (4) a new 275-foot-long, 75-foot-wide reinforced concrete intake channel equipped with trashracks with 3-inch bar spacing; (5) a new 140-foot-long, 64.5-foot-wide powerhouse built within the existing lock structure, with two horizontal Pit Kaplan turbine generator units each rated at 2.5 megawatts (MW) for a total installed capacity of 5 MW; (6) a new 190-foot-long, 78-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a new 40-foot-long, 40-foot-wide substation; (8) a new approximately 4.5-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line extending from the new substation at the powerhouse to an existing substation located near Waco, Kentucky; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would generate about 18,500 megawatt-hours annually, which would be sold to a local utility.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

    Milestone Target date Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis July 2015 Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions September 2015 Commission issues Environmental Assessment (EA) December 2015 Comments on EA, modified terms and conditions January 2016

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10975 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0060; FRL-9927-30-OAR] California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards Regulations; Notice of Decision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is granting the California Air Resources Board's (“CARB”) request for authorization of amendments to its mobile cargo handling equipment at ports and intermodal rail yards regulations (“CHE amendments”). EPA is also confirming that certain CHE amendments are within the scope of prior EPA authorizations. CARB's mobile cargo handling equipment at ports and intermodal rail yard regulations apply to all newly purchased, leased or rented on- and off-road vehicles and equipment, as well as in-use on- and off-road vehicles and equipment, with compression-ignition engines that operate at ports and intermodal rail yards. This decision is issued under the authority of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”).

    DATES:

    Petitions for review must be filed by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0060. All documents relied upon in making this decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation Docket is: [email protected], the telephone number is (202) 566-1742, and the fax number is (202) 566-9744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through the federal government's electronic public docket and comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0060 in the “Enter Keyword or ID” fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (“CBI”) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (“OTAQ”) maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited in today's notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Dickinson, Attorney-Advisor, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256. Fax: (202) 343-2804. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    CARB first adopted its CHE regulation on December 31, 2006. The regulation applied to newly purchased, leased, or rented on- and off-road vehicles and equipment, as well as to in-use on- and off-road vehicles and equipment with compression-ignition (CI) engines that operate at ports and intermodal rail yards.1 On February 21, 2012, EPA granted California a full waiver for those parts of the CHE regulation establishing emission standards for new on-road motor vehicles and full authorization for standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions affecting new and in-use nonroad engines.2 CARB formally adopted the CHE amendments on October 14, 2012,3 and they are codified at title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2479. The CHE amendments modify certain retrofit, operational, and compliance requirements; strengthen certain emission standards; and address definitions and provide other clarifying language. By letter dated May 16, 2013, CARB submitted a request to EPA pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act, seeking EPA's confirmation that certain CHE amendments fall within the scope of EPA's February 2012 authorization and a full authorization for other CHE amendments. Those CHE amendments for which CARB sought within-the-scope confirmation are related to compliance flexibility and reduced compliance costs and include: Modification to retrofit requirements and operational practices; demonstration of emissions equivalency for alternative technology; and modification of certain compliance requirements. CARB sought a full authorization for the CHE amendments related to new, more stringent requirements and include: A new opacity based monitoring program for in-use nonroad vehicles and equipment; and, a new retrofit requirement for engines meeting the Tier 4 Family Emissions Limit standards.

    1 The federal term “nonroad” and the California term “off-road” are used interchangeably.

    2 77 FR 9916 (February 21, 2012).

    3 CARB “Resolution 11-30,” September 22, 2011; CARB “Executive Order R-12-009,” August 2, 2012.

    A. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any state, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles.4 For all other nonroad engines (including “non-new” engines), states generally are preempted from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions, except that section 209(e)(2)(A) of the Act requires EPA, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to adopt and enforce such regulations unless EPA makes one of three enumerated findings. Specifically, EPA must deny authorization if the Administrator finds that (1) California's protectiveness determination (i.e., that California standards will be, in the aggregate, as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards) is arbitrary and capricious, (2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (3) the California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.

    4 States are expressly preempted from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad engines which are used in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 horsepower. Such express preemption under section 209(e)(1) of the Act also applies to new locomotives or new engines used in locomotives.

    On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule interpreting the three criteria set forth in section 209(e)(2)(A) that EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards.5 EPA revised these regulations in 1997.6 As stated in the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA historically has interpreted the consistency inquiry under the third criterion, outlined above and set forth in section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii), to require, at minimum, that California standards and enforcement procedures be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act.7

    5See “Air Pollution Control; Preemption of State Regulation for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Standards,” 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).

    6See “Control of Air Pollution: Emission Standards for New Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 Kilowatts; Preemption of State Regulation for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Standards; Amendments to Rules,” 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997). The applicable regulations are now found in 40 CFR part 1074, subpart B, section 1074.105.

    7See supra note 12. EPA has interpreted 209(b)(1)(C) in the context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers.

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests under section 209(b)(1)(C). That provision provides that the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures will be found to be inconsistent with section 202(a) if (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.

    In light of the similar language of sections 209(b) and 209(e)(2)(A), EPA has reviewed California's requests for authorization of nonroad vehicle or engine standards under section 209(e)(2)(A) using the same principles that it has historically applied in reviewing requests for waivers of preemption for new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine standards under section 209(b).8 These principles include, among other things, that EPA should limit its inquiry to the three specific authorization criteria identified in section 209(e)(2)(A),9 and that EPA should give substantial deference to the policy judgments California has made in adopting its regulations. In previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress intended EPA's review of California's decision-making be narrow. EPA has rejected arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for denying a waiver:

    8See Engine Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1996): “. . . EPA was within the bounds of permissible construction in analogizing § 209(e) on nonroad sources to § 209(a) on motor vehicles.”

    9See supra note 12, at 36983.

    The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further reduction in air pollution in California.10

    10 “Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to California State Standards,” 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). Note that the more stringent standard expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the 1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California must determine that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. In the 1990 amendments to section 209, Congress established section 209(e) and similar language in section 209(e)(1)(i) pertaining to California's nonroad emission standards which California must determine to be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.

    This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.11 Thus, EPA's consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning an authorization decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those questions that may be considered under section 209(e)(2)(A).

    11See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (“MEMA I”).

    If California amends regulations that were previously authorized by EPA, California may ask EPA to determine that the amendments are within the scope of the earlier authorization. A within-the-scope determination for such amendments is permissible without a full authorization review if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 209 of the Act, following the same criteria discussed above in the context of full authorizations. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any “new issues” affecting EPA's prior authorizations.12

    12See “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Amendments Within the Scope of Previous Waiver of Federal Preemption,” 46 FR 36742 (July 15, 1981).

    B. Deference to California

    In previous waiver decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on the section 209(b)(1) criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess state policy choices. As the agency explained in one prior waiver decision:

    It is worth noting * * * I would feel constrained to approve a California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator. The whole approach of the Clean Air Act is to force the development of new types of emission control technology where that is needed by compelling the industry to “catch up” to some degree with newly promulgated standards. Such an approach * * * may be attended with costs, in the shape of reduced product offering, or price or fuel economy penalties, and by risks that a wider number of vehicle classes may not be able to complete their development work in time. Since a balancing of these risks and costs against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I believe I am required to give very substantial deference to California's judgments on this score.13

    13 40 FR 23102, 23103-23104 (May 28, 1975).

    Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on “ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy” to California's judgment.14 This interpretation is supported by relevant discussion in the House Committee Report for the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act.15 Congress had the opportunity through the 1977 amendments to restrict the preexisting waiver provision, but elected instead to expand California's flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission controls. The report explains that the amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the preexisting California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision, that is, to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.16

    14Id. at 23104; 58 FR 4166 (January 13, 1993).

    15MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301-302 (1977)).

    16Id.

    C. Burden and Standard of Proof

    As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made clear in MEMA I, opponents of a waiver request by California bear the burden of showing that the statutory criteria for a denial of the request have been met:

    [T]he language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that California's regulations, and California's determinations that they must comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request should be denied.17

    17MEMA I, supra note 19, at 1121.

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: “here, too, if the Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' ” 18 Therefore, the Administrator's burden is to act “reasonably.” 19

    18Id. at 1126.

    19Id. at 1126.

    With regard to the standard of proof, the court in MEMA I explained that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

    [. . .]consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality and * * * thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.20

    20Id. at 1122.

    In that decision, the court considered the standards of proof under section 209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an “accompanying enforcement procedure.” Those findings involve: (1) Whether the enforcement procedures impact California's prior protectiveness determination for the associated standards, and (2) whether the procedures are consistent with section 202(a). The principles set forth by the court, however, are similarly applicable to an EPA review of a request for a waiver of preemption for a standard. The court instructed that “the standard of proof must take account of the nature of the risk of error involved in any given decision, and it therefore varies with the finding involved. We need not decide how this standard operates in every waiver decision.” 21

    21Id.

    With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be “clear and compelling evidence” to show that proposed enforcement procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.22 The court noted that this standard of proof also accords with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare.23

    22Id.

    23Id.

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof under section 209 concerning a waiver request for “standards,” as compared to a waiver request for accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis would not apply with equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: “[E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation—the existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are technologically feasible—Congress intended that the standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.” 24

    24See, e.g., “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption,” 40 FR 23102 (May 28, 1975), at 23103.

    D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's CHE Amendment Request for Authorization

    On May 28, 2014, EPA published a Federal Register notice announcing its receipt of California's authorization request. In that notice, EPA invited public comment on each of the CHE amendments and an opportunity to request a public hearing.25

    25See “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards Regulation; Request for Within-the-Scope and Full Authorization; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment,” 79 FR 30608 (May 28, 2014).

    First, EPA requested comment on the CHE amendments, as follows: (1) Should California's CHE amendments be considered under the within-the-scope analysis, or should they be considered under the full authorization criteria?; (2) If those amendments should be considered as a within-the-scope request, do they meet the criteria for EPA to grant a within-the-scope confirmation?; and (3) If the amendments should not be considered under the within-the-scope analysis, or in the event that EPA determines they are not within the scope of the previous authorization, do they meet the criteria for full authorization?

    EPA received one anonymous written comment that opposed “any new Regulation or Rule promulgated by EPA on California State Non Road Engine Pollution Control Standards: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards Regulations.” 26 EPA is not promulgating any regulations or rules regarding California's CHE regulations, but rather is adjudicating whether or not the amendments that CARB made to its own CHE regulations are within the scope of previous authorizations granted by EPA or fulfill the criteria for a full authorization under the Clean Air Act. EPA received no requests for a public hearing. Consequently, EPA did not hold a public hearing.

    26See EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0060-0019.

    II. Discussion

    The CHE amendment package contains six categories of amendments. CARB seeks within-the-scope confirmation for the following amendments: (1) Modification to retrofit requirements; (2) modification of operation practices; (3) allowance of demonstration of emissions equivalency for alternative technology; and (4) modification of compliance requirements. CARB seeks a full authorization to enforce amendments that establish: (1) A new opacity based monitoring program; and (2) new retrofit requirements for engines meeting the Tier 4 Family Emission Limits standards.

    A. Within-the-Scope Discussion

    California maintains that many of the CHE amendments were enacted to address a variety of implementation issues associated with the initial CHE regulations. CARB asserts that the amendments provide additional compliance flexibilities without sacrificing significant emission reductions.

    CARB's amendments to the retrofit requirements allow additional time for fleet owners/operators (fleets) to retrofit equipment for which no verified diesel emission control strategies (VDECS) are available. The retrofit amendments also add safety as a criterion for assessing VDECS availability, allow additional time to request a compliance date extension, and allow an extension of the time for the use of experimental diesel particulate matter emissions control strategies for the purpose of gathering verification data on such strategies.

    According to CARB, the amendments that modify the operational practice requirements involve four minor adjustments to the CHE regulations. These include a low-use compliance extension (a two-year extension for equipment that operates less than 200 hours per year), an allowance for cargo handling equipment other than yard trucks (“non-truck CHE”), owned or leased by one party to be transferred to another location under certain limitations, an allowance for fleets to replace engines still under the original equipment manufacturer's warranty with replacement engines that meet the emission standards of the original engine, even when newer engine emission standards are in place for newly produced engines, and a new provision allowing fleets to rent non-compliant equipment in the event that compliant equipment is unavailable due to manufacturer delivery delays.

    The third set of amendments that CARB maintains are within the scope of the prior authorization establishes a compliance option that allows fleets to demonstrate emissions equivalency for alternative technology. CARB states that these amendments are designed to encourage introduction of new technologies such as hybrid and electric equipment.

    Finally, the fourth set of amendments modifies compliance requirements by establishing a compliance schedule that allows fleets to bring older engines into compliance first if owners and operators choose to do so, and by exempting equipment at rural low-throughput ports.27

    27 The exemption applies if the average annual throughput of goods through a port is less than one million tons and the port is located more than 75 miles from an urban area.

    CARB maintains that the amendments noted above meet all three within-the-scope criteria, i.e. that the amendments: (1) Do not undermine the original protectiveness determination underlying California's CHE regulations; (2) do not affect the consistency of the CHE regulations with section 209, and (3) do not raise any new issues affecting the prior authorizations.28 We received no adverse comments or evidence suggesting a within-the-scope analysis is inappropriate, or that these CHE amendments fail to meet any of the three criteria for within-the-scope confirmation.

    28Id. at 16.

    With regard to the first within-the-scope prong, CARB maintains that the stringency of its emission standards is, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.29 CARB also notes that its amendments will not create any expected adverse environmental impacts.30 Finally, CARB notes that there can be no question that the CHE regulations are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards given that EPA is unable to regulate emissions from in-use nonroad engines and equipment and that no federally applicable regulations exist. EPA agrees that there are no federally applicable standards for in-use nonroad engines and that no evidence exists in the record to demonstrate that CARB's CHE regulations, in the aggregate, are less protective than applicable federal standards. Therefore, we cannot find that the CHE amendments, as noted, undermine the protectiveness determination made with regard to the original CHE authorization.

    29See CARB Board Resolution 11-30 (enclosure 4 of CARB's authorization request).

    30See CARB Staff Report (enclosure 2 of CARB's authorization request).

    With regard to the second within-the-scope prong (consistency with section 209), CARB maintains that the CHE amendments do not regulate new motor vehicles or motor vehicles engines and so are consistent with section 209(a). Likewise the CHE amendments do not regulate any of the permanently preempted categories of engines or vehicles, and so are consistent with section 209(e)(1). Finally, CARB maintains that the CHE amendments do not cause any technological feasibility issues or cause inconsistency between state and federal test procedures, per section 209(b)(1)(C). CARB maintains that the CHE amendments, as noted, provide additional compliance flexibilities beyond the CHE regulations already found to be technologically feasible. Because there is no evidence in the record to indicate that CARB's CHE amendments are inconsistent with section 209 we cannot find that the CHE amendments, as noted, are inconsistent with section 209.

    Third, California states that no new issues exist, and EPA has received no evidence to the contrary.31 We therefore do not find any new issues raised by the CHE amendments as noted.

    31 CARB authorization support document at 14, docket entry EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0060-0003.

    Having received no contrary evidence regarding these amendments, we find that California has met the three criteria for a within-the-scope authorization approval, and these amendments are thus confirmed as within the scope of previous EPA authorizations of California's CHE regulations.

    B. Full Authorization Discussion

    As noted above, CARB seeks a full authorization to enforce amendments that establish a new opacity based monitoring program and new retrofit requirements for engines meeting the Tier 4 Family Emission Limits standards.

    CARB's CHE amendments establish new in-use opacity standards and require owners/operators to conduct annual opacity monitoring of all CHE more than four years old from the date of its original manufacture to ensure proper operation and maintenance so that engines continue to perform as designed and certified. Retrofitted engines are similarly monitored to ensure that the engines continue to be in compliance with the VDECS executive order issued by CARB. Equipment found to be in excess of opacity standards would be required to receive maintenance and repair before being returned to service.

    Under the CHE regulation that EPA previously authorized, engine manufacturers are allowed some flexibility during periods in which emission standards are transitioning from one emission level (tier) to another emission level (tier). This flexibility allows engine manufacturers to certify a certain percentage of engines manufactured, and identified as being part of the more stringent tier, to emission levels that do not meet that more stringent tier. CARB established a family emission limit (FEL) alternate particulate matter (PM) emission standard (Tier 4 Alternate PM standard) that is essentially equivalent to the less stringent Tier 3 PM emission standard. The Tier 4 Alternate PM standard is about ten times higher than the otherwise applicable Tier 4 PM standard. Through inadvertent error by CARB, the CHE regulations allowed for in-use nonroad non-truck CHE to meet the applicable upgrade requirements by meeting the Tier 4 Alternate PM standard rather than the Tier 4 PM standard. CARB's CHE amendments correct this error by requiring fleets that used the FEL-certified engines to retrofit these engines with the highest available (best—Tier 4) VDECS within one year.

    With regard to the first full authorization prong at section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act, CARB maintains that the stringency of its emission standards is, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.32 CARB also notes that its amendments will not create any expected adverse environmental impacts.33 Finally, CARB notes that there can be no question that its CHE regulation is at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards given that EPA is unable to regulate emissions from in-use nonroad engines and equipment and that no federally applicable regulations exist. EPA agrees that there are no federally applicable standards for in-use nonroad engines and that no evidence exists in the record to demonstrate that CARB's CHE regulation is less protective, in the aggregate, than applicable federal standards. Accordingly, we cannot find that CARB's protectiveness finding is arbitrary and capricious.

    32See CARB Board Resolution 11-30 (enclosure 4 of CARB's authorization request).

    33See CARB Staff Report (enclosure 2 of CARB's authorization request).

    With regard to the second authorization criterion, section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii) instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the Agency finds that California “does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” EPA's inquiry under this second criterion (found both in paragraphs 209(b)(1)(B) and 209(e)(2)(A)(ii)) has been to determine whether California needs its own mobile source pollution program (i.e. set of standards) for the relevant class or category of vehicles or engines to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and not whether the specific standards that are the subject of the authorization or waiver request are necessary to meet such conditions.34 CARB notes that in adopting its CHE amendments the CARB Board confirmed its longstanding position that California continues to need its own nonroad engine emission program to meet serious air pollution problems.35 Based on the lack of evidence in the record or any suggestion that CARB no longer has a need for its standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, we have no reason to deny CARB's authorization request based on this second authorization criterion.

    34See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR 18887, 18889-18890 (May 3, 1984).

    35See CARB's Authorization Support document at 15, citing CARB Board Resolution 11-30.

    Section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures are not consistent with “this section.” As described above, EPA's section 209(e) rule states that the Administrator shall not grant authorization to California if she finds (among other tests) that the “California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209.” EPA has interpreted the requirement to mean that California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures must be consistent with at least section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C), as EPA has interpreted this last subsection in the context of motor vehicle waivers.36 Thus, this can be viewed as a three-pronged test.

    36See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).

    1. Consistency With Section 209(a)

    Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act prohibits states or any political subdivisions of states from setting emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. Section 209(a) is modified in turn by section 209(b) which allows California to set such standards if other statutory requirements are met. To find a standard to be inconsistent with section 209(a) for purposes of section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii), EPA must find that the standard in question actually regulates new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. In its authorization request, CARB stated that by definition, the CHE amendments do not regulate new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. EPA received no comments to suggest the contrary. Therefore, EPA cannot deny California's request based on the CHE amendments being inconsistent with section 209(a) of the Act.

    2. Consistency With Section 209(e)(1)

    To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions must not relate to new engines which are used in farm or construction equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 horsepower (hp), and new locomotives or new engines used in locomotives.

    CARB maintains that its CHE amendments do not regulate new engines which are used in construction or farm equipment or vehicles below 175 hp, nor do the CHE amendments regulate new locomotives or new engines used in locomotives.

    In light of the lack of contrary information in the record, EPA cannot make a finding that CARB's CHE amendments are inconsistent with section 209(e)(1). Therefore, EPA cannot deny CARB's authorization request on this basis.

    3. Consistency With Section 209(b)(1)(C)

    The requirement that California's standards be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act effectively requires consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. To determine this consistency, EPA has applied to California nonroad standards the same test it has used previously for California motor vehicle standards; namely, state standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate lead-time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that timeframe. California's accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if federal and California test procedures conflicted. The scope of EPA's review of whether California's action is consistent with section 202(a) is narrow. The determination is limited to whether those opposed to the authorization or waiver have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with the federal test procedures.37

    37See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (“MEMA I”).

    CARB states that the smoke opacity test is a quick and inexpensive way to detect if an engine is emitting excessive emissions. CARB maintains that the smoke opacity test is technologically feasible and that compliance with the standards does not require the incorporation of any new technology not already required by existing regulations that have previously received an EPA authorization. CARB also states that the clarification of the Tier 4 FEL emission standards provisions are technologically feasible and were designed to correct an unintentional error and to clarify the original intent of the previously authorized CHE regulations. The CHE amendments only require retrofit to the Tier 4 emission level if appropriate technology is available and require the retrofit be performed within one year. EPA did not receive any comment or evidence to suggest that either of the two amendments for which CARB requested authorization is technologically infeasible.

    Consequently, based on the record, EPA is unable to make the finding that the CHE amendments are not technologically feasible with the available lead time giving consideration to the cost of compliance.

    EPA received no comments suggesting that CARB's CHE amendments pose any test procedure consistency problem. Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot find that CARB's testing procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) and cannot deny CARB's request based on this criterion.

    III. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. After evaluating CARB's amendments to its CHE regulations described above and CARB's submissions for EPA review, EPA is taking the following actions.

    First, EPA is granting a within-the-scope authorization for the CHE amendments that modify the retrofit requirements, modify operational practices, allow demonstration of emissions equivalency for alternative technology, and modify compliance requirements.

    Second, EPA is granting a full authorization for the CHE amendments that establish a new opacity based monitoring program and new retrofit requirements for engines meeting the Tier 4 FEL standards.

    This decision will affect persons in California and those manufacturers and/or owners/operators nationwide who must comply with California's requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt California's standards for which a section 209(e)(2)(A) authorization has been granted if certain criteria are met, this decision would also affect those states and those persons in such states. See CAA section 209(e)(2)(B). For these reasons, EPA determines and finds that this is a final action of national applicability, and also a final action of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by July 6, 2015. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.

    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.

    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11034 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL_XXXX-X] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Florida AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Florida's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective May 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On February 25, 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) submitted an application titled “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System e-Reporting Tool (NeT)” for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed FDEP's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Florida's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 122, 403, and 503 is being published in the Federal Register:

    Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Part 403—General Pretreatment Regulations For Existing And New Source Of Pollution Part 501—State Sludge Management Program Regulations

    FDEP was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Matthew Leopard, Acting Director, Office of Information Collection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10989 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-0806] Information Collection Being Submitted for Emergency Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communication Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection(s) of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection(s) of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.

    DATES:

    Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before June 8, 2015.

    If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202-395-5167 or via email at [email protected] Also, please submit your PRA comments to the FCC by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nicole Ongele, Office of the Managing Director, FCC at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission is requesting that OMB approve this revised information collection under the emergency processing provisions of the PRA, 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d), and 1320.13 by July 1, 2015.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0806.

    Title: Universal Service—Schools and Libraries Universal Service Program, FCC Forms 470 and 471.

    Form Number: FCC Forms 470 and 471.

    Type of Review: Revision to a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: State, local or tribal government public institutions, and other not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 82,000 respondents; 82,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3.5 hours for FCC Form 470 (3 hours for response; 0.5 hours for recordkeeping); 4.5 hours for FCC Form 471 (4 hours for response; 0.5 hours for recordkeeping).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 405.

    Total Annual Burden: 334,000 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: N/A.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents concerning this information collection. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Administrator be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission seeks to revise OMB 3060-0806 to conform this information collection to changes implemented in the Second E-Rate Modernization Order (WC Docket No. 13-184, FCC 14-189; 80 FR 5961, February 4, 2015). Collection of the information on FCC Forms 470 and 471 is necessary so that the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) have sufficient information to determine if entities are eligible for funding pursuant to the schools and libraries support mechanism, to determine if entities are complying with the Commission's rules, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition, the information is necessary for the Commission to evaluate the extent to which the E-rate program is meeting the statutory objectives specified in section 254(h) of the 1996 Act, and the Commission's own performance goals established in the E-rate Modernization Order and Second E-rate Modernization Order. This information collection, as described in more detail below, is being revised to modify FCC Form 470 pursuant to program and rule changes in the Second E-rate Modernization Order and to accommodate USAC's new online portal as well as the requirement that all FCC Forms 470 be electronically filed. The FCC Form 470, which is used to seek competitive bids on eligible services from service providers, must be available to applicants on July 1 (or very soon thereafter) to ensure schools and libraries can take full advantage of the Commission's reforms in funding year 2016. This revision does not propose changes to the FCC Form 471.

    The supporting documents for this submission, including revised forms and instructions, may be accessed via this Web site by searching under “OMB 3060-0806”: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRASearch.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10977 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1053] Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of a currently approved public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1053.

    OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2015.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2018.

    Title: Two-Line Captioned Telephone Order, IP Captioned Telephone Service Declaratory Ruling; and Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service Reform Order, CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents and Responses: 148,006 respondents; 556,010 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours (15 minutes) to 8 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual, every five years, on-going, and one-time reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the information collection requirements is found at sec. 225 [47 U.S.C. 225] Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired Individuals; The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA), Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69, was enacted on July 26, 1990.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 399,072 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $1,680,000.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information by the FCC from individuals.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: On August 1, 2003, the Commission released Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling, 68 FR 55898, September 28, 2003, clarifying that one-line captioned telephone voice carry over (VCO) service is a type of telecommunications relay service (TRS) and that eligible providers of such services are eligible to recover their costs from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) in accordance with section 225 of the Communications Act. The Commission also clarified that certain TRS mandatory minimum standards do not apply to one-line captioned telephone VCO service and waived 47 CFR 64.604(a)(1) and (a)(3) for all current and future captioned telephone VCO service providers, for the same period of time beginning August 1, 2003. The waivers were contingent on the filing of annual reports.

    On July 19, 2005, the Commission released Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 70 FR 54294, September 14, 2005, clarifying that two-line captioned telephone VCO service, like one-line captioned telephone VCO service, is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Fund.

    On January 11, 2007, the Commission released Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling, 72 FR 6960, February 14, 2007, granting a request for clarification that Internet Protocol (IP) captioned telephone relay service (IP CTS) is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Fund. The Commission also waived certain TRS mandatory minimum standards that do not apply to IP CTS, contingent on the filing of annual reports.

    On August 26, 2013, the Commission issued Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123, Report and Order, 78 FR 53684, August 30, 2013, to regulate practices relating to the marketing of IP CTS, impose certain requirements for the provision of this service, and mandate registration and certification of IP CTS users.

    On June 20, 2014, the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule prohibiting compensation to providers for minutes of use generated by equipment consumers received from providers for free or for less than $75 ($75 equipment charge rule) and the rule requiring providers to maintain captions off as the default setting for IP CTS equipment. Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, LLC v. FCC, 755 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (D.C. Circuit IP CTS Order).

    On August 22, 2014, the Commission issued Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Waivers of iTRS Mandatory Minimum Standards, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order, 79 FR 62875, October 21, 2014 (iTRS Waiver Order), to make permanent waivers of certain TRS mandatory minimum standards and eliminate waivers of other TRS mandatory minimum standards for IP CTS and CTS. The Commission also eliminated the requirement that IP CTS and CTS providers file annual reports regarding the TRS mandatory minimum standards.

    This notice pertains to OMB approval of revisions to the information collection requirements as a result of the iTRS Waiver Order eliminating the requirement that IP CTS and CTS providers file annual reports regarding the TRS mandatory minimum standards and as a result of the D.C. Circuit IP CTS Order vacating the $75 equipment charge rule and the rule requiring providers to maintain captions off as the default setting for IP CTS equipment.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10978 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 5, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Wells Bancshares, Inc., Platte City, Missouri; to retain up to 20 percent, and to acquire up to 100 percent, of the voting shares of Bedison Bancshares, Inc., Platte City, Missouri, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Bank CBO, Oregon, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 4, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11024 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 5, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:

    1. Synchrony Financial, Stamford, Connecticut; to remain a savings and loan holding company by retaining voting shares of Synchrony Bank, Draper, Utah.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 4, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11022 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0076; Docket 2015-0076; Sequence 12] Information Collection; Novation/Change of Name Requirements AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Novation/Change of Name Requirements.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements, 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. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements, 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:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-208-4949 or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Federal Acquisition Regulation 42.1203 and 42.1204 provide requirements for contractors to request novation/change of name agreements and supporting documents when a firm performing under Government contracts wishes the Government to recognize (1) a successor in interest to these contracts, or (2) a name change, it must submit certain documentation to the Government.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 1,178.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 1,178.

    Hours per Response: 2.0.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,356.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; 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 Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11074 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-MA-2015-02; Docket No. 2015-0002, Sequence No. 10] Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Relocation Allowances—Requirement To Report Agency Payments for Relocation AGENCY:

    Office of Government-Wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a bulletin.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to inform agencies that FTR Bulletin 15-04, pertaining to the Requirement to Report Agency Payments for Relocation, is now available online at www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletin.

    DATES:

    Effective: May 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Rick Miller, Office of Asset and Transportation Management (MA), Office of Government-wide Policy, GSA, at 202-501-3822 or via email at [email protected] Please cite FTR Bulletin 15-04.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under 5 U.S.C. 5707(c), as implemented in the Federal Travel Regulation, Part 300-70, Subpart A—Requirement To Report Agency Payments for Employee Travel and Relocation, and Part 302-1, Subpart B—Requirement to Report Agency Data for Employee Relocation, the Administrator of General Services is required to collect data on total agency payments for travel, transportation, and relocation expenses every year. This bulletin provides guidance to agencies that spent more than $5 million on travel and transportation payments, including relocation costs, and the requirement procedures to report the data to GSA. Federal Travel Regulation Bulletin 15-04 and all other FTR Bulletins can be found at www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletin.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Giancarlo Brizzi, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10631 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Pilot Test of the Proposed Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Version 2.0.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pilot Test of the Proposed Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Version 2.0 Proposed Project

    In 2004, AHRQ developed and published a measurement tool to assess the culture of patient safety in hospitals (OMB control no. 0935-0115). The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) is a survey of providers and staff that can be implemented by hospitals to identify strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement as well as raise awareness about patient safety. When conducted routinely, the survey can be used to examine trends in patient safety culture over time and evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions. The data can also be used to make comparisons across hospital units. AHRQ also produced a survey user's guide to assist hospitals in conducting the survey successfully. The guide addresses issues such as which providers and staff should complete the survey, how to select a sample of hospital providers and staff, how to administer the questionnaire, and how to analyze and report on the resulting data.

    Since 2004, thousands of hospitals within the U.S. and internationally have implemented the survey. In response to requests for comparative data from other hospitals, AHRQ funded the development of a comparative database on the survey in 2006 (OMB control no. 0935-0162). The database is currently compiled every two years, using the latest data provided by participating hospitals (and retaining submitted data for no more than 2 years). Reports describing the findings from analysis of the database are made available on the AHRQ Web site to assist hospitals in comparing their results. The 2014 database contains data from 405,281 hospital provider and staff respondents within 653 participating hospitals. The 2014 User Comparative Database Report presents results by hospital characteristics (e.g., number of beds, teaching status, geographic location) and respondent characteristics (e.g., position type, work area/unit).

    The survey constructed in 2004 remains in use today, more than 10 years after its initial launch. Since the launch of HSOPS, AHRQ has funded development of patient safety culture surveys for other settings. In 2008, surveys were published for outpatient medical offices (OMB control no. 0935-0131) and nursing homes (OMB control no. 0935-0132). In 2012, a survey for community pharmacies (OMB control no. 0935-0183) was released. Surveys for each setting built upon the strengths of HSOPS but improved and updated items where appropriate.

    Users of HSOPS have provided feedback over the years suggesting that changes to the instrument would be valuable and welcomed. The comparative database registrants provided feedback about potential changes in 2013, and telephone interviews were conducted with 8 current survey users and vendors to gain an in-depth understanding of their thoughts on the current survey and possible changes. As a result of this feedback, the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Version 2.0 (HSOPS 2.0) is being constructed with the following 8 objectives in mind.

    (1) Shift to a Just Culture framework for understanding responses to errors. In the original HSOPS, questions around responses to errors were negatively worded to detect a “culture of blame” in organizations. For example, respondents evaluated the extent to which errors were held against them and whether it felt as though the person was being written up rather than the problem. In contrast, a Just Culture framework emphasizes learning from mistakes, providing a safe environment for reporting errors, and utilizing a balanced approach to errors that considers both system and individual behavioral reasons as causes for errors. New items will be constructed in HSOPS 2.0 to capture the extent to which positive responses to error consistent with a Just Culture framework are present in an organization. For example, respondents will be asked to evaluate the extent to which the organization tries to understand the factors that lead to patient safety errors.

    (2) Reduce the number of negatively worded items. The original HSOPS has negatively worded items. For example, respondents are asked whether there are “patient safety problems in this unit” (negatively worded). Using some negatively worded items was intended to reduce social desirability and acquiescence biases and identify individuals not giving the survey their full attention (e.g., “straight-lining,” or providing the same answer for every item, regardless of positive or negative wording). However, many users have indicated that respondents sometimes had difficultly correctly interpreting and responding to the negatively worded items. Therefore, many survey users recommended that the number of negatively worded items should be reduced, but they did not recommend removing all of these items as they felt a mixture of items helps keep respondents engaged.

    (3) Add a “Does not apply/Don't know” response option. Analysis of the Comparative Database data found that a percentage of respondents selects “neither agree nor disagree” on many items when they really should have answered “Does not apply/Don't know”. While some portion of respondents will always have neutral feelings about a statement, in some cases a respondent will select a neutral response to an item because they do not have experience in that area or the item does not apply to their position. Addition of a “does not apply/don't know” response option should reduce neutral responses to an item in cases where the item is not relevant for a respondent, providing more statistical variability in responses. Recognizing these issues, the other AHRQ Surveys on Patient Safety Culture all have a 5th “Does not apply/Don't know” response option.

    (4) Reword unclear or difficult-to-translate items. HSOPS was originally designed for use in U.S. hospitals, but it has since been translated into languages other than English. Some HSOPS items use idiomatic expressions that do not translate well, such as “things fall between the cracks” and “the person is being written up.” Other items have words that are complex or may mean different things to different people, such as “sacrifice” and “overlook.” HSOPS 2.0 uses more universal phrases which can be accurately translated and have more consistent meaning across respondents, some of whom are non-clinical staff. A related change across many items is use of the word “we” rather than “staff.” It may be unclear to respondents whether providers such as physicians, residents, and interns qualify as “staff,” while “we” invites a more inclusive view of those in the hospital or unit.

    (5) Reword items to be more applicable to physicians and non-clinical staff. Users have indicated that the wording of some of the items makes it awkward for physicians to answer. For example, the section that asks about “Your Supervisor/Manager” does not apply well to physicians who report to a clinical leader but not to a manager per se. In addition, some items were difficult for non-clinical staff to answer. For example, the item “We have patient safety problems in this unit” may not be relevant for staff who do not have direct interaction with patients (e.g., IT staff).

    (6) Align the HSOPS survey with AHRQ patient safety culture surveys for other settings. The development of patient safety culture surveys for other settings provided opportunities to test new items and refinements of original HSOPS items. Many of these items have performed well for other settings and are relevant to the hospital setting. In addition, standardizing items across the patient safety culture surveys would allow cross-setting comparisons that are not currently possible.

    (7) Reduce survey length. To increase response rates and reduce the survey administration burden for hospitals, the revised survey is intended to be shorter than the original instrument. Some of the original items have relatively low variability and therefore contribute little to discrimination between positive and negative assessment of patient safety culture. However, the need for careful testing of alternative questions means that the initial draft of the revised or 2.0 survey is slightly longer than the original. Through cognitive interviewing, pilot testing, and expert review, we will identify items that can be deleted, resulting in a shorter final instrument.

    (8) Investigate supplemental items/composites. Develop a set of supplemental items for the HSOPS 2.0 survey pertaining to Health Information Technology (Health IT).

    Further details about the specific changes by composite and at the item level can be found on the AHRQ Web site at: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patientsafetyculture/hospital/update/index.html.

    The draft 2.0 version of the instrument has undergone preliminary cognitive testing with 9 hospital physicians and staff members as well as review by a Technical Expert Panel (TEP).

    This research has the following goals:

    (1) Cognitively test with individual respondents the items in a) the draft HSOPS 2.0 survey and b) HSOPS 2.0 supplemental item set assessing Health IT Patient Safety. Cognitive testing will be conducted in English and Spanish.

    (2) Conduct data collection as follows:

    a. A combined pilot test and bridge study for the draft HSOPS 2.0 in 40 hospitals and modify the questionnaire as necessary. The pilot test component will entail administering the draft 2.0 version to determine which items to retain. The bridge study component will entail administering the original HSOPS in addition to the draft HSOPS 2.0 version to provide guidance to hospitals in understanding changes in their scores resulting from the new instrument versus changes resulting from true changes in culture.

    b. The pilot testing of the supplemental item set will be conducted with the same hospitals and respondents as the pilot test for the draft HSOPS 2.0. These supplemental items will be added to the draft HSOPS 2.0 survey for pilot testing.

    (3) Engage a TEP in review of pilot results and finalize the questionnaire and supplemental item set.

    (4) Make the final HSOPS 2.0 survey and the supplemental items publicly available.

    This work is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

    Method of Collection

    Cognitive interviews—The purpose of these interviews is to understand the cognitive processes respondents engage in when answering each item on the survey, which will aid in refining the survey instrument. These interviews will be conducted with a mix of hospital personnel, including physicians, nurses, and other types of staff (from dietitians to housekeepers).

    Draft HSOPS 2.0—Cognitive interviews have already been conducted with 9 respondents to inform development of the current draft HSOPS 2.0. Up to three additional rounds of interviews will be conducted by telephone with a total of 27 respondents (nine respondents each round). The instrument will be translated into Spanish and another round of cognitive interviews will be conducted with nine Spanish-speaking respondents for a total of up to 36 respondents across all four rounds. A cognitive interview guide will be used for all rounds.

    Supplemental Items—Up to three rounds of interviews will be conducted by telephone for a total of 27 respondents (nine respondents each round). The supplemental items will be translated into Spanish and another round of cognitive interviews will be conducted with nine Spanish-speaking respondents for a total of up to 36 respondents across all four rounds. A cognitive interview guide will be used for all rounds.

    Feedback obtained from the first round of interviews for the draft HSOPS 2.0 and the supplemental items will be used to refine the items. The results of Round 1 testing, along with the proposed revisions, will be reviewed with a TEP prior to commencing with Rounds 2 and/or 3 testing. In total, up to 72 cognitive interviews will be conducted to refine the draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items for pilot testing.

    (2) Pilot test and bridge study—There will be one data collection effort which will provide data for the pilot test and the bridge study. The pilot test of the draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items will allow the assessment of the psychometric properties of the items and composites. We will assess the variability, reliability, factor structure and construct validity of the draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items and composites, allowing for their further refinement. The draft HSOPS 2.0 survey and supplemental items will be pilot tested with hospital personnel in approximately 40 hospitals to facilitate multilevel analysis of the data. Approximately 500 providers and staff will be sampled from each hospital, with 250 receiving HSOPS 2.0 with supplemental items for the pilot test and 250 receiving the original HSOPS for the bridge study comparisons. A hospital point of contact will be recruited in each hospital to publicize the survey and assemble a list of sampled providers and staff. Providers and staff will receive notification of the survey and reminders via email and the web-based survey will be fielded entirely online.

    The goal of the bridge study will be to provide users with guidance on how their new results will compare with results from the original HSOPS survey. Although users have requested that the HSOPS survey be revised, they are also concerned about their ability to trend results with data from prior years. A similar bridge study was conducted during the 1994 redesign of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS). In the CPS bridge study, an additional 12,000 households were added to the survey's monthly rotation schedule between July 1992 and December 1993. The added households received the redesigned version of the instrument. Thus, the CPS fielded both the revised and the original versions of the instrument simultaneously. One of the most important results of the CPS bridge study was the development of metrics that allowed estimates of change that were due to the changes in the instrument. These metrics were used to adjust the estimates produced by the revised CPS instrument. As a result of the study, key labor force metrics such as the unemployment rate could be trended accurately after the instrument's redesign.

    We propose to conduct a similarly constructed bridge study in which sampled providers and staff take either the draft HSOPS 2.0 or original versions of HSOPS. As noted above, a split ballot design will be used in which half of sampled providers and staff in each hospital receive the original HSOPS (N=250) and the other half receive the draft HSOPS 2.0 (N=250). This bridge study is designed to produce metrics of change that are attributable to the changed survey instrument. The number of hospitals and sampled providers and staff for this data collection effort was calculated to ensure the statistical power needed to detect relatively small differences in scores (3 percentage points).

    (3) TEP feedback—A TEP has been assembled to provide input to guide patient safety culture survey product development and has been convened to discuss the proposed changes to the HSOPS survey and supplemental items. Upon completion of the pilot test, results will be reviewed with the TEP and the survey will be finalized. This TEP activity does not impose a burden on the public and is therefore not included in the burden estimates in Exhibits 1 and 2.

    (4) Dissemination activities—The final HSOPS 2.0 instrument and supplemental items will be made publicly available through the AHRQ Web site. A report from the bridge study will also be made public as a resource to hospitals making the transition to the new survey. This dissemination activity does not impose a burden on the public and is therefore not included in the burden estimates in Exhibits 1 and 2.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the participants' time to take part in this research. Cognitive interviews for the draft HSOPS 2.0 will be conducted with 36 individuals and will take about one hour and 30 minutes to complete. Cognitive interviews for the supplemental items will be conducted with 36 individuals and take about one hour to complete. We will recruit 40 hospitals for the pilot test and bridge study, sampling approximately 500 staff members in each (250 taking the original survey and 250 taking the HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental item set). Because we require such a large sample within each hospital, we will target only hospitals with 49 or more beds. For hospitals with fewer than 500 providers and staff, we will conduct a census in the hospital (assuming on average 375 providers and staff in these hospitals this will yield a total of 18,375 sample members assuming all 40 hospitals participate. Assuming a response rate of 50 percent, this will yield a total of 9,188 completed questionnaires. The total annualized burden is estimated to be 2,387 hours.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the participants' time to take part in this research. The total cost burden is estimated to be $83,533.26.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name/activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Cognitive interviews—HSOPS 2.0 36 1.5 54 Cognitive interviews—Supplemental Items 36 1.0 36 Pilot test and bridge study 9,188 0.25 2,297 Total 9,260 na 2,387
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name/activity Total burden hours Average
  • hourly wage
  • rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Cognitive interviews (HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items) 90 a $35.38 $3,184.20 Pilot test and bridge study 2,297 b 34.98 80,349.06 Total 2,387 na 83,533.26 a Based on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for one physician (29-1060; $101.53), one registered nurse (29-1141; $30.22), one general and operations manager (11-1021; $52.64), and six clinical lab techs (29-2010; $22.34) whose hourly wage is meant to represent wages for other hospital employees who may participate in cognitive interviews. b Based on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for 1,981 registered nurses, 209 clinical lab techs, 176 physicians and surgeons, and 21 general and operations managers. * National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2013, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_621100.htm [for general medical and surgical hospitals, NAICS 622100]).
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director, AHRQ.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10982 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality: Request for Nominations for Public Members AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations for public members.

    SUMMARY:

    42 U.S.C. 299c establishes a National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (the Council). The Council is to advise the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) and the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) on matters related to activities of the Agency to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable, and to work within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and with other partners to make sure that the evidence is understood and used.

    Seven current members' terms will expire in November 2015. To fill these positions, we are seeking individuals who are distinguished in: (1) The conduct of research, demonstration projects, and evaluations with respect to health care; (2) the fields of health care quality research or health care improvement; (3) the practice of medicine; (4) other health professions; (5) representing the private health care sector (including health plans, providers, and purchasers) or administrators of health care delivery systems; (6) the fields of health care economics, information systems, law, ethics, business, or public policy; and, (7) representing the interests of patients and consumers of health care. 42 U.S.C. 299c(c)(2). Individuals are particularly sought with experience and success in activities specified in the summary above.

    DATES:

    Nominations should be received on or before 60 days after date of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations should be sent to Ms. Karen Brooks, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 3006, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Nominations may also be emailed to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaime Zimmerman, AHRQ, at (301) 427-1456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    42 U.S.C. 299c provides that the Secretary shall appoint to the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality twenty one appropriately qualified individuals. At least seventeen members shall be representatives of the public and at least one member shall be a specialist in the rural aspects of one or more of the professions or fields listed in the above summary. In addition, the Secretary designates, as ex officio members, representatives from other Federal agencies, principally agencies that conduct or support health care research, as well as Federal officials the Secretary may consider appropriate. 42 U.S.C. 299c(c)(3). The Council meets in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, generally in Rockville, Maryland, approximately three times a year to provide broad guidance to the Secretary and AHRQ's Director on the direction of and programs undertaken by AHRQ.

    Seven individuals will be selected by the Secretary to serve on the Council beginning with the meeting in the spring of 2016. Members generally serve 3-year terms. Appointments are staggered to permit an orderly rotation of membership.

    Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on the Council. Self-nominations are accepted. Nominations shall include: (1) A copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; and (2) a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Council. Selected candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning their financial interests, consultant positions and research grants and contracts, to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest. Please note that once a candidate is nominated, AHRQ may consider that nomination for future positions on the Council. Federally registered lobbyists are not permitted to serve on this advisory board pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum entitled “Lobbyists on Agency Boards and Commissions” dated June 10, 2010, and the Office of Management and Budget's “Final Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Boards and Commissions,” 76 FR 61756 (October 5, 2011).

    The Department seeks a broad geographic representation. In addition, AHRQ conducts and supports research concerning priority populations, which include: low-income groups; minority groups; women; children; the elderly; and individuals with special health care needs, including individuals with disabilities and individuals who need chronic care or end-of-life health care. See 42 U.S.C. 299(c). Nominations of persons with expertise in health care for these priority populations are encouraged.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10983 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed changes to the currently approved information collection project: “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on February 18th, 2015 and allowed 60 days for public comment. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at [email protected] (attention: AHRQ's desk officer).

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Project Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component

    Employer-sponsored health insurance is the source of coverage for 78 million current and former workers, plus many of their family members, and is a cornerstone of the U.S. health care system. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) measures on an annual basis the extent, cost, and coverage of employer-sponsored health insurance. These statistics are produced at the National, State, and sub-State (metropolitan area) level for private industry. Statistics are also produced for State and local governments. The MEPS-IC was last approved by OMB on November 21, 2013 and will expire on November 30, 2016. The OMB control number for the MEPS-IC is 0935-0110. All of the supporting documents for the current MEPS-IC can be downloaded from OMB's Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201310-0935-001.

    In order to ensure that the MEPS-IC is able to capture important changes in the employer-sponsored health insurance market due to the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), AHRQ will field a longitudinal survey in 2015 to include a sample of 5,000 small private sector employers that responded to the 2014 MEPS-IC. The OMB clearance that was approved on November 21, 2013 included the 2014 longitudinal survey, a survey of 3,000 respondents to the 2013 MEPS-IC, but did not include the 2015 longitudinal survey. This submission is for the 2015 longitudinal survey only; there are no other changes.

    This research has the following goals:

    (1) Provide data for Federal policymakers evaluating the effects of National and State health care reforms.

    (2) Provide descriptive data on the current employer-sponsored health insurance system and data for modeling the differential impacts of proposed health policy initiatives.

    (3) Supply critical State and National estimates of health insurance spending for the National Health Accounts and Gross Domestic Product.

    (4) Support evaluation of the impact on health insurance offered by small employers due to the implementation of Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchanges under the ACA, through the addition of a longitudinal component to the sample.

    The MEPS-IC is conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct surveys to collect data on the cost, use and quality of health care, including the types and costs of private insurance. 42 U.S.C. 299b-2(a).

    Method of Collection

    To achieve the goals of this project for both private sector and state and local government employers, the following data collections will be implemented:

    (1) Prescreener Questionnaire—The purpose of the Prescreener Questionnaire, which is collected via telephone, varies depending on the insurance status of the establishment contacted. (Establishment is defined as a single, physical location in the private sector and a governmental unit in state and local governments.) For establishments that do not offer health insurance to their employees, the prescreener is used to collect basic information such as number of employees via a phone call. For establishments that do offer health insurance, the prescreener is used to collect contact names and address information is that are used to mail a written establishment and plan questionnaires. Obtaining this contact information helps ensure that the questionnaires are directed to the person best equipped to complete them.

    (2) Establishment Questionnaire—The purpose of the mailed Establishment Questionnaire is to obtain general information from employers who provide health insurance to their employees. The Questionnaire collects such information as total active enrollment in health insurance, other employee benefits offered, demographic characteristics of employees, and retiree health insurance.

    (3) Plan Questionnaire—The purpose of the mailed Plan Questionnaire is to collect plan-specific information on each plan (up to four) offered by establishments that provide health insurance to their employees. This questionnaire asks about total premiums, employer and employee contributions to the premium, and plan enrollment for each type of coverage offered—single, employee-plus-one, and family—within a plan. It also asks for information on deductibles, copays, and other plan characteristics.

    (4) Longitudinal Sample (LS)—For 2015, an additional sample of small employers (those with 100 or fewer employees) will be included in the collection. The LS will consist of 5,000 small, private-sector employers who responded to the 2014 MEPS-IC regular survey. These employers will be surveyed again in 2015—using the same collection methods as the regular survey—in order to track changes in their health insurance offerings, characteristics, and costs.

    The primary objective of the MEPS-IC is to collect information on employer-sponsored health insurance. Such information is needed in order to provide the tools for Federal, State, and academic researchers to evaluate current and proposed health policies and to support the production of important statistical measures for other Federal agencies.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to provide the requested data for the 2015 longitudinal survey. The Prescreener questionnaire will be completed by 4,300 respondents and takes about 51/2 minutes to complete. The Establishment questionnaire will be completed by 2,054 respondents and takes about 23 minutes to complete. The Plan questionnaire will be completed by 2,054 respondents and will require an average of 1.4 responses per respondent. Each Plan questionnaire takes about 11 minutes to complete. The total burden hours are estimated to be 1,686 hours.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this data collection. The annualized cost burden is estimated to be $52,709.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Burden Hours for the 2015 Longitudinal Survey Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Prescreener Questionnaire 4,326 1 0.09 389 Establishment Questionnaire 2,078 1 0.38* 790 Plan Questionnaire 2,078 1.4 0.18 524 Total 8,482 na na 1,703 * The burden estimate printed on the establishment questionnaire is 45 minutes which includes the burden estimate for completing the establishment questionnaire, an average of 1.4 plan questionnaires, plus the prescreener. The establishment and plan questionnaires are sent to the respondent as a package and are completed by the respondent at the same time.
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Cost Burden for the 2015 Longitudinal Survey Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total
  • burden hours
  • Average hourly
  • wage rate*
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Prescreener Questionnaire 4,326 389 $30.95 $12,040 Establishment Questionnaire 2,078 790 30.95 24,451 Plan Questionnaire 2,078 524 30.95 16,218 Total 8,482 1,703 na $52,709 * Based upon the mean hourly wage for Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists occupation code 13-1141, at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131141.htm (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director, AHRQ.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10981 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1623-N] Medicare Program; Public Meeting on July 16, 2015 Regarding New and Reconsidered Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test Codes for the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2016 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a public meeting to receive comments and recommendations (including accompanying data on which recommendations are based) from the public on the appropriate basis for establishing payment amounts for new or substantially revised Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes being considered for Medicare payment under the clinical laboratory fee schedule (CLFS) for calendar year (CY) 2016. This meeting also provides a forum for those who submitted certain reconsideration requests regarding final determinations made last year on new test codes and for the public to provide comment on the requests.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 16, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

    Deadline for Registration of Presenters and Submission of Presentations: All presenters for the public meeting must register and submit their presentations electronically to Glenn McGuirk at [email protected] by July 2, 2015.

    Deadline for Submitting Requests for Special Accommodations: Requests for special accommodations must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 2, 2015.

    Deadline for Submission of Written Comments: We intend to publish our proposed determinations for new test codes and our preliminary determinations for reconsidered codes (as described below) for CY 2016 by early September 2015. Interested parties may submit written comments on these determinations by early October, 2015 to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or electronically to Glenn McGuirk at [email protected] (the specific date for the publication of these determinations on the CMS Web site, as well as the deadline for submitting comments regarding these determinations will be published on the CMS Web site).

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held in the main auditorium of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Central Building, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Glenn McGuirk, (410) 786-5723.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Section 531(b) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554) requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish procedures for coding and payment determinations for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) that permit public consultation in a manner consistent with the procedures established for implementing coding modifications for International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM). The procedures and public meeting announced in this notice for new tests are in accordance with the procedures published on November 23, 2001 in the Federal Register (66 FR 58743) to implement section 531(b) of BIPA.

    Section 942(b) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) added section 1833(h)(8) of the Act. Section 1833(h)(8)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish by regulation procedures for determining the basis for, and amount of, payment for any clinical diagnostic laboratory test with respect to which a new or substantially revised Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code is assigned on or after January 1, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “new tests”). A code is considered to be substantially revised if there is a substantive change to the definition of the test or procedure to which the code applies (such as, a new analyte or a new methodology for measuring an existing analyte-specific test). (See section 1833(h)(8)(E)(ii) of the Act).

    Section 1833(h)(8)(B) of the Act sets forth the process for determining the basis for, and the amount of, payment for new tests. Pertinent to this notice, section 1833(h)(8)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act requires the Secretary to make available to the public a list that includes any such test for which establishment of a payment amount is being considered for a year and, on the same day that the list is made available, cause to have published in the Federal Register notice of a meeting to receive comments and recommendations (including accompanying data, on which recommendations are based) from the public on the appropriate basis for establishing payment amounts for the tests on such list. This list of codes for which the establishment of a payment amount under the clinical laboratory fee schedule (CLFS) is being considered for calendar year (CY) 2016 is posted on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ClinicalLabFeeSched/Laboratory_Public_Meetings.html. Section 1833(h)(8)(B)(iii) of the Act requires that we convene the public meeting not less than 30 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register. These requirements are codified at 42 CFR part 414, subpart G.

    Two bases of payment are used to establish payment amounts for new tests. The first basis called “crosswalking,” is used when a new test is determined to be comparable to an existing test code, multiple existing test codes, or a portion of an existing test code. The new test code is assigned the local fee schedule amounts and the national limitation amount of the existing test. Payment for the new test is made at the lesser of the local fee schedule amount or the national limitation amount. (See 42 CFR 414.508(a).)

    The second basis called “gapfilling,” is used when no comparable existing test is available. When using this method, instructions are provided to each Part A and Part B Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to determine a payment amount for its Part B geographic areas for use in the first year. The contractor-specific amounts are established for the new test code using the following sources of information, if available: Charges for the test and routine discounts to charges; resources required to perform the test; payment amounts determined by other payers; and charges, payment amounts, and resources required for other tests that may be comparable or otherwise relevant. (See 42 CFR 414.508(b) and § 414.509 for more information regarding the gapfilling process.)

    Under section 1833(h)(8)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Secretary, taking into account the comments and recommendations (and accompanying data) received at the public meeting, develops and makes available to the public a list of proposed determinations with respect to the appropriate basis for establishing a payment amount for each code, an explanation of the reasons for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and a request for public written comments on the proposed determinations. Under section 1833(h)(8)(B)(v) of the Act, taking into account the comments received during the public comment period, the Secretary develops and makes available to the public a list of final determinations of final payment amounts for new test codes along with the rationale for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and responses to comments and suggestions received from the public.

    After the final determinations have been posted on our Web site, the public may request reconsideration of the basis and amount of payment for a new test as set forth in § 414.509. Pertinent to this notice, those requesting that CMS reconsider the basis for payment or, for crosswalking, reconsider the payment amount as set forth in § 414.509(a) and (b)(1) may present their reconsideration requests at the following year's public meeting provided that the requestor made the request to present at the public meeting in the written reconsideration request. For purposes of this notice, we refer to these codes as the “reconsidered codes.” The public may comment on the reconsideration requests. (See the November 27, 2007 CY 2008 Physician Fee Schedule final rule with comment period (72 FR 66275 through 66280) for more information on these procedures.)

    II. Format

    We are following our usual process, including an annual public meeting to determine the appropriate basis and payment amount for new and reconsidered test codes under the CLFS for CY 2016.

    This meeting is open to the public. The on-site check-in for visitors will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., followed by opening remarks. Registered persons from the public may discuss and make recommendations for specific new and reconsidered test codes for the CY 2016 CLFS.

    Because of time constraints, presentations must be brief, lasting no longer than 10 minutes, and must be accompanied by three written copies. In addition, CMS recommends that presenters make copies available for approximately 50 meeting participants, since CMS will not be providing additional copies. Written presentations must be electronically submitted to CMS on or before July 2, 2015. Presentation slots will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. In the event that there is not enough time for presentations by everyone who is interested in presenting, CMS will gladly accept written presentations from those who were unable to present due to time constraints. Presentations should be sent via email to Glenn McGuirk, at [email protected] For reconsidered and new test codes, presenters should address all of the following items:

    • Reconsidered or new test code(s) and descriptor.

    • Test purpose and method.

    • Costs.

    • Charges.

    • A recommendation with rationale for one of the two bases (crosswalking or gapfilling) for determining payment for new tests, or a recommendation with rationale for changing the basis or payment amount, as applicable, for reconsidered tests.

    Additionally, the presenters should provide the data on which their recommendations are based. Written presentations from the public meeting will be available upon request, via email, to Glenn McGuirk at [email protected] Presentations regarding reconsidered and new test codes that do not address the above five items may be considered incomplete and may not be considered by CMS when making a determination.

    Taking into account the comments and recommendations (and accompanying data) received at the public meeting, we intend to post our proposed determinations with respect to the appropriate basis for establishing a payment amount for each new test code and our preliminary determinations with respect to the reconsidered codes along with an explanation of the reasons for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and a request for public written comments on these determinations on the CMS Web site by early September 2015. This Web site can be accessed at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ClinicalLabFeeSched/Laboratory_Public_Meetings.html. We also will include a summary of all comments received by August 6, 2015 (15 business days after the meeting). Interested parties may submit written comments on the proposed determinations for new test codes or the preliminary determinations for reconsidered codes by early October, 2015, to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or electronically to Glenn McGuirk at [email protected] (the specific date for the publication of the determinations on the CMS Web site, as well as the deadline for submitting comments regarding the determinations will be published on the CMS Web site). Final determinations for new test codes to be included for payment on the CLFS for CY 2016 and reconsidered codes will be posted on our Web site in November 2015, along with the rationale for each determination, the data which the determinations are based, and responses to comments and suggestions received from the public. The final determinations with respect to reconsidered codes are not subject to further reconsideration. With respect to the final determinations for new test codes, the public may request reconsideration of the basis and amount of payment as set forth in § 414.509.

    III. Registration Instructions

    The Division of Ambulatory Services in the CMS Center for Medicare is coordinating the public meeting registration. Beginning June 8, 2015, registration may be completed on-line at the following Web address: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ClinicalLabFeeSched/index.html?redirect=/ClinicalLabFeeSched/. All the following information must be submitted when registering:

    • Name.

    • Company name.

    • Address.

    • Telephone numbers.

    • Email addresses.

    When registering, individuals who want to make a presentation must also specify for which new test codes they will be presenting comments. A confirmation will be sent upon receipt of the registration. Individuals must register by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    IV. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    The meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. It is suggested that you arrive at the CMS facility between 8:15 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., so that you will be able to arrive promptly at the meeting by 9:00 a.m. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 8:15 a.m. (45 minutes before the convening of the meeting).

    Security measures include the following:

    • Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel. Persons without proper identification may be denied access to the building.

    • Interior and exterior inspection of vehicles (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.

    • Passing through a metal detector and inspection of items brought into the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of demonstration or to support a demonstration, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a demonstration.

    V. Special Accommodations

    Individuals attending the meeting who are hearing or visually impaired and have special requirements, or a condition that requires special assistance, should provide that information upon registering for the meeting. The deadline for registration is listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11026 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: Child Care Quarterly Case Record Report—ACF-801.

    OMB No.: 0970-0167.

    Description: Section 658K of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9858, as amended by Public Law 113-186) requires that States and Territories submit monthly case-level data on the children and families receiving direct services under the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). The implementing regulations for the statutorily required reporting are at 45 CFR 98.70 and 98.71. Case-level reports, submitted quarterly or monthly (at grantee option), include monthly sample or full population case-level data. The data elements to be included in these reports are represented in the ACF-801. ACF uses disaggregate data to determine program and participant characteristics as well as costs and levels of child care services provided. This provides ACF with the information necessary to make reports to Congress, address national child care needs, offer technical assistance to grantees, meet performance measures, and conduct research.

    Consistent with the recent reauthorization of the CCDBG statute, ACF requests extension of the ACF-801 including a number of changes and clarifications to the reporting requirements and instructions as set forth below.

    Homeless Status: Section 658K(a)(1)(B)(xi) of the CCDBG Act now requires States to report whether children receiving assistance under this subchapter are homeless children.

    Child Disability: ACF proposes to add a new data element indicating whether or not each child receiving services is a child with a disability, in part to track State implementation of priority for services requirements at section 658E(c)(3)(B) of the CCDBG Act (which includes children with special needs as defined by the State).

    Military Status: ACF proposes to add a new data element to the ACF-801 to determine the family's status related to military service.

    Family Zip Code and Provider Zip Code: ACF proposes to add zip codes to both the family and the provider records to identify the communities where CCDF families and providers are located, in part to support implementation of sections 658E(a)(2)(M) and 658E(a)(2)(Q) of the CCDBG Act that require States to address the supply and access to high-quality child care services for certain areas and populations.

    Quality of Child Care Providers: The existing ACF-801 allows States several ways of reporting information on the quality of each child's provider(s)—including: Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) participation and rating, accreditation status, State pre-K standards, and other State-defined quality measure. To date, States have been required to report on at least one of the quality elements for a portion of the provider population. ACF is proposing that, effective with the October 2017 report, States must report quality information for every child care provider. States with a QRIS, at a minimum, would be required to report QRIS participation and rating for every provider. States without QRIS would be required to report quality information for every provider using one or more of the quality elements on the form. ACF is proposing to add a new option to indicate whether or not the provider is subject to Head Start or Early Head Start standards.

    Inspection Date: Section 658E(c)(2)(J) of the reauthorized CCDBG Act requires States to monitor both licensed and license-exempt CCDF providers. ACF proposes to add a data element effective October 2017 indicating, for each child care provider delivering services to a CCDF child, the date of the most recent inspection for compliance with health, safety, and fire standards (including licensing standards for licensed providers).

    Personally Identifiable Information: Section 658K(a)(1)(E) of the CCDBG Act now prohibits the ACF-801 report from containing personally identifiable information. As a result, ACF proposes to delete Social Security Numbers (SSNs) from the report. Note that the form will still require a unique identifying number, other than the SSN, that is assigned by the State for each family.

    Respondents: States, the District of Columbia, and Territories including Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • ACF-801 56 4 25 5,600

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,600.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10988 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: Child Care and Development Fund Annual Aggregate Report—ACF-800.

    OMB No.: 0970-0150.

    Description: Section 658K of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9858, as amended by Pub. L. 113-186) requires that States and Territories submit annual aggregate data on the children and families receiving direct services under the Child Care and Development Fund. The implementing regulations for the statutorily required reporting are at 45 CFR 98.70 and 98.71. Annual aggregate reports include data elements represented in the ACF-800 reflecting the scope, type, and methods of child care delivery. This provides ACF with the information necessary to make reports to Congress, address national child care needs, offer technical assistance to grantees, meet performance measures, and conduct research.

    Consistent with the recent reauthorization of the CCDBG statute, ACF requests extension and revision of the ACF-800 including a number of changes and clarifications to the reporting requirements and instructions. Most notably, section 658K(a)(2)(F) of the CCDBG Act now requires States to report the number of fatalities occurring among children while in the care and facility of child care providers serving CCDF children.

    Respondents: States, the District of Columbia, and Territories including Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianna Islands.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • ACF-800 56 1 42 2,352

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,352.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10987 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-0397] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for the ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT 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 ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT. ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT is indicated for use in conjunction with cataract surgery for the reduction of intraocular pressure in adult patients with mild to moderate open-angle glaucoma currently treated with ocular hypotensive medication. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for the ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT (U.S. Patent No. 6,626,858) from Glaukos Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 30, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of the ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT 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 the ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT is 2,820 days. Of this time, 1,535 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,285 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: October 7, 2004. 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 October 7, 2004.

    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 19, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application (PMA) for the ISTENT TRABECULAR MICRO-BYPASS STENT (PMA P080030) was initially submitted December 19, 2008.

    3. The date the application was approved: June 25, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P080030 was approved on June 25, 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 5 years 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 3, 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: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10999 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-0138] Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls; Draft Guidance for Industry AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry on the implementation of the mandatory food recall provisions of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The guidance is in the form of Questions and Answers and provides answers to common questions that might arise about the mandatory recall provisions and FDA's plans for their implementation.

    DATES:

    Although you may comment on any guidance at any time, to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on this draft guidance before it completes a final version of the guidance, submit electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Outreach and Information Center (HFS-009), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cecilia M. Wolyniak, Food and Drug Administration, WO32 Rm. 4352 HFC-210, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8209.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA's mandatory food recall authority went into effect when FSMA was enacted on January 4, 2011. Section 423 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as added by section 206 of FSMA, gives FDA the authority to order a responsible party to recall an article of food where FDA determines that there is a reasonable probability that the article of food (other than infant formula) is adulterated under section 402 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 342] or misbranded under section 403(w) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 343(w)] and that the use of or exposure to such article will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals (SAHCODHA).

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance provides answers to common questions that might arise about the mandatory recall provisions and FDA's plans for their implementation.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent our current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance does not refer to any information collection provisions found in FDA regulations. 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). We conclude that the Draft Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls is not subject to Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or electronic comments regarding the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. 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. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at eitherhttp://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11009 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2029] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Administrative Practices and Procedures; Formal Evidentiary Public Hearing AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0191. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Administrative Practices and Procedures (21 CFR 10.30, 10.33.10.35.10.85); Formal Evidentiary Public Hearing (21 CFR 12.22, 12.45) (OMB Control Number 0910-0191)—Extension

    The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) provides that every Agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Section 10.30 (21 CFR 10.30) sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may submit to FDA, in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) (Submission of documents to Division of Dockets Management), a citizen petition requesting the Commissioner to issue, amend, or revoke a regulation or order, or to take or refrain from taking any other form of administrative action.

    The Commissioner may grant or deny such a petition, in whole or in part, and may grant such other relief or take other action as the petition warrants. Respondents are individuals or households, State or local governments, and not-for-profit institutions or groups.

    Section 10.33 (21 CFR 10.33), issued under section 701(a) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request reconsideration of part or all of a decision of the Commissioner on a petition submitted under 21 CFR 10.25 (Initiation of administrative proceedings). A petition for reconsideration must contain a full statement in a well-organized format of the factual and legal grounds upon which the petition relies. The grounds must demonstrate that relevant information and views contained in the administrative record were not previously or not adequately considered by the Commissioner. The respondent must submit a petition no later than 30 days after the decision involved. However, the Commissioner may, for good cause, permit a petition to be filed after 30 days. An interested person who wishes to rely on information or views not included in the administrative record shall submit them with a new petition to modify the decision. FDA uses the information provided in the request to determine whether to grant the petition for reconsideration. Respondents to this collection of information are individuals of households, State or local governments, not-for-profit institutions, and businesses or other for-profit institutions who are requesting from the Commissioner of FDA a reconsideration of a matter.

    Section 10.35 (21 CFR 10.35), issued under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act, sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request, in accordance with § 10.20 (Submission of documents to Division of Dockets Management), the Commissioner to stay the effective date of any administrative action.

    Such a petition must do the following: (1) Identify the decision involved; (2) state the action requested, including the length of time for which a stay is requested; and (3) include a statement of the factual and legal grounds on which the interested person relies in seeking the stay. FDA uses the information provided in the request to determine whether to grant the petition for stay of action.

    Respondents to this information collection are interested persons who choose to file a petition for an administrative stay of action.

    Section 10.85 (21 CFR 10.85), issued under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act, sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request, in accordance with § 10.20 (Submission of documents to Division of Dockets Management), an advisory opinion from the Commissioner on a matter of general applicability. An advisory opinion represents the formal position of FDA on a matter of general applicability. When making a request, the petitioner must provide a concise statement of the issues and questions on which an opinion is requested, and a full statement of the facts and legal points relevant to the request. Respondents to this collection of information are interested persons seeking an advisory opinion from the Commissioner on the Agency's formal position for matters of general applicability.

    FDA has developed a method for electronic submission of citizen petitions. The Agency still allows for non-electronic submissions; however, electronic submissions of a citizen petition to a specific electronic docket presents a simpler and more straightforward approach. FDA has created a single docket on http://www.regulations.gov, the U.S. Government's consolidated docket Web site for Federal Agencies, for the initial electronic submission of all citizen petitions. The advantage to this change is that it ensures efficiency and ease in communication, quicker interaction between citizen petitioners and FDA, and easier access to FDA to seek input through the citizen petition process.

    The regulations in 21 CFR 12.22, issued under section 701(e)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(2)), set forth the instructions for filing objections and requests for a hearing on a regulation or order under § 12.20(d) (21 CFR 12.20(d)). Objections and requests must be submitted within the time specified in § 12.20(e). Each objection, for which a hearing has been requested, must be separately numbered and specify the provision of the regulation or the proposed order. In addition, each objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the factual information and any other document, with some exceptions, supporting the objection. Failure to include this information constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. FDA uses the description and analysis to determine whether a hearing request is justified. The description and analysis may be used only for the purpose of determining whether a hearing has been justified under 21 CFR 12.24 and does not limit the evidence that may be presented if a hearing is granted.

    Respondents to this information collection are those parties that may be adversely affected by an order or regulation.

    Section 12.45 (21 CFR 12.45) issued under section 701 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371), sets forth the format and procedures for any interested person to file a petition to participate in a formal evidentiary hearing, either personally or through a representative. Section 12.45 requires that any person filing a notice of participation state their specific interest in the proceedings, including the specific issues of fact about which the person desires to be heard. This section also requires that the notice include a statement that the person will present testimony at the hearing and will comply with specific requirements in 21 CFR 12.85, or, in the case of a hearing before a Public Board of Inquiry, concerning disclosure of data and information by participants (21 CFR 13.25). In accordance with § 12.45(e) the presiding officer may omit a participant's appearance.

    The presiding officer and other participants will use the collected information in a hearing to identify specific interests to be presented. This preliminary information serves to expedite the prehearing conference and commits participation.

    The respondents are individuals or households, State or local governments, not-for-profit institutions and businesses, or other for-profit groups and institutions.

    In the Federal Register of December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73320), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total
  • hours
  • 10.30—Citizen Petition 207 1 207 24 4,968 10.33—Administrative reconsideration of action 4 1 4 10 40 10.35—Administrative Stay of Action 5 1 5 10 50 10.85—Advisory Opinions 4 1 4 16 64 12.22—Filing Objections and Requests for a Hearing on a Regulation or Order 3 1 3 20 60 12.45—Notice of Participation 4 1 4 3 12 Total 5,194 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The burden estimates for this collection of information are based on Agency records and experience over the past 3 years.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10996 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-1690] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SYNRIBO AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for SYNRIBO 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 SYNRIBO (omacetaxine mepesuccinate). SYNRIBO is indicated for treatment of adult patients with chronic or accelerated phase chronic myeloid leukemia with resistance and/or intolerance to two or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for SYNRIBO (U.S. Patent No. 6,987,103) from Robin, Mahon, Maisonneuve, Maloisel, and Blanchard, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 30, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of SYNRIBO 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 SYNRIBO is 4,182 days. Of this time, 3,037 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,145 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 17, 2001. The applicant claims May 18, 2001, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was May 17, 2001, 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: September 8, 2009. The applicant claims September 4, 2009, as the date the new drug application (NDA) for SYNRIBO was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that the NDA was submitted on September 8, 2009.

    3. The date the application was approved: October 26, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the NDA for SYNRIBO was approved on October 26, 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 1,217 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 3, 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: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11004 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2014-E-0070 and FDA-2014-E-0071] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; GATTEX AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for GATTEX 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 GATTEX (teduglutide [rDNA origin]). GATTEX is indicated for treatment of adult patients with Short Bowel Syndrome who are dependent on parenteral support. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for GATTEX (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,789,379 and 7,056,886) from NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' 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 GATTEX 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 GATTEX is 4,959 days. Of this time, 4,571 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 388 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 27, 1999. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on May 27, 1999.

    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 30, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for GATTEX (NDA 203441) was submitted on November 30, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: December 21, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 203441 was approved on December 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 applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,388 days or 5 years 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 3, 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: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11000 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-0296] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY 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. Patents and Trademarks 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 Bldg., 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 COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY. COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY is indicated for use in one- or two-level lumbar stenosis from L1-L5 in skeletally mature patients with at least moderate impairment in function, who experience relief in flexion from their symptoms of leg/buttocks/groin pain, with or without back pain, and who have undergone at least 6 months of non-operative treatment. Subsequent to this approval, USPTO received a patent term restoration application for COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY (U.S. Patent No. 5,645,599) from Paradigm Spine, LLC, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated December 24, 2013, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY 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 COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY is 2,382 days. Of this time, 1,787 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 595 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: April 12, 2006. 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 March 10, 2006. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on April 12, 2006, 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): March 3, 2011. The applicant claims March 4, 2011, as the date the premarket approval application (PMA) for COFLEX INTERLAMINAR TECHNOLOGY (PMA P110008) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that PMA P110008 was submitted on March 3, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: October 17, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P110008 was approved on October 17, 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 1,503 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 3, 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: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10998 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2013-E-0968 and FDA-2013-E-0969] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; OVUGEL AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for OVUGEL 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 U.S. Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that animal 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 20993-0002, 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 animal drug products, the testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) became effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the animal 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 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 an animal drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the animal drug product OVUGEL (triptorelin acetate). OVUGEL, an animal drug product, is indicated for the synchronization of time of insemination in weaned sows to facilitate a single fixed-time artificial insemination. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for OVUGEL (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,985,320 and RE 42,072) from Penn State Research Foundation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 25, 2014, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this animal drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of OVUGEL 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 OVUGEL is 3,692 days. Of this time, 3,644 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 48 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: August 12, 2002. The applicant claims February 13, 2002, as the date the investigational new animal drug application (INAD) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the INAD effective date was August 12, 2002, which was the date a major health or environmental effects test is begun or the date on which the Agency acknowledges the filing of a notice of claimed investigational exemption for a new animal drug, whichever is earlier.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the animal drug product under section 512 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b): August 2, 2012. The applicant claims July 20, 2012, as the date the new animal drug Application (NADA) for OVUGEL RE42072 (NADA 141-339) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NADA 141-339 was submitted on August 2, 2012.

    3. The date the application was approved: September 18, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NADA 141-339 was approved on September 18, 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 331 or 1,826 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 3, 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: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11003 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-1652] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP 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 HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP. HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP is indicated for use as a bridge to cardiac transplantation in patients who are at risk of death from refractory end-stage left ventricular heart failure. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP (U.S. Patent No. 6,234,772) from HeartWare, 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 HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP 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 HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP is 1,667 days. Of this time, 973 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 694 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: April 30, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational device exemption required under section 520(g) of the FD&C act for human tests to begin became effective April 30, 2008.

    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 28, 2010. The applicant claims December 23, 2010, as the date the premarket approval application (PMA) for HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP (PMA P100047) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that PMA P100047 was submitted on December 28, 2010.

    3. The date the application was approved: November 20, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P100047 was approved on November 20, 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 818 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 3, 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: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11001 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0878] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled, “Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 27, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0330. The approval expires on March 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10997 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0100] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SIGNIFOR AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for SIGNIFOR 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 SIGNIFOR (pasireotide diaspartate). SIGNIFOR is indicated for treatment of adult patients with Cushing's disease for whom pituitary surgery is not an option or has not been curative. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for SIGNIFOR (U.S. Patent No. 7,473,761) from Novartis AG, 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 SIGNIFOR 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 SIGNIFOR is 3,440 days. Of this time, 3,138 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 302 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: July 17, 2003. The applicant claims July 16, 2003, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was July 17, 2003, 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: February 17, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for SIGNIFOR (NDA 200677) was submitted on February 17, 2012.

    3. The date the application was approved: December 14, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 200677 was approved on December 14, 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 503 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 3, 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: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10994 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0155] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; OSENI AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for OSENI 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 OSENI (alogliptin benzoate and pioglitazone hydrochloride). OSENI 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 OSENI (U.S. Patent No. 6,329,404) 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 OSENI 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 OSENI is 2,482 days. Of this time, 895 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,587 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: April 12, 2006. The applicant claims April 13, 2006, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was April 12, 2006, 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: September 22, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for OSENI (NDA 22-426) was submitted on September 22, 2008.

    3. The date the application was approved: January 25, 2013. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-426 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 1,826 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 3, 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: May 1, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11002 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0110] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Device Reporting: Manufacturer, Importer, User Facility, and Distributor Reporting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on medical device reporting (MDR); manufacturer, importer, user facility, and distributor reporting.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Medical Device Reporting: Manufacturer, Importer, User Facility, and Distributor Reporting (21 CFR part 803) OMB Control Number 0910-0437—Extension

    Section 519(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360i(a)(1)) requires every manufacturer or importer to report whenever the manufacturer or importer receives or otherwise becomes aware of information that reasonably suggests that one of its marketed devices may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned and that such device or a similar device marketed by the manufacturer or importer would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.

    Section 519(b)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act requires whenever a device user facility receives or otherwise becomes aware of information that reasonably suggests that a device has or may have caused or contributed to the death or serious illness, of a patient of the facility, the facility shall, as soon as practicable but not later than 10 working days after becoming aware of the information, report the information to the Secretary of HHS and, if the identity of the manufacturer is known, to the manufacturer of the device.

    Section 519(b)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act requires whenever a device user facility receives or otherwise becomes aware of information that reasonably suggests that a device has or may have caused or contributed to the serious illness of, or serious injury to, a patient of the facility, shall, as soon as practicable but not later than 10 working days after becoming aware of the information, report the information to the manufacturer of the device or to the Secretary of HHS if the identity of the manufacturer is not known.

    Complete, accurate, and timely adverse event information is necessary for the identification of emerging device problems. Information from these reports will be used to evaluate risks associated with medical devices which will enable FDA to take appropriate regulatory measures in protection of the public health under section 519 of the FD&C Act. Thus FDA is requesting approval for these information collection requirements which are being implemented under part 803.

    Respondents to this collection of information are businesses or other for-profit and nonprofit organizations including user facilities, manufacturers, and importers of medical devices.

    Part 803 requires user facilities to report to the device manufacturer and to FDA in case of a death, incidents where a medical device caused or contributed to a death or serious injury. Additionally, user facilities are required to annually submit the number and summary of advents reported during the calendar year using Form FDA 3419. Manufacturers of medical devices are required to report to FDA when they become aware of information indicating that one of their devices may have caused or contributed to death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in such a way, that should the malfunction recur, it would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury. Device importers report deaths and serious injuries to the manufacturers and FDA. Importers report malfunctions only to the manufacturers, unless they are unknown, then the reports are sent to FDA.

    The number of respondents for each CFR section in table 1 is based upon the number of respondents entered into FDA's internal databases. FDA estimates, based on its experience and interaction with the medical device community, that all reporting CFR sections are expected to take 1 hour to complete, with the exception of § 803.19. Section 803.19 is expected to take approximately 3 hours to complete, but is only required for reporting the summarized data quarterly to FDA. By summarizing events, the total time used to report for this section is reduced because the respondents do not submit a full report for each event they report in a quarterly summary report.

    The Agency believes that the majority of manufacturers, user facilities, and importers have already established written procedures to document complaints and information to meet the MDR requirements as part of their internal quality control system. There are an estimated 30,000 medical device distributors. Although they do not submit MDR reports, they must maintain records of complaints under § 803.18(d).

    The Agency has estimated that on average 220 user facilities, importers, and manufacturers would annually be required to establish new procedures, or revise existing procedures, in order to comply with this provision.

    Therefore, FDA estimates the one-time burden to respondents for establishing or revising procedures under § 803.17 to be 2,200 hours (220 respondents × 10 hours). For those entities, a one-time burden of 10 hours is estimated for establishing written MDR procedures. The remaining manufacturers, user facilities, and importers, not required to revise their written procedures to comply with this provision, are excluded from the burden because the recordkeeping activities needed to comply with this provision are considered “usual and customary” under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

    Under § 803.18, 30,000 respondents represent distributors, importers, and other respondents to this information collection. FDA estimates that it should take them approximately 1.5 hours to complete the recordkeeping requirement for this section. Total hours for this section equal 45,000 hours.

    Reporting Requirements

    Part 803 requires user facilities to report incidents where a medical device caused or contributed a death or serious injury to the device manufacturer and to FDA in the case of a death. Manufacturers of medical devices are required to report to FDA when they become aware of information indicating that one of their devices may have caused or contributed to death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in such a way that, should the malfunction recur, it would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury. Device importers report deaths and serious injuries to the manufacturers and FDA. Importers report malfunctions only to the manufacturers (see third-party disclosure burden table), unless the manufacturers are unknown, then the reports are sent to FDA.

    FDA estimates, based on its experience and interaction with the medical device community, that all reporting CFR sections are expected to take 1 hour to complete with the exception of § 803.19. Section 803.19 is expected to take approximately 3 hours to complete, but is only required to report the summarized data quarterly to FDA. By summarizing events, the total time used to report for this section is reduced because the respondents do not submit a full report for each event they report in a quarterly summary report.

    Recordkeeping Requirements

    The Agency believes that the majority of manufacturers, user facilities, and importers have already established written procedures to document complaints and information to meet the MDR requirements as part of their internal quality control system. There are an estimated 30,000 medical device distributors. Although they do not submit MDR reports, they must maintain records of complaints under § 803.18(d). We estimate that it will take each respondent 1.5 hours annually to maintain the records.

    The Agency has estimated that on average, 220 user facilities, importers, and manufacturers would annually be required, under § 803.17, to establish new procedures, or revise existing procedures, in order to comply with this provision. We estimate that it will take each respondent 10 hours annually to establish new procedures, or revise existing procedures.

    Third-Party Disclosure Burden

    Under §§ 803.40 and 803.42, device importers report deaths and serious injuries to the manufacturers and FDA. Importers report malfunctions only to the manufacturers, unless they are unknown, then the reports are sent to FDA. We estimate that it will take respondents 1 hour annually to report the information.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 CFR section FDA form No. Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Exemptions—803.19 57 4 228 3 684 User Facility Reporting—803.30 and 803.32 544 9 4,896 1 4,896 User Facility Annual Reporting—803.33 3419 195 1 195 1 195 Importer Reporting, Death and Serious Injury—803.40 and 803.42 1 1 1 1 1 Manufacturer Reporting—803.50, through 803.53 1,239 243 301,077 1 301,077 Supplemental Reports—803.56 124 302 37,448 1 37,448 Total 344,301 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per
  • record
  • Total hours
    MDR Procedures—803.17 220 1 220 10 2,200 MDR Files—803.18 30,000 1 30,000 1.5 45,000 Total 47,200 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 3—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures per
  • respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    Importer Reporting, Malfunctions—803.40 and 803.42 1 25 25 1 25 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: May 4, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10995 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Joint Meeting of the Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of two public advisory committees of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.

    Name of Committees: Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee.

    General Function of the Committees: To provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on June 4, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    Contact Person: Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    Agenda: The committees will discuss new drug application (NDA) 022526, flibanserin 100 milligram (mg) tablets, submitted by Sprout Pharmaceuticals Inc., proposed for the treatment of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May 20, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before May 12, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by May 13, 2015.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11013 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-0424-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Adolescent Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-0424-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Positive Adolescent Futures (PAF) Study.

    Abstract: The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting approval by OMB on a revised data collection. The Positive Adolescent Futures (PAF) Study will provide information about program design, implementation, and impacts through a rigorous assessment of program impacts and implementation of two programs designed to support expectant and parenting teens. These programs are located in Houston, Texas and throughout the state of California. The revision to this information collection request includes the 12-month follow-up survey instrument related to the impact study. The collected data from this instrument will provide a detailed understanding of the program impacts within the two study sites about one year after youth are enrolled in the study. Plus, have first access to the programming offered by each site. Clearance is requested for three years.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The data will serve two main purposes. First, the data will be used to determine program effectiveness by comparing outcomes on repeat pregnancies, sexual risk behaviors, health and well-being, and parenting behaviors between treatment (program) and control youth. Second, the data will be used to understand whether the programs are more effective for some youth than others. The findings from these analyses of program impacts will be of interest to the general public, to policymakers, and to organizations interested in supporting expectant and parenting teens.

    Likely Respondents: 1,913 study participants.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    12-month follow-up survey of impact study participants 639 1 .5 319 Total 319

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Terry S. Clark, Asst Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10634 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4168-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and 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 Advisory Council.

    Date: June 10-11, 2015.

    Open: June 10, 2015, 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: NHLBI's Strategic Visioning research priorities.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 35A, Porter Building, Room 640, 35A Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: June 11, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To discuss program policies and issues.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 35A, Porter Building, Room 640, 35A Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: June 11, 2015, 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 35A, Porter Building, Room 640, 35A Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Stephen C. Mockrin, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Research Activities National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7100, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0260, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/nhlbac/index.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (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: May 1, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10626 Filed 5-6-15; 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 Initial Review Group; Biological Aging Review Committee.

    Date: June 2-3, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard Long Beach, 500 East First Street, Long Beach, CA 90802.

    Contact Person: BITA NAKHAI, Ph.D., SCIENTIFIC REVIEW BRANCH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING, GATEWAY BLDG., 2C212, 7201 WISCONSIN AVENUE, BETHESDA, MD 20814, 301-402-7701, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Initial Review Group; Clinical Aging Review Committee.

    Date: June 4-5, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard Long Beach, 500 East First Street, Long Beach, CA 90802.

    Contact Person: ALICJA L. MARKOWSKA, Ph.D., DSC, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, GATEWAY BUILDING 2C212, 7201 WISCONSIN AVENUE, BETHESDA, MD 20892, 301-496-9666, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 1, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10625 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0017] Notice of Workshop Meeting Regarding Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations AGENCY:

    Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a public workshop on June 9, 2015 to discuss Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, Automated Indicator Sharing, and Analysis, as related to E.O. 13691, “Promoting Private Sector Cybersecurity Information Sharing” of February 13, 2015.

    DATES:

    The workshop will be held on June 9, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting may conclude before the allotted time if all matters for discussion have been addressed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting location is the Cambridge Massachusetts Volpe Center—55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142. See Supplementary Information section for the address to submit written or electronic comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions concerning the meeting, please contact [email protected] or Michael A. Echols, Director, JPMO, Department of Homeland Security, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose

    On February 13, 2015, President Obama signed E.O. 13691 intended to enable and facilitate “private companies, nonprofit organizations, and executive departments and agencies . . . to share information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents and collaborate to respond in as close to real time as possible.” The order addresses two concerns the private sector has raised:

    • How can companies share information if they do not fit neatly into the sector-based structure of the existing Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs)?

    • If a group of companies wants to start an information sharing organization, what model should they follow? What are the best practices for such an organization?

    ISAOs may allow organizations to robustly participate in DHS information sharing programs even if they do not fit into an existing critical infrastructure sector, seek to collaborate with other companies in different ways (regionally, for example), or lack sufficient resources to share directly with the government. ISAOs may participate in existing DHS cybersecurity information sharing programs and contribute to near-real-time sharing of cyber threat indicators.

    Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact [email protected] and write “Special Assistance” in the subject box or contact the meeting coordinator the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Meeting Details

    Members of the public may attend this workshop by RSVP only up to the seating capacity of the room. DHS will audio record the Workshop Panels that take place in the VOLPE Center Auditorium and make the audio recording publicly available on the ISAO Web page DHS.gov/ISAO. Each individual will be scanned, and valid government-issued photo identification (for example, a driver's license) will be required for entrance to the building and meeting space. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should RSVP through the link provided on the ISAO Web page DHS.gov/ISAO no later than 14 days prior to the meeting. Requests made after May 26, 2015 might not be able to be accommodated.

    We encourage you to participate in this meeting by submitting comments to the ISAO inbox [email protected], commenting orally, or submitting written comments to the DHS personnel attending the meeting who are identified to receive them.

    Submitting Other Written Comments

    You may also submit written comments to the docket before or after the meeting using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Although comments are being submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, this is a tool to provide transparency to the general public, not because this is a rulemaking action.

    (2) Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    (3) Fax: 703-235-4981, Attn: Michael A. Echols.

    (4) Mail: Michael A. Echols, Director, JPMO—ISAO Coordinator, NPPD, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0615, Arlington VA 20598-0615.

    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments and related material submitted after the meeting must either be submitted to the online docket on or before July 8, 2015, or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

    Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 131-134; 6 CFR. 29; E.O. 13691.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Andy Ozment, Assistant Secretary, Cybersecurity and Communications, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10683 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2015-N081; FXES11130300000-154-FF03E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of permit applications; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered or threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

    DATES:

    We must receive any written comments on or before June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Endangered Species Permits, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regional Recovery Permit Coordinator, by telephone at (612) 713-5343.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    We invite public comment on the following permit applications for certain activities with endangered species authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and our regulations governing the taking of endangered species, found at 50 CFR part 17. Submit your written data, comments, or request for a copy of the complete application to the mailing address or email address shown in ADDRESSES.

    Permit Applications Permit Application Number: TE697830-9 Applicant: Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to add species listed or proposed for listing since January 2012, and that occur within the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE62218B Applicant: Douglas J. Taron, Chicago Academy of Sciences, Chicago, IL.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) within the States of Illinois and Indiana. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE130900 Applicant: Gregory F. Zimmerman, EnviroScience, Inc., Stow, OH.

    The applicant requests an amendment to add dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina), scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), and spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) to their permit. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE120231 Applicant: John C. Timpone, Coeur d'Alene, ID.

    The applicant requests renewal of their permit and an amendment to add the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the States of Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE60257B Applicant: Jason W. Crites, Missouri Department of Conservation, Cape Girardeau, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit to take grotto sculpin (Cottus specus) in the State of Missouri. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE60133B Applicant: Jay T. Hatch, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) in the State of Minnesota. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE40451B Applicant: Katie N. Bertrand, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) in the States of Minnesota and South Dakota. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE15027A Applicant: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Columbus, OH.

    The applicant requests permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and add the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming to their permit. The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE82666A Applicant: Justin G. Boyles, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.

    The applicant requests an amendment to add the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) to their permit. The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE105320 Applicant: Michael D. Johnson, Tragus Environmental Consulting, Inc., Akron, OH.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and add the States of Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsin to their permit. The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE21831B Applicant: Katherine L. Caldwell, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64241B Applicant: Mary Thomsen, Barker Lemar Engineering Consultants, West Des Moines, IA.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the States of Illinois and Iowa. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64239B Applicant: Nathanael R. Light, Ozark, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), gray bats (Myotis grisescens), and northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE06797A Applicant: Rod D. McClanahan, Anna, IL.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE98063A Applicant: Kathryn M. Womack, Columbia, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE38842A

    Applicant: Christopher W. Sanders, Sanders Environmental Inc., Bellefonte, PA.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE77530A Applicant: Douglas J. Kapusinski, Chagrin Valley Engineering, Ltd., Cleveland, OH.

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take clubshell (Pleurobema clava), cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), fat pocketbook (Potamilus capax), Higgins' eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii), James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina), northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), orangefoot pimpleback pearlymussel (Plethobasus cooperianus), pink mucket pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta), purple cat's paw pearlymussel (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata), rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), ring pink (Obovaria retusa), rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum), scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), tubercled blossom (Epioblasma torulosa torulosa), white cat's paw pearlymussel (Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua), white wartyback (Plethobasus cicatriocosus), and winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa). Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE144832

    Applicant: Detroit Zoological Society, Royal Oak, MI.

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) in the States of Ohio and Michigan, and to take piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) in the States of Michigan and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE206778-6

    Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington MN.

    The applicant requests an amendment to add additional activities and personnel to their permit. The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE06845A Applicant: Lochmueller Group, Inc., Evansville, IN.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE98032A Applicant: James Gardner, Jefferson City, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to the existing permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE98295A

    Applicant: Dallas Settle, Fayetteville, WV.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to the existing permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE66742A

    Applicant: Timothy Krynak, Cleveland Parks, Parma, OH.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE60958A Applicant: Bryan Arnold, affiliated with Illinois College, Jacksonville, IL.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and add additional States and personnel to their permit. The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE38769A Applicant: Sarah Bradley, Salem, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE62297A Applicant: Michael Whitby, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE151107 Applicant: Redwing Ecological Services, Inc., Louisville, KY.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE62286A Applicant: Jason Whittle, Cuyahoga Falls, OH.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE38821A Applicant: Stantec Consulting Services, Louisville, KY.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis), fluted kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus subtentum), and slabside pearlymussel (Pleuronaia dolabelloides), and to add personnel to their permit. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE38789A Applicant: Power Engineers, Inc., Cincinnati, OH.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the States of Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE38087B Applicant: Jessica Hickey-Miller, Independence, OH.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Gray bats (Myotis grisescens) in the States of Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE35518B Applicant: Jeremy Sheets, Plymouth, IN.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The amendment would also ad the States of Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota to their permit. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE212427 Applicant: Ecology and Environment, Inc., Lancaster, NY.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and add the States of Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming to their permit. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE31055B Applicant: Kory Armstrong, Springfield, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Ozark big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE60958A Applicant: Bat Call Identification Inc., Kansas City, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and add personnel to the permit. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE106220 Applicant: Brianne Walters, Terre Haute, IN.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE06846A Applicant: Peter P. Marra, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take Kirtland's warblers (Setophaga kirtlandii) in the State of Michigan (a request to increase the number of nests monitored from 100 to 150, and increase the frequency of nest check). Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE98296A Applicant: Braden A. Hoffman, Alliance Consulting, Inc., Daniels, WV.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Virginia big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus). The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE809630 Applicant: Allen Kurta, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis), and add personnel and the State of Michigan to their permit. The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE10877 Applicant: Ralph Grundel, Porter IN.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa sameulis) in the States of Wisconsin and Michigan, and add personnel to their permit. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE30970B Applicant: Jeffrey Miller, Kansas City MO.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the States of Arkansas, District of Colombia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Connecticut, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE06778A Applicant: U.S. Forest Service, Poplar Bluff, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis), and add personnel to their permit. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE35855B Applicant: Laura D'Acunto, West Lafayette, IN.

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the State of Michigan. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64072B Applicant: Douglas D. Locy, Aquatic Systems, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.

    The applicant requests a permit to take the clubshell (Pleurobema clava), fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), fat pocketbook (Potamilus capax), Higgins' eye (Lampsilis higginsii), northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), orangefoot pimpleback (Phethobasus cooperianus), pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), purple cat's paw pearlymussel (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), and white cat's paw (Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua) mussels in the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64068B Applicant: Timothy J. Catton, USDA Forest Service, Duluth, MN.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64070B Applicant: Jeff Towner, SWCA, Inc., Bismarck, ND.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Dakota skippers (Hesperia dacotae) and Poweshiek skipperlings (Oarisma poweshiek) in the States of Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64071B Applicant: Gerald Lawrence Zuercher, Dubuque, IA.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in the State of Iowa. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64069B Applicant: Kari Beth Jensen Kirschbaum, East Lansing, MI.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64073B Applicant: Gerald Selby, Ecological & GIS Services, Indianola, IA.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Dakota skippers (Hesperia dacotae) and Poweshiek skipperlings (Oarisma poweshiek) in the States of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64074B Applicant: Julie A. Zeyzus, Fayetteville, PA.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis), gray bats (Myotis grisescens), Virginia big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), and Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the States of Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64075B Applicant: Rodney Rovang, Effigy Mounds National Monument, Harper's Ferry, IA.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the State of Iowa. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64076B Applicant: Sarah Ebel, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL.

    The applicant requests a permit to take federally listed species (salvage dead threatened and endangered species for scientific museum collections and public education/display) in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64077B Applicant: Scott Reed, HDR, Minneapolis, MN.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Dakota skippers (Hesperia dacotae) and Poweshiek skipperlings (Oarisma poweshiek) in the States of Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE74078B Applicant: Wyn Hall, Toledo Zoological Gardens, Toledo, OH.

    The applicant requests a permit to take and/or possess gray wolves (Canis lupus) for zoological purposes. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64079B Applicant: Erik Runquist, Minnesota Zoological Garden, Apple Valley, MN.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Dakota skippers (Hesperia dacotae) and Poweshiek skipperlings (Oarisma poweshiek) in the State of Minnesota. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64080B Applicant: Brian Klatt, Michigan State University, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, East Lansing, MI.

    The applicant requests a permit to take the following species in the State of Michigan. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Species common name Species scientific name Copperbelly water snake Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta. Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus. Piping plover Charadrius melodus. Kirtland's warbler Dendroica kirtlandii. Gray wolf Canis lupus. Cougar Felis concolor. Lynx Lynx canadensis. Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis. Indiana bat Myotis sodalis. Hungerford's crawling water beetle Brychius hungerfordi. American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus. Karner blue butterfly Lycaeides melissa samuelis. Mitchell's satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii. Poweshiek skipperling Oarisma poweshiek. Hine's emerald dragonfly Somatochlora hineana. White cat's paw Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua. Northern riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa rangiana. Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra. Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon. Clubshell Pleurobema clava. Rayed bean Villosa fabalis. Hart's-tongue fern Asplenium scolopendrium var. Pitcher's thistle Cirsium pitcheri. Lakeside daisy Hymenoxys herbacea (Tetraneuris herbacea). Dwarf lake iris Iris lacustris. Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides. Michigan monkey flower Mimulus michiganensis (Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis). Prairie white-fringed orchid Platanthera leucophaea (Habenaria leucophaea). Houghton's goldenrod Solidago houghtonii. Permit Application Number: TE64081B Applicant: Joseph R. Hoyt, Santa Cruz, CA.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the States of Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64082B Applicant: Daniel W. Beckman, Springfield, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit to take Topeka shiners (Notropis topeka) in the State of Missouri. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64234B Applicant: Christopher Miles Barnhart, Springfield, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit to take fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), Ouachita rock pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri), fat pocketbook (Potamilus capax), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon), Arkansas fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii), Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), and spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) mussels, in the State of Missouri. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64235B Applicant: William G. O'Leary, Murphysboro, IL.

    The applicant requests a permit to take least terns (Sternula antillarum) in the State of Indiana. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64236B Applicant: Josiah J. Maine, Kansas City, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the States of Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Kansas, and South Dakota. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64237B Applicant: Megan B. York-Harris, Fairdealing, MO.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis), gray bats (Myotis grisescens), and Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the States of Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64238B Applicant: Jocelyn R. Karsk, Muncie, IN.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the State of Indiana. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE64264B Applicant: Carly RW Kalina, Barker Lemar Engineering Consultants, West Des Moines, IA.

    The applicant requests a permit to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the States of Iowa and Illinois. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE02373A Applicant: Environmental Solutions and Innovations, Inc., Cincinnati, OH.

    The applicant requests a permit renewal, with amendments, to take northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), clubshell (Pleurobema clava), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina), and snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) mussels. The proposed amendments would occur in the states currently covered in the permit. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE697830 Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago Field Office, Chicago, IL.

    The applicant requests permit renewal and an amendment to add additional activities and personnel. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Permit Application Number: TE06809A Applicant: Sybill Amelon, USDA Forest Service, Columbia, MO.

    The applicant requests an amendment to add the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and additional personnel to their permit. The applicant also requests a permit renewal. Proposed activities are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Request for Public Comments

    We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the appropriate permit application number(s) when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and it's implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22).

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Lynn M. Lewis, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10985 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2015-N075; FXES11120100000-156-FF01E00000] Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Fender's Blue Butterfly on Private Lands in Yamhill County, Oregon; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the comment period for an application from the Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) for an incidental take permit (permit) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The permit application includes a draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) addressing private land management activities within upland prairie in Yamhill County, Oregon, that may result in the incidental take of the endangered Fender's blue butterfly. The Service also announces the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) addressing the proposed HCP and issuance of a permit that was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). We invite comments from all interested parties on the permit application, including the HCP and the EA. We are reopening the comment period to correct a technical error with the electronic email box associated with the email address provided in our original Federal Register notice. The public could send comments to the Service's email address but we were not able to retrieve the comments for review; therefore, the comments could not be considered and recognized as part of the record. If you have previously submitted comments via email, please resubmit them to the new email address in order to be considered since they were unfortunately not retrievable for consideration.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be received from interested parties no later than June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to the Yamhill SWCD HCP.

    Internet: Documents may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ToolsForLandowners/HabitatConservationPlans/#HCP.

    Email: [email protected] Include “Yamhill SWCD HCP” in the subject line of the message.

    U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266. Include “Yamhill SWCD HCP” in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 503-231-6195, Attn: Yamhill SWCD HCP.

    In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Documents will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Szlemp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), telephone: 503-231-6179. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 23, 2015, we published a Federal Register notice (80 FR 9477) announcing the availability of the draft HCP and the draft EA for a 30-day review and comment period. We are providing interested parties another opportunity to review and comment on these documents by reopening the comment period for 30 days. We are reopening the comment period to correct a technical error with the electronic email box associated with the email address provided in our original Federal Register notice (80 FR 9477). The public could send comments to the Service's email address but we were not able to retrieve the comments for review; therefore the comments could not be considered and recognized as part of the record. Therefore, if you submitted comments via email to the previously provided address, please resubmit your comments to the new email address or by using any of the methods provided in the ADDRESSES section above.

    For background and more information on the draft HCP and draft EA, see our February 23, 2015, notice. For information on where to view the documents and how to submit comments, please see the ADDRESSES section above.

    Public Availability of Comments

    All comments and materials we receive will become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, 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 review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the EA, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Authority

    We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and their implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 40 CFR 1506.6, respectively).

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Richard Hannan, Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10980 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary [156D0102DM DS61100000 DLSN00000.000000 DX61101] Proposed Renewal of Information Collection: OMB Control Number 1094-0001; Alternatives Process in Hydropower Licensing AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comments on the provisions thereof.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your written comments to Shawn Alam, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., MS 2462-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, fax 202-208-6970, or by electronic mail to [email protected]. Please mention that your comments concern the Alternatives Process in Hydropower Licensing, OMB Control Number 1094-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the information collection request, any explanatory information and related forms, please use the contact information provided in the ADDRESSES section above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This notice is for renewal of information collection.

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)).

    On March 31, 2015, the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce published revised interim final rules they originally published in November 2005 at 7CFR part 1, 43 CFR part 45, and 50 CFR part 221 to implement section 241 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EP Act), Public Law 109-58, which the President signed into law on August 8, 2005. Section 241 of the EP Act adds a new section 33 to the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 823d, that allows the license applicant or any other party to the license proceeding to propose an alternative to a condition or prescription that one or more of the Departments develop for inclusion in a hydropower license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the FPA. This provision requires that the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce collect the information covered by 1094-0001.

    Under FPA section 33, the Secretary of the Department involved must accept the proposed alternative if the Secretary determines, based on substantial evidence provided by a party to the license proceeding or otherwise available to the Secretary, (a) that the alternative condition provides for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservation, or that the alternative prescription will be no less protective than the fishway initially proposed by the Secretary, and (b) that the alternative will either cost significantly less to implement or result in improved operation of the project works for electricity production.

    In order to make this determination, the regulations require that all of the following information be collected: (1) A description of the alternative, in an equivalent level of detail to the Department's preliminary condition or prescription; (2) an explanation of how the alternative: (i) If a condition, will provide for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservation; or (ii) if a prescription, will be no less protective than the fishway prescribed by the bureau; (3) an explanation of how the alternative, as compared to the preliminary condition or prescription, will: (i) Cost significantly less to implement; or (ii) result in improved operation of the project works for electricity production; (4) an explanation of how the alternative or revised alternative will affect: (i) Energy supply, distribution, cost, and use; (ii) flood control; (iii) navigation; (iv) water supply; (v) air quality; and (vi) other aspects of environmental quality; and (5) specific citations to any scientific studies, literature, and other documented information relied on to support the proposal.

    This notice of proposed renewal of an existing information collection is being published by the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior, on behalf of all three Departments and the data provided below covers anticipated responses (alternative conditions/prescriptions and associated information) for all three Departments.

    II. Data

    (1) Title: 7 CFR part 1; 43 CFR part 45; 50 CFR part 221; the Alternatives Process in Hydropower Licensing.

    OMB Control Number: 1094-0001.

    Current Expiration Date: November 30, 2015.

    Type of Review: Information Collection Renewal.

    Affected Entities: Business or for-profit entities.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 5.

    Frequency of responses: Once per alternative proposed.

    (2) Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:

    Total annual reporting per response: 500 hours.

    Total number of estimated responses: 5.

    Total annual reporting: 2,500 hours.

    (3) Description of the need and use of the information: The purpose of this information collection is to provide an opportunity for license parties to propose an alternative condition or prescription to that proposed by the Federal Government for inclusion in the hydropower licensing process.

    III. Request for Comments

    The Departments invite comments on:

    (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the collection of information and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    “Burden” means the total time, effort, and 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 use technology and systems for the purposes 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, and to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    All written comments, with names and addresses, will be available for public inspection. If you wish us to withhold your personal information, you must prominently state at the beginning of your comment what personal information you want us to withhold. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment with the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance by using the contact information in the ADDRESSES section above. A valid picture identification is required for entry into the Department of the Interior.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Mary Josie Blanchard, Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10695 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary [134D0102DM DMSN00000.000000 DS68200000 DX68201DAGENLAM] Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Notice To Amend an Existing System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of amendment to an existing system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Interior is issuing public notice of its intent to amend the Office of the Secretary Privacy Act system of records, “Hearings and Appeals Files—Interior, OS-09”. The amendment will update the system location, categories of records, routine uses of records maintained, policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining and disposing of records, and citations to amended Department of the Interior regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 16, 2015. The amendments to the system will be effective June 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any person interested in commenting on this notice may do so by: submitting comments in writing to Teri Barnett, Departmental Privacy Officer, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 5547 MIB, Washington, DC 20240; hand-delivering comments to Teri Barnett, Departmental Privacy Officer, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 5547 MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or emailing comments to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22203, or by telephone at 703-235-3810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), maintains the “Hearings and Appeals File—Interior, OS-09,” system of records. The primary purpose of this system is to support the adjudication or other resolution of administrative disputes assigned to OHA. The amendments to the system will include updating the system location, categories of records, routine uses of records maintained, and policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining and disposing of records, as well as updating citations to amended DOI regulations. The categories of records in the system is being updated to delete a reference regarding contract disputes considered and decided by the Interior Board of Contract Appeals, which was replaced by Congress with the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Sec. 847, Pub. L. 109-163, 119 Stat. 3391), and to add a reference to hearings in hydropower licensing proceedings (43 CFR part 45). This system notice was last published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, 71 FR 68633.

    The list of routine uses of records maintained in the system is being revised in several respects. Routine use (1) is expanded to cover not only parties and their authorized representatives but also intervenors, witnesses, parties' family members, any other persons whose connections to the parties and/or the proceedings could warrant attendance and/or participation at a hearing, and authorized representatives of any of these additional persons. Routine use (1) is also expanded to expressly include service lists as documents that may be disclosed. It is typical for service lists to show, among other things, the name and address of each party or party's representative.

    Routine use (2) is added to permit disclosure of case docket lists that provide limited information on pending cases, such as, docket number, case title (which may be an individual's name), and docketed date. Finally, routine use (3) is added to permit disclosure of decisions and orders whose disclosure is not required under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2).

    The amendments to the system will be effective as proposed at the end of the comment period (the comment period will end 40 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register), unless comments are received which would require a contrary determination. DOI will publish a revised notice if changes are made based upon a review of the comments received.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' personal information. The Privacy Act applies to records about individuals that are maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency for which information about an individual is retrieved by the name or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act defines an individual as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. As a matter of policy, DOI extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of the DOI by complying with DOI Privacy Act regulations at 43 CFR part 2, subpart K.

    The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register a description denoting the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency record keeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses of their records, and to assist individuals to more easily find such records within the agency. The amended system notice for the “Hearings and Appeals Files—Interior, OS-09,” is published in its entirety below.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DOI has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.

    III. Public Disclosure

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Teri Barnett, Departmental Privacy Officer. System Name:

    Hearings and Appeals Files—Interior, OS-09.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    (1) Director's Office and Appeals Boards, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    (2) Probate Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, BIA Building II, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Room 322, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104.

    (3) Departmental Cases Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 351 South West Temple St., Suite 6.300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Individuals involved or otherwise identified in hearings and appeals proceedings before the Office of the Director, Appeals Boards, and Hearings Divisions of OHA.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Records in this system include information assembled in case files and docket systems pertaining to individuals involved in the categories of hearings and appeals proceedings listed below. The types of records vary from category to category and case to case, but may include correspondence, pleadings, and briefs; administrative record materials, other documentary evidence, and transcripts of testimony; notices, orders, and decisions issued by administrative law judges, administrative judges, and other deciding officials; and associated docket cards and docket system data entries. During the active consideration of a case, records may also include deliberative process materials such as a judge's notes, draft orders or decisions, and comments on such drafts from other judges or staff. Records in the system may contain names, addresses, telephone numbers, family relationship information (including adoption and foster care relationship information), tribal enrollment information, and dates of birth of individuals involved or otherwise identified in hearings and appeals.

    Categories of hearings and appeals proceedings covered by OS-09:

    (1) Indian probate matters, considered and decided by the Probate Hearings Division, including determination of heirs, approval of wills, allowance of claims, and the purchase of decedents' interests in trust and restricted lands; and appeals in such matters, considered and decided by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA).

    (2) Heirship determinations under the White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act of 1985, considered and decided by the Departmental Cases Hearings Division (DCHD); and appeals in such matters, considered and decided by IBIA.

    (3) Appeals pertaining to administrative actions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, considered and decided by IBIA.

    (4) Contest proceedings and other hearings relating to the use and disposition of public lands and their resources, considered and decided by the DCHD, including land selections arising under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; appeals in such matters, considered and decided by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA); and appeals from decisions of the Bureau of Land Management relating to the use and disposition of public lands and their resources, considered and decided by IBLA.

    (5) Appeals from decisions of Departmental officials relating to the use and disposition of mineral resources in certain acquired lands of the United States and in the submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf, considered and decided by IBLA.

    (6) Hearings in appeals relating to surface coal mining and reclamation operations, considered and decided by the DCHD; appeals in such matters, considered and decided by IBLA; and appeals from decisions of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement relating to surface coal mining and reclamation operations, considered and decided by IBLA.

    (7) Hearings related to mandatory conditions and prescriptions proposed for inclusion in hydropower licenses, considered and decided by the DCHD.

    (8) Hearings and appeals in various matters considered and decided by the Director or his or her designees, including employee debt collection matters, requests for waiver of claims for erroneous payments, determinations of employee liability for loss or damage to government property, adjustment of rental rates for government quarters, acreage limitations under the Reclamation Reform Act, Relocation Assistance Act claims, enforcement actions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and Director's review matters under 43 CFR 4.5(b).

    (9) Any other hearings or appeals proceedings conducted by OHA under statutes or Departmental regulations providing for a hearing and/or a right to appeal within the Department.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    5 U.S.C. 301, 551 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 791 et seq.; 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, 372, 373, 373a, 373b, 374, 2201 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. chap. 2, 3, 3A, 5, 7, 16, 23, 25 and 29; 41 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 315a, 1201, 1331 et seq., 1601 et seq., 1701 et seq.; 43 CFR parts 4, 30, and 45.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    The primary purpose of the Hearings and Appeals Files system of records is to support administrative determinations and adjudications assigned to OHA. Final opinions rendered in the adjudication of cases will be disclosed outside DOI as required by law and regulation (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), 43 CFR 2.1(g); 2.67(b)). In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOI as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    (1) To parties and their authorized representatives, as well as intervenors, witnesses, parties' family members, any other persons whose connections to the parties and/or the proceedings could warrant attendance and/or participation at a hearing, and authorized representatives of any of these additional persons, upon request or in the course of case adjudication, including persons in attendance at formal hearings (e.g., parties' family members), when the disclosure involves documents of record in the proceeding, including service lists but excluding documents protected from disclosure under 43 CFR 4.31.

    (2) To the public of case docket lists that provide limited information on pending cases, e.g., docket number, case title, and docketed date.

    (3) To the public of decisions and orders that are not required to be disclosed under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), e.g., ALJ decisions and orders and IBLA orders, either in their original form or as redacted, if:

    (i) Such disclosure would not cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and

    (ii) Such documents would not otherwise be exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

    (4)(a) To any of the following entities or individuals, when the circumstances set forth in paragraph (b) are met:

    (i) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ);

    (ii) A court or an adjudicative or other administrative body;

    (iii) A party in litigation before a court or an adjudicative or other administrative body; or

    (iv) Any DOI employee acting in his or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent that employee or pay for private representation of the employee;

    (b) When:

    (i) One of the following is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in the proceeding:

    (A) DOI or any component of DOI;

    (B) Any other Federal agency appearing before OHA;

    (C) Any DOI employee acting in his or her official capacity;

    (D) Any DOI employee acting in his or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent that employee or pay for private representation of the employee;

    (E) The United States, when DOJ determines that DOI is likely to be affected by the proceeding; and

    (ii) DOI deems the disclosure to be:

    (A) Relevant and necessary to the proceeding; and

    (B) Compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.

    (5) To a congressional office in response to a written inquiry that an individual covered by the system, or the heir of such individual if the covered individual is deceased, has made to the office.

    (6) To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.

    (7) To an official of another Federal agency to provide information needed in the performance of official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files or to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains.

    (8) To Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal, or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.

    (9) To representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration to conduct records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    (10) To state, territorial and local governments and tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to court order and/or discovery purposes related to litigation, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.

    (11) To an expert, consultant, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI's behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.

    (12) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

    (a) It is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; and

    (b) The Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interest, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and

    (c) The disclosure is made to such agencies, entities and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    (13) To the Office of Management and Budget during the coordination and clearance process in connection with legislative affairs as mandated by OMB Circular A-19.

    (14) To the Department of the Treasury to recover debts owed to the United States.

    (15) To agency contractors, grantees, or volunteers for DOI or other Federal Departments who have been engaged to assist the Government in the performance of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other activity related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.

    (16) To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Public Affairs Officer in consultation with Counsel and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, where there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or otherwise violate the FOIA.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12), disclosures may be made to a consumer reporting agency as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Case file records in manual form are maintained in file folders. Electronic records, including those created for the purpose of tracking case files, are maintained on the OHA computer network in user-authenticated, password-protected systems that are compliant with the Federal Information Security Management Act. All records are accessed only by authorized personnel who have a need to access the records in the performance of their official duties.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Both manual and electronic records are retrieved by the name of the appellant, claimant, or other party, or by designated OHA docket number.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    The records contained in this system are safeguarded in accordance with 43 CFR 2.226 and other applicable security rules and policies. Most of the records covered by this notice are in paper form. Access is provided on a need-to-know basis. Manual records are maintained in locked file cabinets located in secured rooms or DOI facilities. Electronic data are protected through user identification, passwords, database permissions, and software controls. Computers and storage media are encrypted in accordance with DOI security policy. Computers containing files are password protected to restrict unauthorized access. The DOI computers and servers storing this information are located in secured DOI facilities with access codes, security codes, and security guards. Access to electronic data is limited to DOI personnel who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties.

    Personnel authorized to access systems must complete all Security, Privacy, and Records Management training and sign the DOI Rules of Behavior. A separate Privacy Impact Assessment for the electronic database (the OHA Docket Management System) has been conducted to ensure appropriate controls and safeguards are in place to protect the information within the system.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Records other than Indian trust records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the OHA Records Disposal Schedule, which has been approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (Job No. N1-048-07-4), and the Office of the Secretary Records Disposal Schedule. The disposition is temporary. The disposition schedule varies, but most records are destroyed or deleted 7 years after closure of agency business. Paper records are disposed of by shredding or pulping, and records contained on electronic media are degaussed or erased in accordance with 384 Departmental Manual 1.

    Indian trust records are retained in accordance with a schedule, “Office of Hearings and Appeals—Trust Case Files,” that has been approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (Job No. N1-048-10-8). The disposition is permanent.

    SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:

    Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    An individual requesting notification of the existence of records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the System Manager identified above. The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “PRIVACY ACT INQUIRY.” A request for notification must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.235.

    RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    An individual requesting records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the System Manager identified above. The request should describe the records sought as specifically as possible. The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS.” A request for access must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.238.

    CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES:

    An individual requesting corrections or the removal of material from his or her records should send a signed, written request to the System Manager identified above. A request for corrections or removal must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.246.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Records in the system contain information submitted by individuals involved in hearings and appeals, including but not limited to appellants, claimants, intervenors, witnesses, government and Tribal officials, and other persons involved in the proceedings.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2015-11040 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-12-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing Same, DN 3067; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing under section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,1 and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    1 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.2 The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS.3 Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    2 United States International Trade Commission (USITC): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Pacific Bioscience Laboratories, Inc. on April 30, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electric skin care devices, brushes and chargers therefor, and kits containing same. The complaint names as respondents Our Family Jewels, Inc. d/b/a Epipür Skincare of Parker, CO; Accord Media, LLC d/b/a Truth in Aging of New York, NY; Xnovi Electronic Co., Ltd. of China; Michael Todd True Organics LP of Port St. Lucie, FL; MTTO LLC of Port St. Lucie, FL; Shanghai Anzikang Electric Co., Ltd. of China; Nutra-Luxe M.D., LLC of Fort Myers, FL; Beauty Tech, Inc. of Coral Gables, FL; Anex Corporation of Korea; RN Ventures Ltd. of United Kingdom; Korean Beauty Co., Ltd. of Korea; H2Pro Beautylife, Inc. of Placentia, CA; Serious Skin Care, Inc. of Carson City, NV; Home Skinovations Inc. of Canada; Home Skinovations Ltd. of Israel; Wenzhou AI ER Electrical Technology Co., Ltd d/b/a Cnaier of China; Coreana Cosmetics Co., Ltd. of Korea; and Flageoli Classic Limited of Las Vegas, NV. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j).

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3067”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5

    5 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 1, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10950 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-613] Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof, Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given regarding the Recommended Determination (“RD”) on Remedy and Bonding issued in the above-captioned investigation. On April 27, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge issued a Final Initial Determination on Remand. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the RD issued in the original investigation on August 14, 2009, specifically a limited exclusion order against certain 3G mobile handsets and components thereof manufactured or imported by or on behalf of respondents Nokia Corporation of Espoo, Finland and Nokia Inc. of Irving, Texas. The RD also recommends issuance of a cease and desist order against respondents.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:

    unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry.

    19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1).

    The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on August 14, 2009. Comments should address whether issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders would impact consumers in the United States.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on June 3, 2015.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-613 REMAND”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 4, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11016 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-15-016] Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    May 19, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None. 2. Minutes 3. Ratification List 4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-514 and 731-TA-1250 (Final)(53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on May 29, 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: May 4, 2015. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11094 Filed 5-5-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-523 and 731-TA-1259 (Final)] Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-523 and 731-TA-1259 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from China, provided for in subheadings 9403.10.00 and 9403.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value.1

    1 For purposes of these investigations, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, with or without decks.” For a full description of the scope of the investigations, including product exclusions, see Countervailing Duty Investigation of Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 5089, January 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on August 26, 2014, by Edsal Manufacturing Co., Inc., Chicago, Illinois.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on July 29, 2015, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

    Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on August 13, 2015, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before August 7, 2015. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on Tuesday, August 11, 2015, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

    Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is August 5, 2015. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is Thursday, August 20, 2015. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before August 20, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before September 11, 2015, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 1, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10627 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—ODVA, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 14, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), ODVA, Inc. (“ODVA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Bedrock Automation Platforms, Inc., San Jose, CA; Control Technology Inc., Knoxville, TN; High Grade Controls Corporation, Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA; Jenny Science AG, Rain, SWITZERLAND; PCN Technology, Inc., San Diego, CA; Prozess Technologie, Inc., St. Louis, MO; and Welding Technology Corp., Farmington Hills, MI, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, Conxall Corporation Inc., Chicago, IL; FieldServer Technologies (Div Sierra Monitor Corporation), Milpitas, CA; New Age Micro, Mansfield, MA; Power Electronics S.L., Paterna, SPAIN, UNIPULSE Corporation, Koshigaya City, JAPAN; and Warwick Instruments, London, UNITED KINGDOM, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on February 15, 1996 (61 FR 6039).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 20, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8348).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11007 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Wireless Industrial Technology Konsortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 2, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Wireless Industrial Technology Konsortium, Inc. (“WITEK”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Nivis LLC, Atlanta, GA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and WITEK intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On August 8, 2008, WITEK filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54170).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 25, 2012. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 18, 2012 (77 FR 64128).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11021 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 31, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Ericcson Broadcast & Media Services, London, UNITED KINGDOM; and SDVI Corporation, Menlo Park, CA, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, National Archives & Records Administration, College Park, MD; San Solutions, Inc., Reno, NV; and Lawrence R. Kaplan (individual member), Menlo Park, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 23, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6768).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11019 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Stipulation and Proposed Order Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    On May 1, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a Stipulation and Proposed Order Amending the Requirements Set Forth in Paragraph 13(c) of the Consent Decree (“Stipulation and Proposed Order”) with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled United States of America v. Elsa Morgan-Skinner, et al, 1:00-cv-424.

    In its February 21, 2001, amended complaint in this action, brought under Sections 106 and 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), the United States sought: (1) Reimbursement of costs incurred by the United States for response actions at the Skinner Landfill Superfund Site in West Chester, Ohio (“Site”); and (2) performance of response work. On April 3, 2001, the Court entered a Consent Decree that required the Settling Generator/Transporter Defendants to conduct a remedial action at the Site. In particular, Paragraph 13(c) of the Consent Decree required the construction of an upgradient groundwater control system if the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) determined that there would be prolonged contact between groundwater and waste material at the Site. Although monitoring established that such contact existed, EPA has determined that upgradient groundwater control is not needed because the contact has not caused significant groundwater contamination. In the lodged Stipulation and Proposed Order, the Parties seek to amend Paragraph 13(c) by striking the requirement for upgradient groundwater control. In the event that future monitoring identifies significant groundwater contamination, the amended Paragraph 13(c) requires the Settling Generator/Transporter Defendants to submit a plan to address the problem.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Stipulation and Proposed Order. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States of America v. Elsa Morgan-Skinner, et al, D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-1620.

    All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected]. By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Stipulation and Proposed Order may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. We will provide a paper copy of the Stipulation and Proposed Order upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $1.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Randall M. Stone, Acting Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10955 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0152] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired; Survey: Survey of Prison Inmates (Formerly Named the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 9749, 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 8, 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 Lauren Glaze, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email: [email protected]; telephone: 202-305-9628). 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 Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2015-2016 (formerly named the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Facilities).

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: The form number of the questionnaire is NPS-25. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Corrections Unit), in the Office of Justice Programs.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals. Others: State government and Federal government. Affected public are prison inmates age 18 or older held in adult state or federal correctional facilities and the adult state and federal correctional facilities. The purposes of this omnibus survey are to generate reliable, nationally-representative estimates of the characteristics of prisoners in the United States, track changes in the characteristics of prisoners over time, conduct studies of special populations of prisoners, and identify policy-relevant changes in the prison population. The survey will also be used to produce subnational estimates of prisoners within jurisdictions that have the largest prison populations (i.e. 100,000 or more) in the nation. The 2015-2016 SPI survey builds upon prior surveys and is organized around the concepts of harm, risk, and reentry. Specifically, the harms that prisoners have perpetrated on society as measured by the severity of the offense, the incident characteristics of the offense and criminal history; the risk they pose for recidivism as measured by harm elements and additional risk factors such as ties to the community and mainstream institutions of social integration, such as pre-prison employment within the labor market; their challenges and expectations for reentry back into the community as measured by SPI through the extent of substance abuse, mental health, and medical problems of prisoners, treatment they may have received for problems, programs in which they participated while in prison, and their motivation (i.e., intrinsic or extrinsic) to participate in programs.

    In addition to collecting the survey data, in an effort to minimize burden on facilities and inmates and to conduct future studies, inmates will be asked to provide consent to link their 2015-2016 SPI survey data to their criminal history records and any updates made to those records over the next 10 years. The administrative records will be used to augment the survey data and to conduct prospective recidivism studies of the 2015-2016 SPI sample of inmates who are released from prison within three to five years of completion of the survey. Inmates will also be asked to provide their Social Security number (SSN) to link their survey data to records from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The goal of this effort is to provide more detailed information about the pre-prison earnings and benefits of inmates without taking up more of their time during the interview.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The 2015-2016 SPI consists of a pretest and a national study. The goal of the pretest is to test the functionality of the Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) instrument prior to fielding it on a national scale. The pretest will include one state and one federal correctional facility providing a roster of inmates at 0.5 hours per facility for a total of 1 hour; prison staff escorting 60 inmates to and from interview sites at 0.5 hours per inmate for a total of 30 hours; and 60 inmates responding to the questionnaire at 1.00 hours per interview for a total of 60 hours. The pretest will result in a total expected burden of approximately 91 hours. For the SPI national study, a maximum of 416 state and federal correctional facilities will provide a roster of inmates at 0.5 hours per facility for a total of 208 hours; prison staff will escort a maximum of 33,200 inmates to and from interview sites at 0.5 hours per inmate for a total of 16,600 hours; a maximum of 33,200 inmates will respond to the questionnaire at 1.00 hours per interview for a total of 33,200 hours; and a maximum of 50 state departments of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisoners will provide post-survey follow-up information at 0.25 hours per jurisdiction for a total of 13 hours. The SPI national study will result in an expected maximum burden of approximately 50,021 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated total public burden is 50,112 annual 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: May 4, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11005 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE National Institute of Corrections Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Advisory Board. The meeting will be open to the public.

    Name of the Committee: NIC Advisory Board.

    General Function of the Committee: To aid the National Institute of Corrections in developing long-range plans, advise on program development, and to support NIC 's efforts in the areas of training, technical assistance, information services, and policy/program development assistance to Federal, state, and local corrections agencies.

    Date and Time: 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2015; 8 a.m.-12 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 2015.

    Location: National Institute of Corrections, 11900 E Cornell Ave., Unit C, Aurora, CO 80014, (202) 514-4222.

    Contact Person: Shaina Vanek, Executive Assistant, National Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street NW., Room 5002, Washington, DC 20534. To contact Ms. Vanek, please call (202) 514-4222.

    Agenda: On June 8-9, 2015, the Advisory Board will hear updates on the following topics: (1) Agency Report from the NIC Director, (2) a briefing from NIC Academy Division on current activities and future goals, (3) an update from the Advisory Board's Staff Wellness Subcommittee, and (4) partner agency updates.

    Procedure: On June 8-9, 2015, the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. on June 8, 2015 and between 11:15 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. on June 9, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before May 27, 2015.

    General Information: NIC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Shaina Vanek at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Jim Cosby, Director, National Institute of Corrections.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10584 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-36-M
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

    Name: Proposal Panel Review for Science and Technology Centers—Integrative Partnerships (#1192) Site Visit

    Date/Time: June 1, 2015 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.; June 2, 2015 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.; June 3, 2015 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

    Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA 02139.

    Type Of Meeting: Partial Closed.

    Contact Person: John Cozzens, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1115, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8910.

    Purpose Of Meeting: To assess the progress of the STC Award: 1231216 “A Center for Brains, Minds and Machines: the Science and the Technology of Intelligence”, and to provide advise and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the Center.

    Agenda: MIT Site Visit

    Monday, June 1, 2015

    6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.: Closed

    Site Team and NSF Staff meets to discuss Site Visit materials, review process and charge

    Tuesday, June 2, 2015

    8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.: Open

    Presentations by Awardee Institution, faculty staff and students, to Site Team and NSF Staff; Discussions, question and answer sessions

    1:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m.: Closed

    Draft report on education and research activities

    Wednesday, June 3, 2015

    8:30 a.m.-Noon: Open

    Response presentations by Site Team and NSF Staff Awardee Institution faculty staff; Discussions, question and answer sessions

    Noon to 3:00 p.m.: Closed

    Complete written site visit report with preliminary recommendations.

    Reason For Closing: The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Suzanne Plimpton, Acting, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10992 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-346; NRC-2010-0298] FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental environmental impact statement; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a final plant-specific supplement, Supplement 52, to NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (GEIS), regarding the renewal of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company's (FENOC) operating license NPF-3 for an additional 20 years of operation for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (Davis-Besse).

    DATES:

    The final Supplement 52 to the GEIS is available as of May 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2010-0298 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-0298. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The final Supplement 52 to the GEIS is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15112A098 for Volume 1 and Accession No. ML15113A187 for Volume 2.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elaine Keegan, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 1-800-368-5692, ext. 8517; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with § 51.118 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the NRC is making available final Supplement 52 to the GEIS regarding the renewal of FENOC operating license NPF-3 for an additional 20 years of operation for Davis-Besse. Draft Supplement 52 to the GEIS was noticed by the NRC in the Federal Register on March 7, 2014 (79 FR 13079), and noticed by the Environmental Protection Agency on March 21, 2014 (79 FR 15741). The public comment period on draft Supplement 52 to the GEIS ended on April 21, 2014, and the comments received are addressed in final Supplement 52 to the GEIS. Final Supplement 52 to the GEIS is available as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this document, and is available for public inspection at the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library, 325 Michigan Street, Toledo, Ohio 43604; and at the Ida Rupp Public Library, 310 Madison Street, Port Clinton, Ohio 43452.

    II. Discussion

    As discussed in Section 9.4 of the final Supplement 52 to the GEIS, the NRC determined that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Davis-Besse are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on: (1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) information provided in the environmental report and other documents submitted by FENOC; (3) consultation with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies; (4) the NRC staff's independent environmental review; and (5) consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Brian D. Wittick, Chief, Projects Branch 2, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10942 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-271-LA-3; ASLBP No. 15-940-03-LA-BD01] Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission, see 37 FR 28,710 (Dec. 29, 1972), and the Commission's regulations, see, e.g., 10 CFR 2.104, 2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313, 2.318, 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following proceeding:

    ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

    This proceeding involves an application by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for a license amendment for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, which is located in Vernon, Vermont. In response to a notice filed in the Federal Register, see 80 FR 8,355, 8,359 (Feb. 17, 2015), a hearing request was filed on April 20, 2015 by the State of Vermont.

    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

    William J. Froehlich, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    Dr. Michael F. Kennedy, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule. See 10 CFR 2.302.

    Rockville, Maryland, Dated: May 1, 2015. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11039 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-033; NRC-2008-0566] DTE Electric Company; Fermi 3 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Combined license and record of decision; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice of the issuance of Combined License (COL), NPF-95 to DTE Electric Company (DTE, formerly Detroit Edison Company) and Record of Decision.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0566 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    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 Douments” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided at the end of this document.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adrian Muñiz, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4093, email: [email protected] regarding safety matters; or Mallecia Sutton, at 301-415-0673, email: [email protected] regarding environmental matters.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    Under section 2.106 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC is providing notice of the issuance of COL NPF-95 to DTE and, under 10 CFR 51.102(c), the Record of Decision (ROD). With respect to the application for the COL filed by DTE, the NRC finds that the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations have been met. The NRC finds that any required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made and that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with the license, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's regulations. Furthermore, the NRC finds that the licensee is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized, and that issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Finally, the NRC finds that the findings required by subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been made.

    Accordingly, the COL was issued on May 1, 2015, and is effective immediately.

    II. Further Information

    The NRC has prepared a Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that document the information reviewed and NRC's conclusion. The Commission has also issued its Memorandum and Order documenting its final decision on the uncontested hearing held on February 4, 2015, which serves as the Record of Decision ROD in this proceeding. The NRC also prepared a document summarizing the ROD to accompany its action on the COL application that incorporates by reference materials contained in the FEIS. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's “Rules of Practice,” details with respect to this action, including the FSER FEIS, Summary ROD, and accompanying documentation included in the combined license package, as well as the Commission's hearing decision and ROD, are available online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, persons can access the NRC's ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents.

    The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are:

    ML14296A540 “Final Safety Evaluation Report for Combined Licenses for Enrico Fermi Unit 3”. ML12307A172, ML12307A176, ML12307A177, and ML12347A202 NUREG-2105, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined License for Enrico Fermi Unit 3”. ML14308A337 DTE COL Application—Revision 8 of the application. ML15120A040 Commission's Memorandum and Order on the uncontested hearing (Record of Decision). ML15120A221 Summary of the Record of Decision. ML15084A160 Combined License No. NPF-95. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of May 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Mark Delligatti, Deputy Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11038 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0048] Compliance With Phase 2 of Order EA-13-109 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Interim staff guidance; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing its Japan Lessons-Learned Division Interim Staff Guidance (JLD-ISG), JLD-ISG-2015-01, “Compliance with Phase 2 of Order EA-13-109, Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation under Severe Accident Conditions.” This ISG provides guidance and clarifies the Phase 2 requirements in the order to assist the licensees that have Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) with Mark I and Mark II Containments in the design and implementation of either a vent path from the containment drywell or a strategy that makes it unlikely that venting would be needed from the drywell before alternate reliable containment heat removal and pressure control is reestablished. This ISG also endorses, with clarifications, the industry guidance contained in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 13-02, “Industry Guidance for Compliance with Order EA-13-109,” Revision 1.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0048 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0048. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The JLD-ISG-2015-01 is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15104A118. The ISG for complying with Phase 1 requirements of the order (JLD-ISG-2013-02) was issued on November 14, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13304B836). The NEI 13-02, Revision 1 is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15113B318.

    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.

    NRC's Interim Staff Guidance Web site: JLD-ISG documents are also available online under the “Japan Lessons Learned” heading at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/japan-lessons-learned.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rajender Auluck, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1025; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NRC developed JLD-ISG-2015-01 to provide guidance and clarification to assist nuclear power reactor licensees with the identification of methods needed to comply with Phase 2 requirements in Order EA-13-109 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13130A067), “Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation under Severe Accident Conditions.” This ISG is not a substitute for the requirements in Order EA-13-109, and compliance with the ISG would not be a requirement.

    The accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station reinforced the importance of reliable operation of containment vents for BWR plants with Mark I and Mark II containments. As part of its response to the lessons learned from the accident, on March 12, 2012, the NRC issued Order EA-12-050 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12056A043) requiring licensees to upgrade or install a reliable hardened containment venting system (HCVS) for Mark I and Mark II containments. While developing the requirements for Order EA-12-050, the NRC acknowledged that questions remained about maintaining containment integrity and limiting the release of radioactive materials if licensees used the venting systems during severe accident conditions.

    The NRC staff on November 26, 2012, presented the Commission with options to address these issues in SECY-12-0157, “Consideration of Additional Requirements for Containment Venting Systems for Boiling Water Reactors with Mark I and Mark II Containments” (ADAMS Accession No. ML12325A704). In the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-12-0157, dated March 19, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13078A017), the Commission directed the staff to: (1) Issue a modification to Order EA-12-050 requiring BWR licensees with Mark I and Mark II containments to upgrade or replace the reliable hardened vents required by Order EA-12-050 with a containment venting system designed and installed to remain functional during severe accident conditions, and (2) develop a technical basis and rulemaking for filtering strategies with drywell filtration and severe accident management of BWR Mark I and II containments. The NRC subsequently issued Order EA-13-109 to define requirements and schedules for licensees for BWRs with Mark I and Mark II containments to install severe accident capable containment venting systems.

    In recognition of the relative importance of venting capabilities from the wetwell and drywell, a phased approach to implementation is being used to minimize delays in implementing the requirements originally imposed by Order EA-12-050. Phase 1 involves upgrading the venting capabilities from the containment wetwell to provide reliable, severe accident capable hardened vents to assist in preventing core damage and, if necessary, to provide venting capability during severe accident conditions. Phase 2 involves providing additional protection during severe accident conditions through installation of a reliable, severe accident capable drywell vent system or the development of a reliable containment venting strategy that makes it unlikely that a licensee would need to vent from the containment drywell during severe accident conditions. For implementation of Phase 1 order requirements, the NRC issued JLD-ISG-2013-02 on November 14, 2013 (78 FR 70356), which endorsed, with exceptions and clarifications, the methodologies described in the industry guidance document NEI 13-02, Rev. 0, “Industry Guidance for Compliance with Order EA-13-109” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13316A853). As required by the order, licensees submitted their site-specific overall integrated plans (OIPs) by June 30, 2014. The NRC staff has completed its review of the OIPs and has issued interim staff evaluations.

    On March 10, 2015, the NRC staff issued a Federal Register notice (80 FR 12649) to request public comments on draft JLD-ISG-2015-01 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15051A143). In response, the NRC received comments from SimplyInfo by letter dated March 11, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15083A277), and the NEI by letter dated April 9, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15104A316). Several of these comments have been previously submitted to the NRC for staff's consideration. The resolution of these comments has been documented and publicly available (ADAMS Accession No. ML15114A051).

    The focus of this ISG is to provide guidance for implementing Phase 2 requirements of the order. The Phase 2 portion of Order EA-13-109 builds on the Phase 1 activities, and is intended to be consistent with the expected outcome of the development of a regulatory basis for the Containment Protection and Release Reduction (CPRR) rulemaking. Specifically, the industry described a containment venting approach that includes severe accident water addition (SAWA) and severe accident water management (SAWM) strategies that would preserve the use of a wetwell vent path, in addition to providing other benefits. Evaluations performed in support of the CPRR rulemaking confirmed significant benefits to including SAWA as part of a severe accident management strategy. Therefore, SAWA will facilitate implementation of Phase 2 of Order EA-13-109 by establishing the design conditions for a drywell vent and supporting SAWM for licensees choosing to pursue that option as a strategy that makes it unlikely that a licensee would need to vent from the drywell.

    On April 23, 2015, NEI submitted NEI 13-02, “Industry Guidance for Compliance with Order EA-13-109,” Rev. 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15113B318) to assist nuclear power licensees with the identification of measures needed to comply with the Phase 2 requirements of Order EA-13-109 regarding reliable hardened containment vents capable of operation under severe accident conditions. The NEI document includes guidance for implementing order requirements for both Phase 1 and Phase 2, including the industry's proposed approach to use the SAWA and SAWM strategies to control the water levels in the suppression pool and maintain capabilities to address over-pressure conditions without a severe accident drywell vent. This ISG endorses, with clarifications, the methodologies described in the industry guidance document NEI 13-02, Revision 1.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Jack R. Davis, Director, Japan Lessons-Learned Division, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11036 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74856; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-31] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule May 1, 2015.

    Pursuant to the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on April 29, 2015, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to modify the Market Maker Trading Permit Fee.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to modify the monthly Trading Permit fees that apply to Market Makers (“MMs”). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following fees: (i) $7,000 for MM Assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by volume; (ii) $12,000 for MM Assignments in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by volume; (iii) $17,000 for MM Assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by volume; and (iv) $22,000.00 for MM Assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes up to all option classes listed on MIAX.

    The Exchange issues Trading Permits that confer the ability to transact on the Exchange.3 Currently, all MMs, whether they are a RMM, LMM or PLMM, are assessed $15,000 per month for a Trading Permit for an assignment in up to 250 option classes, or $22,000 per month for a Trading Permit for an assignment in over 250 option classes up to all option classes listed on the Exchange.4 The Exchange notes that the current monthly Trading Permit fees are within the range of competing options exchanges.5 The MM permit fee for up to 250 classes is higher than that of NYSE Arca Options.6 The MM permit fee for all options classes on the exchange is lower than NYSE Amex Options, however it is higher than the fee charged by NYSE Arca Options. The Exchange established the current rates to more closely align with the rates charged by competing options exchanges. Now, the Exchange proposes to modify its Trading Permit fee for MMs to establish the ability for MMs to qualify for lower rates in order to encourage additional market participants to become Members of the Exchange and register as MIAX Market Makers.

    3 There is no limit on the number of Trading Permits that may be issued by the Exchange; however the Exchange has the authority to limit or decrease the number of Trading Permits it has determined to issue provided it complies with the provisions set forth in Rule 200(a) and section 6(c)(4) of the Exchange Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(c)(4). For a complete description of MIAX Trading Permits, see MIAX Rule 200.

    4 The monthly Trading Permit Fee is in addition to the one-time application fee for MIAX Membership. The Exchange charges a one-time application fee based upon the applicant's status as either an Electronic Exchange Member (“EEM”) or as a Market Maker. Applicants for MIAX Membership as an EEM are assessed a one-time Application Fee of $2,500.00. Applicants for MIAX Membership as a Market Maker are assessed a one-time Application Fee of $3,000.00. The difference in the fee charged to EEMs and Market Makers reflects the additional review and processing effort needed for Market Maker applications.

    5See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, p.1 (assessing market makers $6,000 for up to 100 option issues, an additional $5,000 for up to 250 option issues, an additional $4,000 for up to 750 option issues, and an additional $3,000 for all option issues on the exchange); NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, p. 19 (assessing market makers $8,000 for up to 60 plus the bottom 45%, an additional $6,000 for up to 150 plus the bottom 45%, an additional $5,000 for up to 500 plus the bottom 45%, and additional $4,000 for up to 1,100 plus the bottom 45%, and an additional $3,000 for all issues traded on the exchange; plus an addition fee for premium products).

    6See supra note 5.

    The Exchange proposes to modify its Trading Permit fees that apply to MMs. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following fees: (i) $7,000 for MM Assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by volume; (ii) $12,000 for MM Assignments in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by volume; (iii) $17,000 for MM Assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by volume; and (iv) $22,000.00 for MM Assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by volume up to all option classes listed on MIAX. For the calculation of the monthly Trading Permit Fees that apply to MMs, the number of classes is defined as the greatest number of classes the MM was assigned to quote in on any given day within the calendar month and the class volume percentage is based on the total national average daily volume in classes listed on MIAX in the prior calendar quarter.7 Newly listed option classes are excluded from the calculation of the monthly MM Trading Permit Fee until the calendar quarter following their listing, at which time the newly listed option classes will be included in both the per class count and the percentage of total national average daily volume. The Exchange will assess MMs the monthly Trading Permit Fee based on the greatest number of classes listed on MIAX that the MM was assigned to quote in on any given day within a calendar month and the applicable fee rate that is the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of total national average daily volume measurement. For example, if MM1 elects to quote the top 40 option classes which consist of 58% of the total national average daily volume in the prior quarter, the Exchange would assess $12,000 to MM1 for the month which is the lesser of `up to 40 classes' and `above 50% of classes by volume up to all classes listed on MIAX'. If MM2 elects to quote the bottom 1000 option classes which consist of 10% of the total national average daily volume in the prior quarter, the Exchange would assess $7,000 to MM2 for the month which is the lesser of `above 100 classes' and `up to 20% of classes by volume'.

    7 The Exchange will use the following formula to calculate the percentage of total national average daily volume that the MM assignment is for purposes of the MM trading permit fee for a given month.

    MM assignment percentage of national average daily volume = [total volume during the prior calendar quarter in a class in which the MM was assigned]/[total national volume in classes listed on MIAX in the prior calendar quarter]

    Members receiving Trading Permits during the month will be assessed Trading Permit Fees according to the above schedule, except that the calculation of the Trading Permit fee for the first month in which the Trading Permit is issued will be pro-rated based on the number of trading days occurring after the date on which the Trading Permit was in effect during that first month divided by the total number of trading days in such month multiplied by the monthly rate.

    The purpose of the proposed fees is to incentivize market participants to register as Market Makers on the Exchange, to provide liquidity, and to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity. The proposed fee levels and criteria are based upon a business determination of current MM assignments and trading volume. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee rates and criteria provide an objective and flexible framework that will encourage MMs to be assigned and quote in option classes with lower total national average daily volume while also equitably allocating the fees in a reasonable manner amongst MM assignments to account for quoting and trading activity.

    The Exchange proposes to implement the Trading Permit fees beginning May 1, 2015.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 8 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act 9 in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange members.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Permit fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed Trading Permit fees are reasonable in that they are within the range of comparable fees at other competing options exchanges.10 As such, the proposal is reasonably designed to continue to compete with other options exchange by incentivizing market participants to register as Market Makers on the Exchange in a manner that enables the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. The proposed fees are fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because they apply equally to all Market Makers regardless of type and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange designed the fee rates in order to provide objective criteria for MMs of different sizes and business models to be assessed a Trading Permit Fee that best matches their quoting activity on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that trading volume and quoting activity in the options market tends to be concentrated in the top ranked options classes; with the vast majority of options classes being thinly quoted and traded. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee rates and criteria provide an objective and flexible framework that will encourage MMs to be assigned and quote in option classes with lower total national average daily volume while also equitably allocating the fees in a reasonable manner amongst MM assignments to account for quoting and trading activity.

    10See supra note 5.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal increases both intermarket and intramarket competition by enabling MMs to qualify for lower Trading Permit fees rates on the Exchange in a manner that is designed to provide objective criteria for MMs of different sizes and business models to be assessed a Trading Permit Fee that best matches their quoting activity on the Exchange yet still be in the range of comparable fees on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the proposal will increase competition amongst MMs of different sizes and business models by encouraging MMs to be assigned and quote in option classes with lower total national average daily volume. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposal reflects this competitive environment because it modify the Exchange's fees in a manner that continues to encourage market participants to register as Market Makers on the Exchange, to provide liquidity, and to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.11 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule chan