Federal Register Vol. 80, No.92,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 92 (May 13, 2015)

Page Range27237-27553
FR Document

80_FR_92
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 27241 - Mother's Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 27239 - Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 27237 - National Defense Transportation Day and National Transportation Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 27298 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Gainful Employment Recent Graduates Employment and Earning Survey Pilot TestPDF
80 FR 27306 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 27350 - Comment Request for Information Collection for OMB 1205-0009, Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed (ETA 203), Extension Without RevisionsPDF
80 FR 27307 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 27408 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Proposed Rule To Introduce Asian Style Settlement and Cliquet Style Settlement for FLexible Exchange Broad-Based Index OptionsPDF
80 FR 27373 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
80 FR 27284 - Notice of Request To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection (Voluntary Recalls of Meat and Poultry Products)PDF
80 FR 27351 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 27341 - Announcement of Funding Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) ProgramPDF
80 FR 27275 - Rail Vehicles Access Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 27287 - Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 27436 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 27286 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 83-Huntsville, Alabama; Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc., (Motor Vehicle Engines and Transmissions), Huntsville, AlabamaPDF
80 FR 27288 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 27288 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 27291 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance ApplicantsPDF
80 FR 27436 - Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Grant Program; Availability of 2014 Grant Application PackagePDF
80 FR 27304 - Release of Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document for the Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen DioxidePDF
80 FR 27281 - Railroad Revenue Adequacy; Petition of the Western Coal Traffic League To Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding To Abolish the Use of the Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow Model in Determining the Railroad Industry's Cost of Equity CapitalPDF
80 FR 27303 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
80 FR 27276 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
80 FR 27255 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
80 FR 27331 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 27330 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 27269 - Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal CalvesPDF
80 FR 27280 - Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation ReviewPDF
80 FR 27432 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Three Paintings by Johan Christian Dahl” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 27296 - Intent To Prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Supplement 2) for the Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, General Reevaluation StudyPDF
80 FR 27432 - In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of al-Qa'ida (and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality ActPDF
80 FR 27295 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 27433 - Notice of Request To Release Airport PropertyPDF
80 FR 27306 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 27299 - Proposed Agency Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 27293 - Multistakeholder Process To Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Facial Recognition TechnologyPDF
80 FR 27327 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 27303 - Phoenix Energy Group, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 27301 - SEPG Energy Marketing Services, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 27300 - U.S. Borax, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 27302 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 27335 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessels and Certificate of UsePDF
80 FR 27292 - Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital EcosystemPDF
80 FR 27319 - Investigational Enzyme Replacement Therapy Products: Nonclinical Assessment; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 27318 - Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order; Draft Guidance for Tobacco Retailers; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 27323 - Prescription Drug User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 27326 - Dose Finding of Small Molecule Oncology Drugs; Public WorkshopPDF
80 FR 27307 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 27310 - Modernizing the Federal Supply Schedule Program: Standardization of Part Number DataPDF
80 FR 27308 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Preparation, Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting PlansPDF
80 FR 27309 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information (GSA Form 527)PDF
80 FR 27308 - Public Buildings Service; Information Collection; Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453PDF
80 FR 27320 - Determination That SODIUM SULAMYD (sulfacetamide sodium) Ophthalmic Solution and Ophthalmic Ointment Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessPDF
80 FR 27321 - Biosimilars: Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 27322 - International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH GL23(R)); Studies To Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Genotoxicity Testing; Revised Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 27321 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Extra Label Drug Use in AnimalsPDF
80 FR 27310 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; GSA Mentor-Protégé ProgramPDF
80 FR 27349 - Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan; CEMEX Balcones Quarry Northeast Area in Comal County, TexasPDF
80 FR 27350 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
80 FR 27300 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 27263 - Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services ReviewsPDF
80 FR 27315 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 27314 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 27316 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 27311 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 27313 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 27293 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent to Renew Collection 3038-0033, Notification of Pending Legal ProceedingsPDF
80 FR 27340 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) ProgramPDF
80 FR 27339 - Homeland Security Advisory Council-Task Force Name ChangePDF
80 FR 27339 - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards; Guidance for the Expedited Approval ProgramPDF
80 FR 27261 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
80 FR 27286 - Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 27336 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 27335 - West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 27338 - Tennessee; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 27336 - Georgia; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 27294 - Partial Extension of Comment Deadline on CARD Act Request for InformationPDF
80 FR 27285 - Santa Fe National Forest; New Mexico; Geothermal LeasingPDF
80 FR 27437 - Privacy Act of 1974PDF
80 FR 27390 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees for NYSE ArcaBook To Add a Late Fee in Connection With Failure To Submit the Non-Display Use DeclarationPDF
80 FR 27371 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades To Add a Late Fee in Connection With Failure To Submit the Non-Display Use DeclarationPDF
80 FR 27289 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Fishery Products Subject to Trade Restrictions Pursuant to Certification Under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing (HSDF) Moratorium Protection ActPDF
80 FR 27292 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 27435 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Bank Activities and OperationsPDF
80 FR 27433 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Recordkeeping Requirements for Securities TransactionsPDF
80 FR 27392 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
80 FR 27354 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
80 FR 27415 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
80 FR 27352 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Billing PoliciesPDF
80 FR 27431 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Enhance the Measurement Used To Establish Minimum Capital Requirements for Banks Approved To Issue Letters of CreditPDF
80 FR 27351 - Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 27352 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 27332 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 27329 - Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 27329 - Determination Concerning a Petition To Add a Class of Employees To the Special Exposure CohortPDF
80 FR 27298 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Federal Perkins Loan Program Master Promissory NotePDF
80 FR 27330 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 27333 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 27328 - Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees From the Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet, Illinois, To Be Included in the Special Exposure CohortPDF
80 FR 27289 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitPDF
80 FR 27245 - Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for the 2015-2016 Marketing YearPDF
80 FR 27243 - Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 27288 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 27334 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 27334 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 27332 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 27441 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
80 FR 27301 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 27259 - Federal Travel Regulation; Enhancement of Privately Owned Vehicle and Rental Vehicle PolicyPDF
80 FR 27251 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision To Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Storage Tanks and Transport VesselsPDF
80 FR 27275 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision to Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Storage Tanks and Transport VesselsPDF
80 FR 27513 - Joint Industry Plans; Order Approving the National Market System Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc., as Modified by the Commission, for a Two-Year PeriodPDF
80 FR 27276 - Organization and Functions of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation BoardPDF
80 FR 27278 - Denied Access to NASA FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 27266 - Commerce Acquisition Regulation (CAR); Waiver of Bond Requirement for Contracts To Repair, Alter or Construct Certain Research and Survey Vessels for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationPDF
80 FR 27443 - Application of Certain Title VII Requirements to Security-Based Swap Transactions Connected With a Non-U.S. Person's Dealing Activity That Are Arranged, Negotiated, or Executed by Personnel Located in a U.S. Branch or Office or in a U.S. Branch or Office of an AgentPDF

Issue

80 92 Wednesday, May 13, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Increased Assessment Rates: Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California, 27243-27245 2015-11468 Market Promotion, Research and Information Orders: Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Handling; Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentages, 27245-27251 2015-11469 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board PROPOSED RULES Meetings: Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee, 27275 2015-11574 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Requests For Information: Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act; Extensions, 27294-27295 2015-11496 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27311-27318 2015-11510 2015-11511 2015-11512 2015-11513 2015-11514 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board PROPOSED RULES Organization and Functions of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 27276-27278 2015-11422 Children Children and Families Administration RULES Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews; Correction, 27263-27266 2015-11515 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27327-27328 2015-11547 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

RULES Acquisition Regulations: Waiver of Bond Requirement for Contracts to Repair, Alter or Construct Certain Research and Survey Vessels for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 27266-27268 2015-10620
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notification of Pending Legal Proceedings, 27293-27294 2015-11507 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bank Activities and Operations, 27435 2015-11488 Recordkeeping Requirements for Securities Transactions, 27433-27434 2015-11487 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27295-27296 2015-11553 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

See

Engineers Corps

Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Perkins Loan Program Master Promissory Note, 27298 2015-11474 Gainful Employment Recent Graduates Employment and Earning Survey Pilot Test, 27298-27299 2015-11665 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed, 27350 2015-11647 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Information Administration

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27299-27300 2015-11550 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: General Reevaluation Study; Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA, 27296-27298 2015-11556 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area, 27255-27259 2015-11562 Texas; Revision to Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Storage Tanks and Transport Vessels, 27251-27255 2015-11451 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area, 27276 2015-11563 Texas; Revision to Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Storage Tanks and Transport Vessels, 27275-27276 2015-11449 NOTICES Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 27303-27304 2015-11564 Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document for the Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide, 27304-27306 2015-11566 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 27306 2015-11652 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Requests to Release Airport Property Sikeston Memorial Municipal Airport, Sikeston, MO, 27433 2015-11552 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27306-27307 2015-11551 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 27307 2015-11633 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 27261-27263 2015-11502 NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 27336-27338 2015-11500 Major Disaster Declarations: Georgia, 27336 2015-11497 Tennessee; Amendments, 27338 2015-11498 West Virginia; Amendments, 27335-27336 2015-11499 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 27300-27302 2015-11462 2015-11517 2015-11543 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Phoenix Energy Group, LLC, 27303 2015-11546 SEPG Energy Marketing Services, LLC, 27301 2015-11545 US Borax, Inc., 27300 2015-11544 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 27307 2015-11627 2015-11628 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 27307-27308 2015-11535 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, CEMEX Balcones Quarry Northeast Area. Comal County, TX, 27349-27350 2015-11521 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Extra Label Drug Use in Animals, 27321 2015-11526 Determinations that Products Were Not Withdrawn from Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness: SODIUM SULAMYD, 27320-27321 2015-11529 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food; Genotoxicity Testing, Technical Requirements, 27322-27323 2015-11527 Guidance: Biosimilars -- Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, 27321-27322 2015-11528 Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order; Tobacco Retailers, 27318-27319 2015-11538 Investigational Enzyme Replacement Therapy Products -- Nonclinical Assessment, 27319-27320 2015-11539 Meetings: Dose Finding of Small Molecule Oncology Drugs; Public Workshops, 27326-27327 2015-11536 Prescription Drug User Fee Act; Public Meeting, 27323-27325 2015-11537 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Requirements for the Disposition of Non-ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves, 27269-27275 2015-11559 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Voluntary Recalls of Meat and Poultry Products, 27284-27285 2015-11582 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 83; Huntsville, AL, 27286 2015-11571 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Santa Fe National Forest; New Mexico; Geothermal Leasing, 27285-27286 2015-11495 General Services General Services Administration RULES Federal Travel Regulations: Enhancement of Privately Owned Vehicle and Rental Vehicle Policy, 27259-27261 2015-11459 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals GSA Mentor-Protege Program, 27310 2015-11525 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, 27308-27309 2015-11530 Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information, 27309-27310 2015-11532 Preparation, Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans, 27308 2015-11533 Modernizing the Federal Supply Schedule Program: Standardization of Part Number Data, 27310-27311 2015-11534 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: National Vaccine Advisory Committee, 27329 2015-11476 Petitions to Designate a Class of Employees in the Special Exposure Cohort: Blockson Chemical Company, Joliet, Illinois, 27328-27329 2015-11471 Petitions to Designate a Class of Employees to the Special Exposure Cohort: St. Louis Airport Storage Site; St. Louis, MO, 27329-27330 2015-11475
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27327-27328 2015-11547 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards; Guidance for the Expedited Approval Program, 27339-27340 2015-11503 Task Force Name Change; Homeland Security Advisory Council, 27339 2015-11505
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Funding Awards: Fiscal Year 2014 Housing Choice Voucher Program, 27341-27348 2015-11579 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27436 2015-11572 Funding Availability: Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Grant Program, 27436-27437 2015-11567 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China, 27287 2015-11573 Meetings: United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, 27286-27287 2015-11501 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Denied Access to NASA Facilities, 27278-27279 2015-10944 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 27350-27351 2015-11518 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 27331-27334 2015-11472 2015-11561 National Cancer Institute, 27334 2015-11466 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 27330 2015-11560 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 27332 2015-11464 National Institute on Aging, 27334-27335 2015-11465 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 27332-27333 2015-11477 Office of the Director, 27330-27331 2015-11473 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27292 2015-11489 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance Applicants, 27291-27292 2015-11568 Fishery Products Subject to Trade Restrictions Pursuant to Certification Under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, 27289 2015-11490 Applications for Exempted Fishing Permit, 27289-27291 2015-11470 Meetings: Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops; Correction, 27288 2015-11467 New England Fishery Management Council, 27288 2015-11569 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 27288-27289 2015-11570 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, 27351 2015-11479 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: Multistakeholder Process to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Facial Recognition Technology, 27293 2015-11548 Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem, 27292-27293 2015-11540 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection, 27351-27352 2015-11580 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 27352 2015-11478 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Mother's Day (Proc. 9278), 27241-27242 2015-11681 National Defense Transportation Day and National Transportation Week (Proc. 9276), 27237-27238 2015-11675 Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week (Proc. 9277), 27239-27240 2015-11680 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Application of Certain Requirements to Security-Based Swap Transactions Connected with a Non-U.S. Person's Dealing Activity, etc., 27444-27512 2015-10382 NOTICES Joint Industry Plans: BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., 27514-27553 2015-11425 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 27392-27408 2015-11485 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 27408-27415, 27354-27371 2015-11484 2015-11592 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 27373-27390 2015-11587 ISE Gemini, LLC, 27415-27431 2015-11483 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 27352-27354 2015-11481 NYSE Arca, Inc., 27371-27373, 27390-27392 2015-11491 2015-11492 Options Clearing Corp., 27431-27432 2015-11480 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Three Paintings by Johan Christian Dahl, 27432 2015-11557 Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: al-Qa'ida and Other Aliases, 27432-27433 2015-11555 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Rail Transportation of Grain; Rate Regulation Review, 27280-27281 2015-11558 Railroad Revenue Adequacy and Railroad Industry's Cost of Equity Capital, 27281-27283 2015-11565 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement Program, 27340-27341 2015-11506 Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessels and Certificate of Use, 27335 2015-11542 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Exclusive Licenses, 27441 2015-11463 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 27437-27441 2015-11493 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 27444-27512 2015-10382 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 27514-27553 2015-11425 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 92 Wednesday, May 13, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 925 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0106; FV15-925-2 FR] Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee for an increase of the assessment rate established for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled under the marketing order. The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of grapes grown and handled in a designated area of southeastern California. Assessments upon grape handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period began on January 1 and ends December 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective Date: May 14, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 925 (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, grape handlers in a designated area of southeastern California are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein would be applicable to all assessable grapes beginning on January 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled.

The grape order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2014 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and the USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA based upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on October 30, 2014, and unanimously recommended 2015 expenditures of $135,500, a contingency reserve fund of $9,500, and an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $110,000. The Committee recommended a crop estimate of 5,800,000 18-pound lugs, which is higher than the 5,500,000 18-pound lugs handled last year. The Committee also recommended carrying over a financial reserve of $40,000, which would increase to $49,500 if the contingency fund is not expended. The assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled recommended by the Committee is $0.0050 higher than the $0.0200 rate currently in effect. The higher assessment rate, applied to shipments of 5,800,000 18-pound lugs, is expected to generate $145,000 in revenue and be sufficient to cover the anticipated expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015 fiscal period include $15,500 for research, $17,000 for general office expenses, $62,750 for management and compliance expenses, $25,000 for consultation services, and $9,500 for a contingency reserve. The $15,500 research project is a continuation of a vine study in progress by the University of California, Riverside. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2014 fiscal period included $15,500 for research, $22,000 for general office expenses, and $62,500 for management and compliance expenses. Overall 2015 expenditures include an increase in management and compliance expenses and a decrease in general office expenses and additional funds for a contingency reserve.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by evaluating several factors, including estimated shipments for the 2015 season, budgeted expenses, and the level of available financial reserves. The Committee determined that the $0.0250 assessment rate should generate $145,000 in revenue to cover the budgeted expenses of $135,500, and a contingency reserve fund of $9,500.

Reserve funds by the end of 2015 are projected to be $40,000 if the $9,500 added to the contingency fund is expended or $49,500 if it is not expended. Both amounts are well within the amount authorized under the order. Section 925.41 of the order permits the Committee to maintain approximately one fiscal period's expenses in reserve.

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA based upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate the Committee's recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 14 handlers of southeastern California grapes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and about 41 grape producers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000. Eleven of the 14 handlers subject to regulation have annual grape sales of less than $7,000,000, according to USDA Market News Service and Committee data. In addition, information from the Committee and USDA's Market News indicates that at least 10 of 41 producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of the grape handlers regulated under the order and about 10 of the producers could be classified as small entities under the Small Business Administration's definitions.

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015 expenditures of $135,500, a contingency reserve fund of $9,500, and an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. The assessment rate of $0.0250 is $0.0050 higher than the 2014 rate. The quantity of assessable grapes for the 2015 season is estimated at 5,800,000 18-pound lugs. Thus, the $0.0250 rate should generate $145,000 in income. In addition, reserve funds at the end of the year are projected to be $49,500, which is well within the order's limitation of approximately one fiscal period's expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015 fiscal period include $15,500 for research, $17,000 for general office expenses, $62,750 for management and compliance expenses, $25,000 for consultation services and $9,500 for the contingency reserve. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2014 fiscal period included $15,500 for research, $22,000 for general office expenses, $62,500 for management and compliance expenses and $10,000 for the contingency reserve. Overall expenditures included an increase in management and compliance expenses, a decrease in general office expenses, and funding of a contingency reserve.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered alternative expenditures and assessment rates to include not increasing the $0.0200 assessment rate. Based on a crop estimate of 5,800,000 18-pound lugs, the Committee ultimately determined that increasing the assessment rate to $0.0250 would generate sufficient funds to cover budgeted expenses. Reserve funds at the end of the 2015 fiscal period are projected to be $40,000 if the $9,500 contingency fund is expended or $49,500 if it is not expended. These amounts are well within the amount authorized under the order.

A review of historical crop and price information, as well as preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period, indicates that the producer price for the 2014 season averaged about $22.00 per 18-pound lug of California grapes handled. If the 2015 producer price is similar to the 2014 price, estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total estimated producer revenue would be 0.11 percent for the 2015 season ($0.0250 divided by $22.00 per 18-pound lug).

This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived from the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Executive Subcommittee and the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the grape production area and all interested persons were invited to attend and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the October 30, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California grape handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2015 (80 FR 16998). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all grape handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 15-day comment period ending April 15, 2015, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously-mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2015 fiscal period began on January 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable grapes handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years. Also, a 15-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule and no comments were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925

Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is amended as follows:

PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A DESIGNATED AREA OF SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 925 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 925.215 is revised to read as follows:
§ 925.215 Assessment rate.

On and after January 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug is established for grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California.

Dated: May 7, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-11468 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 985 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0096; FV15-985-1 FR] Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for the 2015-2016 Marketing Year AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee) to establish the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2015-2016 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2015. The Committee locally administers the Far West spearmint marketing order (order) and is comprised of producers of spearmint oil operating in the Far West. The Far West includes the states of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah. This rule establishes salable quantities and allotment percentages for Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil of 1,265,853 pounds and 60 percent, respectively, and for Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil of 1,341,269 pounds and 56 percent, respectively. The Committee recommended these quantities to help maintain stability in the spearmint oil market.

DATES:

Effective Date: May 14, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Broadbent, Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Under the order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This rule will establish the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, which handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2015-2016 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2015.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

The Committee meets annually in the fall to adopt a marketing policy for the ensuing marketing year or years. In determining such marketing policy, the Committee considers a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the current and projected supply, estimated future demand, production costs, and producer prices for all classes of spearmint oil. Input from spearmint oil handlers and producers regarding prospective marketing conditions for the upcoming year is considered as well. If the Committee's marketing policy considerations indicate a need for limiting the quantity of any or all classes of spearmint oil marketed, the Committee subsequently recommends to USDA the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for such class or classes of oil for the forthcoming marketing year. Recommendations for volume control are intended to ensure that market requirements for Far West spearmint oil are satisfied and orderly marketing conditions are maintained.

The salable quantity represents the total amount of each class of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the marketing year. The allotment percentage is the percentage used to calculate each producer's prorated share of the salable quantity. It is derived by dividing the salable quantity for each class of spearmint oil by the total of all producers' allotment bases for the same class of oil. Each producer's annual allotment of salable spearmint oil is calculated by multiplying their respective total allotment base by the allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil. A producer's allotment base is their quantified share of the spearmint oil market based on a statistical representation of past spearmint oil production, with accommodation for reasonable and normal adjustments to such base as prescribed by the Committee and approved by USDA.

Salable quantities and allotment percentages are established at levels intended to fulfill market requirements and to maintain orderly marketing conditions. Committee recommendations for volume controls are made well in advance of the period in which the regulations are to be effective, thereby allowing producers the chance to adjust their production decisions accordingly.

Pursuant to authority in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order, the full eight-member Committee met on November 5, 2014, and recommended salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of oil for the 2015-2016 marketing year. The Committee unanimously recommended the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil of 1,265,853 pounds and 60 percent, respectively. The Committee, also with a unanimous vote, recommended the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil of 1,341,269 pounds and 56 percent, respectively.

This final rule establishes the amount of Scotch and Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2015-2016 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2015. Salable quantities and allotment percentages have been placed into effect each season since the order's inception in 1980.

Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil

As noted above, the Committee unanimously recommended a salable quantity of Scotch spearmint oil of 1,265,853 pounds and an allotment percentage of 60 percent for the upcoming 2015-2016 marketing year. The Committee utilized 2015-2016 sales estimates for Scotch spearmint oil, as provided by several of the industry's handlers, as well as historical and current Scotch spearmint oil production and inventory statistics, to arrive at these recommendations.

Trade demand for Far West Scotch spearmint oil is expected to rise from 1,092,726 pounds in the 2014-2015 marketing year to 1,100,000 pounds in 2015-2016. Industry reports indicate that the increased trade demand estimate is the result of increased consumer demand for mint flavored products and low end-user inventories that need to be replenished. Information gathered from spearmint oil handlers supports this conclusion.

Production of Far West Scotch spearmint oil increased from 1,057,377 pounds in 2013 to 1,093,740 pounds in 2014. Committee members attribute the increase in production to both the low level of reserves and growing demand. Given that these factors are expected to continue in the coming 2015-2016 year, the Committee expects production to increase to as much as 1,300,000 pounds for the forthcoming marketing year.

The Committee also estimates that there will be zero carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil on June 1, 2015, the beginning of the 2015-2016 marketing year. This figure, which is the primary measure of excess supply, is down from 7,064 carried-in the previous year. This level of carry-in is below the minimum carry-in quantity that the Committee considers favorable. The demand for Scotch spearmint oil during the remainder of the 2014-2015 marketing year is expected to equal or exceed the remaining total supply, which will likely cause the zero carry-in.

The 2015-2016 salable quantity of 1,265,853 pounds recommended by the Committee represents an increase of 173,127 pounds over the total supply available during the previous marketing year. Total supply for 2014-2015 amounted to 1,092,726 pounds (7,064 carry-in, 989,643 pounds produced, and 96,019 pounds released from the reserve).

The Committee estimates 2015-2016 demand for Scotch spearmint oil at 1,100,000 pounds. When considered in conjunction with the forecast that there will be zero available carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil on June 1, 2015, the recommended salable quantity of 1,265,853 pounds is expected to satisfy market demand and yield a carry-in of 165,853 pounds available at the beginning of 2016-2017 marketing year.

The Committee's stated intent in the use of marketing order volume control regulations for Scotch spearmint oil is to keep adequate supplies available to meet market needs and maintain orderly marketing conditions. The salable quantity recommended for the upcoming marketing year is more than the salable quantity initially set for the previous year of 1,149,030. The Committee believes that the recommended salable quantity will adequately meet demand, as well as result in a larger carry-in for the following year. With that in mind, the Committee developed its recommendation for the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2015-2016 marketing year based on the information discussed above, as well as the data outlined below.

(A) Estimated carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil on June 1, 2015—0 pounds. This figure is the difference between the revised 2014-2015 marketing year total available supply of 1,092,726 pounds and the estimated 2014-2015 marketing year trade demand of 1,092,726 pounds.

(B) Estimated trade demand of Scotch spearmint oil for the 2015-2016 marketing year—1,100,000 pounds. This figure is based on input from producers at five Scotch spearmint oil production area meetings held in late September and early October 2014, as well as estimates provided by handlers and other meeting participants at the November 5, 2014, meeting. The average estimated trade demand derived from the five production area meetings was 1,192,400 pounds, which is 42,400 pounds more than the average of trade demand estimates submitted by handlers. Far West Scotch spearmint oil sales have averaged 979,520 pounds per year over the last three years. Given this information, the Committee decided it was prudent to anticipate the trade demand at 1,100,000 pounds. Should the initially established volume control levels prove insufficient to adequately supply the market, the Committee has the authority to recommend intra-seasonal increases as needed.

(C) Salable quantity of Scotch spearmint oil required from the 2015-2016 marketing year production—1,100,000 pounds. This figure is the difference between the estimated 2015-2016 marketing year trade demand (1,100,000 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2015 (0 pounds). This figure represents the minimum salable quantity that may be needed to satisfy estimated demand for the coming year with no carryover.

(D) Total estimated allotment base of Scotch spearmint oil for the 2015-2016 marketing year—2,109,755 pounds. This figure represents a one-percent increase over the revised 2014-2015 total allotment base. This figure is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost because of the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The revision is usually minimal.

(E) Computed Scotch spearmint oil 2015-2016 marketing year allotment percentage—52.1 percent. This percentage is computed by dividing the minimum required salable quantity (1,100,000 pounds) by the total estimated allotment base (2,109,755 pounds).

(F) Recommended Scotch spearmint oil 2015-2016 marketing year allotment percentage—60 percent. This is the Committee's recommendation and is based on the computed allotment percentage (52.1 percent), the average of the computed allotment percentage figures from the five production area meetings (56.5 percent), and input from producers and handlers at the November 5, 2014, meeting. The recommended 60 percent allotment percentage is also based on the Committee's belief that the computed percentage (52.1 percent) may not adequately supply the potential 2015-2016 Scotch spearmint oil market.

(G) Recommended Scotch spearmint oil 2015-2016 marketing year salable quantity—1,265,853 pounds. This figure is the product of the recommended allotment percentage (60 percent) and the total estimated allotment base (2,109,755 pounds).

(H) Estimated total available supply of Scotch spearmint oil for the 2015-2016 marketing year—1,265,853 pounds. This figure is the sum of the 2015-2016 recommended salable quantity (1,265,853 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2015 (0 pounds).

Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil

At the November 5, 2014, meeting, the Committee also recommended a 2015-2016 Native spearmint oil salable quantity of 1,341,269 pounds and an allotment percentage of 56 percent. The Committee utilized Native spearmint oil sales estimates for 2015-2016 marketing year, as provided by several of the industry's handlers, as well as historical and current Native spearmint oil market statistics to establish these thresholds. The recommended volume control levels represent an increase of 250,448 pounds and 10 percentage points over the previous year's initially established salable quantity and allotment percentage.

The Committee also estimates that there will be 512,745 pounds of Native spearmint oil in the reserve pool on June 1, 2015. This figure, which is the oil held in reserve by producers, is down from an industry peak of 606,942 pounds in 2011. Reserve levels of Native spearmint oil are nearing the level that the Committee believes is optimal for the industry.

Committee statistics indicate that demand for Far West Native spearmint oil has been gradually increasing since 2009. Spearmint oil handlers, who previously projected the 2014-2015 trade demand for Far West Native spearmint oil to be in the range of 1,100,000 pounds to 1,400,000 pounds (with an average of 1,300,000 pounds), have projected trade demand for the 2015-2016 marketing period to be in the range of 1,290,000 pounds to 1,400,000 pounds (with an average of 1,347,500).

Given the above, the Committee estimates that approximately 1,300,000 pounds of Native spearmint oil may be sold during the 2015-2016 marketing year. When considered in conjunction with the estimated carry-in of 117,368 pounds of Native spearmint oil on June 1, 2015, the recommended salable quantity of 1,341,269 pounds results in an estimated total available supply of 1,458,637 pounds of Native spearmint oil during the 2015-2016 marketing year. Estimated carry-in of Native spearmint oil at the beginning of the 2016-2017 marketing year is expected to be approximately 152,137 pounds. Carry-in spearmint oil is distinct from reserve pool spearmint oil and represents the amount of salable spearmint oil produced, but not marketed, in previous years and is available for sale in the current year. It is the primary measure of excess spearmint oil supply under the order. Reserve pool oil represents the amount of excess oil held by the Committee, on behalf of the producers, that is not currently available to the market.

The Committee's stated intent in the use of marketing order volume control regulations for Native spearmint oil is to keep adequate supplies available to meet market needs and maintain orderly marketing conditions. With that in mind, the Committee developed its recommendation for the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2015-2016 marketing year based on the information discussed above, as well as the data outlined below.

(A) Estimated carry-in of Native spearmint oil on June 1, 2015—117,368 pounds. This figure is the difference between the revised 2014-2015 marketing year total available supply of 1,458,368 pounds and the estimated 2014-2015 marketing year trade demand of 1,341,000 pounds.

(B) Estimated trade demand of Native spearmint oil for the 2015-2016 marketing year—1,306,500 pounds. This estimate is established by the Committee and is based on input from producers at six Native spearmint oil production area meetings held in late September and early October 2014, as well as estimates provided by handlers and other meeting participants at the November 5, 2014, meeting. The average estimated trade demand provided at the six production area meetings was 1,330,167 pounds, whereas the handlers' estimates ranged from 1,250,000 pounds to 1,400,000 pounds, and averaged 1,356,750 pounds. The average of Far West Native spearmint oil sales over the last three years is 1,306,492 pounds.

(C) Salable quantity of Native spearmint oil required from the 2015-2016 marketing year production—1,189,132 pounds. This figure is the difference between the estimated 2015-2016 marketing year trade demand (1,306,500 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2015 (117,368 pounds). This is the minimum amount that the Committee believes will be required to meet the anticipated 2015-2016 Native spearmint oil trade demand.

(D) Total estimated allotment base of Native spearmint oil for the 2015-2016 marketing year—2,395,124 pounds. This figure represents a one-percent increase over the revised 2014-2015 total allotment base. This figure is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost due to the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The revision is usually minimal.

(E) Computed Native spearmint oil 2015-2016 marketing year allotment percentage—49.6 percent. This percentage is computed by dividing the required salable quantity (1,189,132) by the total estimated allotment base (2,395,124 pounds).

(F) Recommended Native spearmint oil 2015-2016 marketing year allotment percentage—56 percent. This is the Committee's recommendation based on the computed allotment percentage (49.6 percent), the average of the computed allotment percentage figures from the six production area meetings (51.0 percent), and input from producers and handlers at the November 5, 2014, meeting. The recommended 56 percent allotment percentage is also based on the Committee's belief that the computed percentage (49.6 percent) may not adequately supply the potential 2015-2016 Native spearmint oil market.

(G) Recommended Native spearmint oil 2015-2016 marketing year salable quantity—1,341,269 pounds. This figure is the product of the recommended allotment percentage (56 percent) and the total estimated allotment base (2,395,124 pounds).

(H) Estimated available supply of Native spearmint oil for the 2015-2016 marketing year—1,458,637 pounds. This figure is the sum of the 2015-2016 recommended salable quantity (1,341,269 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2015 (117,368 pounds).

The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during a marketing year. Each producer is allotted a share of the salable quantity by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's allotment base for the applicable class of spearmint oil.

The Committee's recommended Scotch and Native spearmint oil salable quantities and allotment percentages of 1,265,853 pounds and 60 percent, and 1,341,269 pounds and 56 percent, respectively, are based on the goal of maintaining market stability. The Committee anticipates that this goal will be achieved by matching the available supply of each class of Spearmint oil to the estimated demand of such, thus avoiding extreme fluctuations in inventories and prices.

The salable quantities established by this rule are not expected to cause a shortage of spearmint oil supplies. Any unanticipated or additional market demand for spearmint oil which may develop during the marketing year could be satisfied by an intra-seasonal increase in the salable quantity. The order contains a provision for intra-seasonal increases to allow the Committee the flexibility to respond quickly to changing market conditions.

Under volume regulation, producers who produce more than their annual allotments during the 2015-2016 marketing year may transfer such excess spearmint oil to producers who have produced less than their annual allotment. In addition, up until December 1, 2015, producers may place excess spearmint oil production into the reserve pool to be released in the future in accordance with market needs.

This regulation is similar to regulations issued in prior seasons. The average initial allotment percentage for the five most recent marketing years for Scotch spearmint oil is 44.0 percent, while the average initial allotment percentage for the same five-year period for Native spearmint oil is 48.8 percent.

Costs to producers and handlers resulting from this rule are expected to be offset by the benefits derived from a stable market and increased returns. In conjunction with the issuance of this final rule, USDA has reviewed the Committee's marketing policy statement for the 2015-2016 marketing year. The Committee's marketing policy statement, a requirement whenever the Committee recommends volume regulation, fully meets the intent of § 985.50 of the order.

During its discussion of potential 2015-2016 salable quantities and allotment percentages, the Committee considered: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) the prospective production of each class of oil; (4) the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Conformity with USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” has also been reviewed and confirmed.

The establishment of these salable quantities and allotment percentages will allow for anticipated market needs. In determining anticipated market needs, the Committee considered historical sales, as well as changes and trends in production and demand. This rule also provides producers with information on the amount of spearmint oil that should be produced for the 2015-2016 season in order to meet anticipated market demand.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are eight spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 37 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 91 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 11 of the 37 Scotch spearmint oil producers, and 25 of the 91 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, a majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of spearmint oil. A typical spearmint oil-producing operation has enough acreage for rotation such that the total acreage required to produce the crop is about one-third spearmint and two-thirds rotational crops. Thus, the typical spearmint oil producer has to have considerably more acreage than is planted to spearmint during any given season. Crop rotation is an essential cultural practice in the production of spearmint oil for purposes of weed, insect, and disease control. To remain economically viable with the added costs associated with spearmint oil production, a majority of spearmint oil-producing farms fall into the SBA category of large businesses.

Small spearmint oil producers generally are not as extensively diversified as larger ones and, as such, are more at risk from market fluctuations. Such small producers generally need to market their entire annual production of spearmint oil and are not financially able to hold spearmint oil for sale in future years. In addition, small producers generally do not have a large assortment of other crops to cushion seasons with poor spearmint oil returns. Conversely, large diversified producers have the potential to endure one or more seasons of poor spearmint oil markets because income from alternate crops could support the operation for a period of time. Being reasonably assured of a stable price and market provides all producing entities with the ability to maintain proper cash flow and to meet annual expenses. The benefits for this rule are expected to be equally available to all producers and handlers regardless of their size.

This final rule establishes the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2015-2016 marketing year. The Committee recommended this rule to help maintain stability in the spearmint oil market by matching supply to estimated demand, thereby avoiding extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices. Establishing quantities that may be purchased or handled during the marketing year through volume regulations allows producers to coordinate their spearmint oil production with the expected market demand. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order.

Instability in the spearmint oil sub-sector of the mint industry is much more likely to originate on the supply side than the demand side. Fluctuations in yield and acreage planted from season-to-season tend to be larger than fluctuations in the amount purchased by handlers. Historically, demand for spearmint oil tends to change slowly from year to year.

Demand for spearmint oil at the farm level is derived from retail demand for spearmint-flavored products such as chewing gum, toothpaste, and mouthwash. The manufacturers of these products are by far the largest users of spearmint oil. However, spearmint flavoring is generally a very minor component of the products in which it is used, so changes in the raw product price have virtually no impact on retail prices for those goods.

Spearmint oil production tends to be cyclical. Years of relatively high production, with demand remaining reasonably stable, have led to periods in which large producer stocks of unsold spearmint oil have depressed producer prices for a number of years. Shortages and high prices may follow in subsequent years, as producers respond to price signals by cutting back production.

The significant variability of the spearmint oil market is illustrated by the fact that the coefficient of variation (a standard measure of variability; “CV”) of Far West spearmint oil grower prices for the period 1980-2013 (when the marketing order was in effect) is 0.23, compared to 0.36 for the decade prior to the promulgation of the order (1970-79) and 0.49 for the prior 20-year period (1960-79). This provides an indication of the price stabilizing impact of the marketing order.

Production in the shortest marketing year was about 47 percent of the 34-year average (1.92 million pounds from 1980 through 2013) and the largest crop was approximately 160 percent of the 34-year average. A key consequence is that, in years of oversupply and low prices, the season average producer price of spearmint oil is below the average cost of production (as measured by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service).

The wide fluctuations in supply and prices that result from this cycle, which was even more pronounced before the creation of the order, can create liquidity problems for some producers. The order was designed to reduce the price impacts of the cyclical swings in production. However, producers have been less able to weather these cycles in recent years because of the increase in production costs. While prices have been relatively steady, the cost of production has increased to the extent that plans to plant spearmint may be postponed or changed indefinitely. Producers may also be enticed by the prices of alternative crops and their lower cost of production.

In an effort to stabilize prices, the spearmint oil industry uses the volume control mechanisms authorized under the order. This authority allows the Committee to recommend a salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of oil for the upcoming marketing year. The salable quantity for each class of oil is the total volume of oil that producers may sell during the marketing year. The allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil is derived by dividing the salable quantity by the total allotment base.

Each producer is then issued an annual allotment certificate, in pounds, for the applicable class of oil, which is calculated by multiplying the producer's allotment base by the applicable allotment percentage. This is the amount of oil of each applicable class that the producer can market.

By December 1 of each year, the Committee identifies any oil that individual producers have produced above the volume specified on their annual allotment certificates. This excess oil is placed in a reserve pool administered by the Committee. A reserve pool is maintained for each class of oil that may not be sold during the current marketing year unless USDA approves a Committee recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage for a class of oil and make a portion of the pool available.

Limited quantities of excess oil may be sold by one producer to another producer to fill production deficiencies in a marketing year. A deficiency occurs when on-farm production is less than a producer's allotment. When a producer has a deficiency, the producer's own reserve oil can be utilized to fill that deficiency, or excess production (production of spearmint oil in excess of the producer's annual allotment) from another producer may also be secured to fill the deficiency. All of these provisions need to be exercised prior to December 1 of each year.

In any given year, the total available supply of spearmint oil is composed of current production plus salable carryover stocks from the previous crop. The Committee seeks to maintain market stability by balancing supply and demand, and to close the marketing year with an appropriate level of salable spearmint oil to carry over into the subsequent marketing year. If the industry has production in excess of the salable quantity, then the reserve pool absorbs the surplus quantity of spearmint oil, which goes unsold during that year, unless the oil is needed for unanticipated sales.

Under its provisions, the order may attempt to stabilize prices by (1) limiting supply and establishing reserves in high production years, thus minimizing the price-depressing effect that excess producer stocks have on unsold spearmint oil, and (2) ensuring that stocks are available in short supply years when prices would otherwise increase dramatically. Reserve pool stocks, which increase in high production years, are drawn down in years where the crop is short.

An econometric model was used to assess the impact that volume control has on the prices producers receive for their commodity. Without volume control, spearmint oil markets would likely be over-supplied. This could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to the next crop year. The model estimates how much lower producer prices would likely be in the absence of volume controls.

The Committee estimated trade demand for the 2015-2016 marketing year for both classes of oil at 2,406,500 pounds, and that the expected combined salable carry-in will be 117,368 pounds. This results in a combined required salable quantity of 2,289,132 pounds. With volume control, sales by producers for the 2015-2016 marketing year will be limited to 2,607,122 pounds (the recommended salable quantity for both classes of spearmint oil).

The recommended allotment percentages, upon which 2015-2016 producer allotments are based, are 60 percent for Scotch and 56 percent for Native. Without volume controls, producers would not be limited to these allotment levels, and could produce and sell an unrestricted quantity of spearmint oil. The econometric model estimated a decline of about $1.30 in the season average producer price per pound (from both classes of spearmint oil) resulting from the higher quantities that would be produced and marketed without volume control. The surplus situation for the spearmint oil market that would exist without volume controls in 2015-2016 also would likely dampen prospects for improved producer prices in future years because of the buildup in stocks.

The use of volume control allows the industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. The use of volume control is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices of products containing spearmint oil and will not result in fewer retail sales of such products.

The Committee discussed alternatives to the recommendations submitted for approval for both classes of spearmint oil. The Committee discussed and rejected the idea of recommending that there not be any volume regulation for both classes of spearmint oil because of the severe price-depressing effects that would occur without volume control. The Committee also considered salable quantities and allotment percentages that were above and below the levels that were ultimately recommended.

After computing the initial 52.1 percent Scotch spearmint oil allotment percentage, the Committee considered various alternative levels of volume control for Scotch spearmint oil. Even with the moderately optimistic marketing conditions, there was consensus from the Committee that the Scotch spearmint oil allotment percentage for 2015-2016 should be more than the percentage initially established for the 2014-2015 marketing year (55 percent). After considerable discussion, the eight-member committee unanimously determined that 1,265,853 pounds and 60 percent will be the most effective Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage, respectively, for the 2015-2016 marketing year.

The Committee was also able to reach a consensus regarding the level of volume control for Native spearmint oil. After first determining the computed allotment percentage at 49.6 percent, the Committee unanimously recommended 1,341,269 pounds and 56 percent for the effective Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage, respectively, for the 2015-2016 marketing year.

As noted earlier, the Committee's recommendation to establish salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of spearmint oil was made after careful consideration of all available information including: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) the prospective production of each class of oil; (4) the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity.

Based on its review, the Committee believes that the salable quantities and allotment percentages established by this action achieve the objectives sought. As previously stated, annual salable quantities and allotment percentages have been issued for both classes of spearmint oil since the order's inception. The salable quantities and allotment percentages established herein are expected to facilitate the goal of maintaining orderly marketing conditions for Far West spearmint oil for the 2015-2016 and future marketing years.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule establishes the salable quantities and allotment percentages for Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil and Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil produced in the Far West during the 2015-2016 marketing year. Accordingly, this action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil producers or handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

As noted in the regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule.

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

The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 5, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2015 (80 FR 13502). A copy of the rule was provided to Committee staff, who in turn made it available to all Far West spearmint oil producers, handlers, and interested persons. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 15-day comment period ending March 31, 2015, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because the 2015-2016 marketing year starts on June 1, 2015, and handlers will need to begin purchasing the spearmint oil allotted under this rulemaking. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Finally, a 15-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule, and no comments were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is amended as follows:

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER REGULATING THE HANDLING OF SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE FAR WEST 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 985 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. A new § 985.234 is added to read as follows:
§ 985.234 Salable quantities and allotment percentages—2015-2016 marketing year.

The salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil during the marketing year beginning on June 1, 2015, shall be as follows:

(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable quantity of 1,265,853 pounds and an allotment percentage of 60 percent.

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable quantity of 1,341,269 pounds and an allotment percentage of 56 percent.

Dated: May 7, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-11469 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0079; FRL-9927-59-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision To Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Storage Tanks and Transport Vessels AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from degassing of storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels. The revision reformats the existing requirement to comply with current rule writing standards, adds additional control options for owner/operators to use when complying, clarifies the monitoring and testing requirements of the rule, and makes non-substantive changes to VOC control provisions that apply in the Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) nonattainment area (Hardin, Jefferson and Orange Counties), four counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) nonattainment area (Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties), El Paso County, and the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller Counties).

DATES:

This rule is effective on July 13, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by June 12, 2015. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0079, by one of the following methods:

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.

Email: Mr. Robert M. Todd at [email protected]

Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0079. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert M. Todd, (214) 665-2156, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact Mr. Todd or Mr. Bill Deese (214) 665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Table of Contents I. Background II. EPA's Evaluation III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. CAA and SIPs

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop and submit to EPA a SIP to ensure that state air quality meets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These ambient standards currently address six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin through air pollution regulations and control strategies. EPA approved SIP regulations and control strategies are federally enforceable. States revise the SIP as needed and submit revisions to EPA for approval.

Under Section 182(b)(2) of the Act, major stationary sources and sources covered by control technique guidelines are required to implement RACT in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas.

B. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Degassing Emissions

Volatile organic compounds are an “ozone precursor,” as they react with oxygen, nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sunlight to form ozone. Controlling sources of VOC and NOX emissions can lower ozone levels in the ambient air. VOC degassing emissions occur when VOC storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels are vented and prepared for cleaning, maintenance or change of service. Requirements to control degassing emissions, use low-leaking tank fittings on some control options, monitor control effectiveness and report compliance from degassing operations were implemented in HGB and BPA (62 FR 27964, May 22, 1997). In DFW and El Paso County, these rules were adopted as contingency measures under the 1-hour ozone standard (62 FR 27964). These VOC requirements for HGB were later updated (75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010 and 78 FR 19599, April 2, 2013). For Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties in the DFW nonattainment area, the contingency measures were not triggered or otherwise implemented under the 1-hour ozone standard, and were left in place (applying only to Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties) as contingency measures under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (74 FR 1903, January 14, 2009). Texas implemented these contingency measure rules for Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties on May 21, 2011 (35 TexReg 4268, May 21, 2010) when the area failed to meet the 1997 8-hour standard by the moderate area attainment date of June 15, 2010.

C. SIP Revision Submitted on February 18, 2011

A SIP submission revising the rules for controlling VOC emissions from degassing of storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels was adopted by Texas on January 26, 2011, and submitted to us on February 18, 2011. The revisions submitted by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) apply to Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and Waller Counties.

The revision repeals Title 30, Chapter 115 of the Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC 115) sections 115.541, 115.542 and 115.545; adds new sections 115.540-115.542 and 115.545; and amends existing sections 115.543, 115.544, 115.546, 115.547 and 115.549. The revision (1) reformats the existing rule to simplify and clarify rule requirements; (2) modifies VOC control requirements in Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and Waller Counties; (3) makes changes to provide additional flexibility for affected owners and operators allowing for the use of alternative control options; and (4) makes non-substantive changes to VOC control provisions that apply in Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and Waller Counties.

Also, the regulation continues to apply to El Paso County on a contingency basis; i.e., the control requirements of the rule will not apply to affected owner/operators in El Paso County unless the agency determines regulation is necessary as a result of a failure to attain the NAAQS for ozone by the attainment deadline or the State fails to demonstrate reasonable further progress in the El Paso County according to the requirements of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, section 172(c)(9).

This revision clarifies that degassing emissions of storage tanks and transport vessels for sources in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties are required to meet the control require-ments of the rule at this time. The requirements do not apply to storage tanks or vessels in Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall or Wise Counties.1 When the DFW area was reclassified as a Serious ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard (75 FR 79302, December 20, 2010) the TCEQ published the notice requiring compliance with degassing requirements in DFW by May 21, 2011 (35 TexReg 4268, May 21, 2010.). This action clarifies that the degassing requirements are in effect for Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties.

1 On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm, known as the 2008 ozone standard. On April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated designations under the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088) and in that action, the EPA designated 10 counties in the DFW area as a Moderate ozone nonattainment area: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise. The EPA's actions here with respect to DFW, only address the counties which comprised the DFW nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard.

For the HGB area, the rule revisions maintain the existing requirement that VOC vapors generated during degassing operations be routed to a device that maintains a control efficiency of at least 90% for the affected sources.2

2 The HGB area is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008). Under the 2008 ozone standard the HGB area is classified as a Marginal ozone nonattainment area (77 FR 30088).

For DFW, HGB and BPA, the revisions add an explicit requirement that any flare used for control must be designed and operated according to 40 CFR 60.18(b)-(f) as amended through December 22, 2008, and that the flare must be lit at all times VOC vapors are routed to the device during degassing operations. The TCEQ added this requirement to clarify the intent of the rule is for both the flare flame and the pilot to the flare be lit at all times VOC vapors are routed to the device.

The SIP revision submitted by Texas may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0642.

D. CAA Requirements for the SIP Revision

The primary requirements pertaining to the SIP revision submitted by Texas are found in CAA sections 110(l) and 182(b)(2). CAA section 110(l) requires that a SIP revision submitted to EPA be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) also requires that we not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires States to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules for stationary sources of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above.

II. EPA's Evaluation

The requirements to control degassing emissions, use low-leaking tank fittings on some control options, monitor control effectiveness and report compliance from degassing operations were previously implemented in HGB and BPA (62 FR 27966, May 22, 1997). The requirements were later revised for HGB (75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010 and 78 FR 19599, April 2, 2013). For DFW, we previously approved the rules as a contingency measure to be implemented by Texas if the area failed to reach attainment under the 1-hour ozone nonattainment standards (May 22, 1997, 62 FR 27964). We later approved these same rules as contingency measures to be implemented in the four counties comprising of the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area if DFW did not reach attainment under the 8-hour ozone nonattainment standard (January 14, 2009, 74 FR 1903). Because the nine counties in the DFW 8-hour nonattainment area failed to meet the attainment date, Texas implemented the contingency measure rules for Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties on May 21, 2011. For the El Paso area we initially approved these rules as a contingency measure on May 22, 1997. (62 FR 27966, May 22, 1997).

Under Section 182(b)(2) of the Act, Major stationary sources and sources covered by control technique guidelines are required to implement RACT in moderate ozone and above ozone nonattainment areas. At the time these rules were adopted by TCEQ, the four subject areas were all moderate or above nonattainment for the 1 hour ozone standard.

The VOC degassing rules control emissions from three source types: Stationary storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels. The latter two source types are not stationary sources and are therefore not subject to RACT requirements. Storage tanks are covered by Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs). As a result, RACT must be implemented for stationary storage tanks. If there were not a CTG for storage tanks emissions, any major source storage tanks would have had to implement RACT to control its emissions including degassing emissions.

The CTGs for storage tanks provide recommendations for types of controls including the types of seals necessary to reduce emissions from tanks. The CTGs, however, do not include a recommendation that emissions during degassing of the tanks be controlled. Texas has adopted rules based on the CTG recommendations. See 30 TAC 115, Storage of Volatile Organic Compounds, sections 115.110, 115.512-117 and 115.119. These rules have previously been approved as RACT and finding has been affirmed as RACT on a number of occasions. The rules Texas has adopted to control degassing emissions are in addition to the RACT level of control recommended by the CTG. The rules were adopted by TCEQ to address rate of progress requirements in HGB and to meet contingency measure requirements in DFW and El Paso County. Therefore, it is appropriate for the degassing controls in El Paso to remain as a contingency measure and changes to the degassing rules will not interfere with whether RACT is being implemented in these areas.

Moreover, our evaluation finds that the revision to the Texas SIP improves the rules by rewording them so that their intent is unambiguous, clarifying the compliance monitoring and reporting required for affected sources, and does not result in a change in the VOC emission reductions previously approved for degassing of storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessel in DFW, HGB, BPA and El Paso County.

In our April 2, 2013 approval of Texas's revisions to the SIP for the HGB 1997 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area (78 FR 19599), we found that the Texas SIP met the RACT requirements for CTG and major Non-CTG sources of VOC in this nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller Counties) under the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. We are not altering this finding in this action.

We found that the Texas SIP met the RACT requirements for CTG and major Non-CTG sources of VOC in DFW in our approval of Texas VOC rules for RACT (64 FR 3841). We are not altering this finding in this rule.

Also, the Degassing or Cleaning VOC control requirements approved in the DFW and El Paso County SIPs as contingency measures, for the 8-hour Ozone attainment demonstration, are not altered in this action (January 14, 2009, 74 FR 1903). These measures were triggered in DFW in 2010 and became effective May 21, 2010 (see the Texas Register, 35 TexReg 4268, dated May 21, 2010).

For additional information please see our Technical Support Document which may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-2010-0642.

III. Final Action

We are approving a Texas SIP revision for control of VOC emissions from storage tank, transport vessel and marine vessel degassing operations adopted on January 26, 2011, and submitted on February 18, 2011. Specifically, we are approving revisions to 30 TAC 115 at sections 115.540-115.547 and 115.549. The revisions (1) reformat the existing rule to simplify and clarify rule requirements; (2) modify VOC control requirements in Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and Waller Counties; (3) make changes to provide additional flexibility for affected owners and operators allowing for the use of alternative control options; and (4) make non-substantive changes to VOC control provisions that apply in Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and Waller Counties.

We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on July 13, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by June 12, 2015. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 Texas regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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 rule 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 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: May 4, 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 SS—Texas 2. In § 52.2270(c), the table titled “EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP” is amended by: a. Under “Subchapter F—Miscellaneous Industrial Sources”, revising the title for “Division 3”; b. Adding, in sequential order, the entry for Section 115.540; and c. Revising the entries for Sections 115.541 through 115.547 and 115.549.

The addition and revisions read as follows:

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP State citation Title/subject State
  • approval/
  • submittal date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 115 (Reg 5)—Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds *         *         *         *         *         *         * Subchapter F—Miscellaneous Industrial Sources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Division 3: Degassing of Storage Tanks, Transport Vessels, and Marine Vessels Section 115.540 Applicability and Definitions 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 115.541 Emission Specifications 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 115.542 Control Requirements 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 115.543 Alternate control Requirements 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 115.544 Inspection, Monitoring, and Testing Requirements 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 115.545 Approved Test Methods 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 115.546 Recordkeeping and Notification Requirements 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 115.547 Exemptions 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 115.549 Compliance Schedules 1/26/2011 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-11451 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0759; FRL-9927-70-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve the 2011 base year emissions inventories submitted by the District of Columbia, State of Maryland, and Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively, the States) for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The emissions inventories were submitted to meet nonattainment requirements related to the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area (the DC Area or Area) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the DC Area in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 13, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 12, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it 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 Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0759 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected].

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0759, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 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-R03-OAR-2014-0759. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittals are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor, Washington, DC 20002; the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background II. Summary of SIP Revision III. Final Action IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Ground-level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight. Referred to as ozone precursors, these two pollutants are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and area-wide sources, such as consumer products and lawn and garden equipment. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following a person's exposure to ozone, particularly children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. As a consequence of this scientific evidence, EPA promulgated the 0.12 part per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38855), EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm, averaged over eight hours. This standard was determined to be more protective of public health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated areas as attaining or not attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified the DC Area as a moderate nonattainment area with an applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010. EPA approved the States' submittals pertaining to reasonable further progress (RFP), RFP contingency measures, and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), along with the Washington Area's 2002 base year inventory and 2008 transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) on September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58116). On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739), EPA determined that the DC Area had attained by its applicable attainment date.

    Subsequently, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), the DC Area was designated marginal for the more stringent 8-hour ozone standard. As a marginal nonattainment area, the DC Area is required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the Area.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 17, 2014, the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted their 2011 base year inventories, and on August 4, 2014, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted its base year inventory. The 2011 base year inventories include emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of stationary point sources, stationary nonpoint sources, nonroad mobile sources and onroad mobile sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are NOX and VOCs.

    The CAA section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory is developed by the incorporation of data from multiple sources. States were required to develop and submit to EPA a triennial emissions inventory according to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) for all source categories (i.e., point, nonpoint, nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile). The States developed the point source emissions inventory using actual emissions directly reported by electric generating unit (EGU) and non-EGU sources in the Area. For nonpoint source emissions, emissions were estimated by multiplying an emission factor by a known indicator of activity for each source category in the county (or county-equivalent). Nonroad mobile source emissions were determined using the EPA's NONROAD2008 model. Onroad mobile source emissions were developed using the EPA's highway mobile source emissions model MOVES 2010a. More information regarding the review of the base year inventory can be found in the technical support document (TSD) that is located in the docket for this rulemaking action.

    III. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 172(c) of the CAA, EPA is approving the 2011 base year emissions inventories submitted by the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as revisions to the States' respective SIPs. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on July 13, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 12, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action approving the 2011 emissions inventories for the states that comprise the Washington, DC Nonattainment Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    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 J—District of Columbia 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.470 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional
  • explanation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard District of Columbia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 ozone nonattainment area 7/17/14 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] § 52.474(f).
    3. Section 52.474 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 52.474 Base Year Emissions Inventory.

    (f) EPA approves as a revision to the District of Columbia State Implementation Plan the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the District of Columbia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area submitted by the District Department of the Environment on July 17, 2014. The 2011 base year emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC).

    Subpart V—Maryland 4. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1070 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional
  • explanation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2008 8-hour Ozone standard Maryland portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 ozone nonattainment area 8/4/14 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] § 52.1075(o).
    5. Section 52.1075 is amended by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
    § 52.1075 Base year emissions inventory.

    (o) EPA approves as a revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Maryland portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Maryland Department of Environment on August 4, 2014. The 2011 base year emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC).

    Subpart VV—Virginia 6. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional
  • explanation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 ozone nonattainment area 7/17/14 5/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] § 52.2425(g)
    7. Section 52.2425 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 52.2425 Base Year Emissions Inventory.

    (g) EPA approves as a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on July 17, 2014. The 2011 base year emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC).

    [FR Doc. 2015-11562 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 41 CFR Parts 300-3, 301-10, and 301-70 [FTR Amendment 2015-03, FTR Case 2014-302; Docket 2014-0014, Sequence 1] RIN 3090-AJ48 Federal Travel Regulation; Enhancement of Privately Owned Vehicle and Rental Vehicle Policy AGENCY:

    Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    GSA is amending the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by requiring agencies to have an internal policy for determining whether to authorize a privately owned vehicle (POV), as opposed to a rental car, in conjunction with temporary duty travel (TDY). Further, this rule specifies that travelers, who have been authorized to travel via common carrier or rental car, and choose to use a POV instead, will be reimbursed at the applicable POV mileage rate. Additionally, this rule adds specific provisions addressing the type of rental vehicles travelers must use, pre-paid refueling options, and other rental car surcharges. Finally, this rule makes certain miscellaneous corrections, where applicable.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For clarification of content, contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Program Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202-219-2349. Contact the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FTR Amendment 2015-03; FTR case 2014-302.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

    GSA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 20, 2014 (79 FR 62588). That rule proposed amending the FTR to require that agencies have an internal policy for determining when to authorize a POV, as opposed to a rental car, in conjunction with TDY. Additionally, the rule proposed to amend the FTR to state that travelers who have been authorized by their agencies to travel via common carrier or rental car, and choose to use a POV instead, would be reimbursed at the applicable POV mileage rate up to the constructive cost of the authorized mode of transportation plus per diem. Further, the rule proposed amending the FTR to state that travelers who are authorized to use a rental car in conjunction with TDY must use the least expensive compact car available; addressed reimbursement pertaining to pre-paid refueling options for rental cars; denied reimbursement of surcharges involved when rental car companies purchase miles from airlines and provide those miles to their vehicle customers; and proposed to amend the FTR to make certain miscellaneous corrections, where applicable.

    The public had 60 calendar days to comment on the proposed rule. GSA received a total of seven comments from three commenters, and made changes to the substance of this final rule, although changes are not considered to be significant.

    B. Analysis of Public Comments

    Comment: One respondent expressed concern that changing the term “government-furnished automobile” to “government-owned automobile (GOA)” would generate uncertainty as to how travelers should account for vehicles leased by the Federal Government.

    Response: GSA agreed with these concerns and will amend the FTR to more consistently use the term “government-furnished automobile.” GSA is amending the current definition, however, as it pertains to use of the term “GSA Fleet” and the 120-day rental period to be consistent with the Federal Management Regulation.

    Comment: One respondent stated that requiring a medical professional to recommend a suitable vehicle class is not feasible, since busy or indifferent medical authorities will merely sign statements prepared by travelers.

    Response: We agreed that requiring a medical professional to recommend a suitable vehicle class is not feasible, and therefore, have removed this language from the final rule.

    Comment: One respondent recommended an additional exception (§ 301-10.450(c)(6)) permitting the use of a non-compact car for safety reasons due to severe weather or terrain.

    Response: We agreed with this recommendation and have added this language to the final rule.

    Comment: One respondent stated that requiring an annual written statement from a medical authority (§ 301-10.450(c)(1)(i)) is unduly complex and contrary to existing law and regulation.

    Response: Since the requirement for an annual written statement from a medical authority is stipulated in § 301-10.123(a)(2) when requesting the use of other than coach class accommodations, we believe this same requirement should apply when requesting the use of other than a compact car. Proposed language will not change.

    Comment: One respondent stated that changing travel policy to not reimburse fees associated with rental car loyalty points will increase the chance of improper payments for such small dollar amounts and will slow down the voucher review process. The respondent recommended changing rental car agreements to prohibit charging such fees or offering them to Federal travelers. The respondent also recommended changing the ETS2 contract to not allow adding frequent flyer mileage numbers for car rentals.

    Response: Travelers may not be reimbursed for rental car fees associated with rental car loyalty points because these are not official expenses. 5 U.S.C. 5706 permits reimbursement of actual and necessary travel expenses only. Changing the rental car agreements and the ETS2 contract are not within the scope of the Office of Government-wide Policy, thus proposed language will not change.

    Comment: One respondent stated that the requirement to consider the total cost of travel using a rental car versus personal vehicle does not include the cost of official time spent obtaining a rental vehicle, which the commenter stated was comparatively large. The commenter argued that time spent in making detailed comparisons will eliminate any potential cost savings.

    Response: A POV should be authorized only after the agency considers a common carrier, a Government-furnished automobile, and a rental car, and the employee agrees to use a POV. The final rule has been changed to make this order of preference clearer. The comparison should include all costs associated with the trip.

    Comment: One commenter recommended adding the language, “if the estimated cost for the use of a privately owned vehicle is $100 or less, no documentation of the cost savings should be required”. The commenter stated that this is because the direct costs (rental fees and local rental taxes, travel cost for driving to and parking at the rental car site), plus the indirect costs (time to book the rental vehicle, travel to and from the rental site, etc.) would likely always exceed $100.

    Response: From a Government-wide perspective, because each agency has unique missions and fiscal considerations, it would not be prudent to artificially set a threshold or arbitrary number for cost comparison between different modes of transportation. If an agency can determine a break-even point through historical or empirical data, they may establish a threshold in their internal policy and procedures documentation. This way, the cost of comparison is not repeated for all trips when the cost is at or below that determined threshold. Proposed language will not change.

    C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because these changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

    F. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This final rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801. This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    List of Subjects in 41 CFR Parts 300-3, 301-10, and 301-70

    Administrative practices and procedures, Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Denise Turner Roth, Acting Administrator of General Services.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5701-5711, GSA amends 41 CFR parts 300-3, 301-10 and 301-70 as set forth below:

    PART 300-3—GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 300-3 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 5741-5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353; E.O 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 586, Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992.

    § 300-3.1 [AMENDED]
    2. Amend § 300-3.1, in the definition of “Government-furnished automobile”, by— a. Removing from paragraph (b) the phrase “the GSA Interagency Fleet Management System” and adding the phrase “GSA Fleet” in its place. b. Removing from paragraph (c) the phrase “60 days” and adding the phrase “120 days” in its place.
    PART 301-10—TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES 3. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 301-10 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118; OMB Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992.

    4. Amend § 301-10.5 by revising the section heading and adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 301-10.5 What are the presumptions as to the most advantageous method of transportation by order of precedence?

    (c) Rental car. If no Government-furnished automobile is available, but your agency has determined that travel must be performed by automobile, then a rental car should be authorized.

    (d) Privately Owned Vehicle (POV). POVs should be determined to be the most advantageous method of transportation only after your agency evaluates the use of a common carrier, a Government-furnished automobile, and a rental car.

    5. Revise the undesignated center heading preceding § 301.10-220 to read as follows: Government-Furnished Automobiles 6. Revise § 301-10.309 to read as follows:
    § 301-10.309 What will I be reimbursed if I am authorized to use common carrier transportation or a rental vehicle and I use a POV instead?

    You will be reimbursed the applicable POV rate on a mileage basis, plus per diem, not to exceed the total constructive cost of the authorized method of common carrier transportation plus per diem. Your agency must determine the constructive cost of transportation and per diem by common carrier under the rules in § 301-10.310.

    7. Revise § 301-10.310 to read as follows:
    § 301-10.310 What will I be reimbursed if I am authorized to use a Government-furnished automobile and I use a privately owned automobile instead?

    You will be reimbursed based on a constructive mileage rate limited to the cost that would be incurred for use of a Government automobile. This rate will be published in an FTR bulletin available at http://www.gsa.gov/ftr. If your agency determines the cost of providing a Government-furnished automobile would be higher because of unusual circumstances, it may allow reimbursement not to exceed the mileage rate for a privately owned automobile. In addition, you may be reimbursed other allowable expenses as provided in § 301-10.304.

    8. Amend § 301-10.450 by revising the section heading and adding paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as follows:
    § 301-10.450 What are the policies when authorized to rent a vehicle for official travel?

    (c) Travelers must use the least expensive compact car available, unless an exception for another class of vehicle is approved. Agencies should approve these exceptions on a limited basis and must indicate on the travel authorization the reason for the exception. Your agency may authorize the use of other than a compact car if any of the following apply:

    (1) When use of other than a compact car is necessary to accommodate a medical disability or other special need.

    (i) A disability must be certified annually in a written statement by a competent medical authority. However, if the disability is a lifelong condition, then a one-time certification statement is required. Certification statements must include at a minimum:

    (A) A written statement by a competent medical authority stating that special accommodation is necessary;

    (B) An approximate duration of the special accommodation; and

    (ii) A special need must be certified annually in writing according to your agency's procedures. However, if the special need is a lifelong condition, then a one-time certification statement is required;

    (iii) If you are authorized under § 301-13.3(a) to have an attendant accompany you, your agency may authorize the use of other than a compact car if deemed necessary by your agency.

    (2) When required because of agency mission, consistent with your agency's internal procedures pursuant to § 301-70.102(i).

    (3) When the cost of other than a compact car is less than or equal to the cost of the least expensive compact car.

    (4) When additional room is required to accommodate multiple employees authorized to travel together in the same rental vehicle.

    (5) When travelers must carry a large amount of Government material incident to their official business, and a compact rental vehicle does not contain sufficient space.

    (6) When necessary for safety reasons, such as during severe weather or having to travel on rough or difficult terrain.

    (d) Travelers are not to be reimbursed for purchasing pre-paid refueling options for rental cars. Therefore, travelers should refuel prior to returning the rental vehicle to the drop-off location. However, if it is not possible to refuel completely prior to returning the vehicle because of safety issues or the location of closest fueling station, travelers will be reimbursed for vendor refueling charges.

    (e) Travelers will not be reimbursed for fees associated with rental car loyalty points or the transfer of points charged by car companies.

    PART 301-70—INTERNAL POLICY AND PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS 9. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 301-70 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105-264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 U.S.C. 5701, note), OMB Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992, and OMB Circular No. A-123, Appendix B, revised January 15, 2009.

    10. Amend § 301-70.101 by adding paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as follows:
    § 301-70.101 What factors must we consider in determining which method of transportation results in the greatest advantage to the Government?

    (c) When travel must be performed by automobile, agencies should next consider using a Government-furnished automobile.

    (d) If a Government-furnished automobile is not available, agencies should then consider using the least expensive compact rental vehicle.

    (e) Agencies should lastly consider authorizing a POV only if the employee agrees to use a POV, because agencies cannot mandate employees to use their POV for official reasons.

    11. Amend § 301-70.102 by revising paragraphs (d), (f), and (i) to read as follows:
    § 301-70.102 What governing policies must we establish for authorization and payment of transportation expenses?

    (d) When you will consider use of a POV advantageous to the Government, such as travel to and from common carrier terminals or to the TDY location. When determining whether the use of a POV to a TDY location is the most advantageous method of transportation, agencies must consider the total cost of using a POV as compared to the total cost of using a rental vehicle, including rental costs, fuel, taxes, parking (at a common carrier terminal, etc.), and any other associated costs;

    (f) Procedures for allowing the use of a special conveyance (e.g., commercially rented vehicles), taking into account the requirements of § 301-10.450;

    (i) Develop and issue internal guidance on what specific mission criteria justify approval of the use of other than coach-class transportation under §§ 301-10.123(a)(4), 301-10.123(b)(9), and 301-10.162(e), as well as on the use of other than lowest first-class under § 301-10.183(d) and the use of other than a compact rental car under § 301-10.450(c). The justification criteria shall be entered in the remarks section of the traveler's authorization.

    §§ 301-10.5, 301-10.200, 301-10.220, 301-10.310 and 301-70.104 [Amended]
    12. Amend §§ 301-10.5, 301-10.200, 301-10.220, 301-10.310 and 301-70.104 by removing the words “Government automobile” wherever they appear and adding “Government-furnished automobile” in their places.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11459 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8383] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4133.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain
  • Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available in SFHAs
  • Region VII Iowa: Buchanan County, Unincorporated Areas 190848 December 17, 1990, Emerg; September 1, 1991, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp June 16, 2015 June 16, 2015. Defiance, City of, Shelby County 190246 October 27, 1976, Emerg; August 19, 1986, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do *   Do. Earling, City of, Shelby County 190247 July 18, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1986, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Independence, City of, Buchanan County 190031 September 24, 1971, Emerg; May 16, 1977, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Irwin, City of, Shelby County 190249 May 1, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1981, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Keosauqua, City of, Van Buren County 190268 January 14, 1975, Emerg; September 5, 1979, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Kirkman, City of, Shelby County 190250 June 9, 1975, Emerg; May 17, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Panama, City of, Shelby County 190251 October 2, 1975, Emerg; August 26, 1980, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Portsmouth, City of, Shelby County 190507 October 6, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1986, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Shannon City, City of, Ringgold and Union Counties 190521 August 15, 2005, Emerg; May 1, 2011, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Shelby County, Unincorporated Areas 190905 September 12, 1975, Emerg; February 10, 1981, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Missouri: Caldwell County, Unincorporated Areas 290788 November 14, 2002, Emerg; July 5, 2005, Reg; June 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. *-do- =Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: April 27, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11502 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Part 1355 Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews AGENCY:

    Children's Bureau (CB), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Final Notice of Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 10, 2014, the Administration of Children and Families (ACF) published a document in the Federal Register (79 FR 61241). The document provided CB's final plan to replace the statewide data indicators used to determine a state's substantial conformity with titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act through the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). This document provides corrections to errors and misstatements in that document and some of the calculations of the statewide data indicators.

    DATES:

    Effective: May 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Miranda Lynch Thomas, Children's Bureau, 1250 Maryland Ave. SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 205-8138.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    CB implemented the CFSRs in 2001 in response to a mandate in the Social Security Amendments of 1994. The reviews are required for CB to determine whether such programs are in substantial conformity with title IV-B and IV-E plan requirements. The review process, as regulated at 45 CFR 1355.31-37, grew out of extensive consultation with interested groups, individuals, and experts in the field of child welfare and related areas.

    The CFSRs enable CB to: (1) Ensure conformity with federal child welfare requirements; (2) determine what is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in child welfare services; and (3) assist states to enhance their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. CB conducts the reviews in partnership with state child welfare agency staff and other partners and stakeholders involved in the provision of child welfare services. We have structured the reviews to help states identify strengths as well as areas needing improvement within their agencies and programs.

    We use the CFSR to assess state performance on seven outcomes and seven systemic factors. The seven outcomes focus on key items measuring safety, permanency, and well-being. The seven systemic factors focus on key state plan requirements of titles IV-B and IV-E that provide a foundation for child outcomes. If we determine that a state has not achieved substantial conformity in one or more of the areas assessed in the review, the state is required to develop and implement a program improvement plan addressing the areas of nonconformity within 2 years. CB supports the states with technical assistance and monitors implementation of their program improvement plans. If the state is unable to complete its program improvement plan successfully, a portion of the state's federal title IV-B and IV-E funds is withheld.

    Most relevant to this document are the national standards for state performance on statewide data indicators CB uses to determine whether a state is in substantial conformity with certain child outcomes. We are authorized by the regulations at 45 CFR 1355.34(b)(4) and (5) to add, amend, or suspend any of the statewide data indicators and to adjust the national standards when appropriate. If we determine that a state is not in substantial conformity with a related outcome due to its performance on an indicator, the state will include that indicator in its program improvement plan. The improvement a state must achieve is relative to the state's baseline performance at the beginning of the program improvement plan period.

    In an April 23, 2014, Federal Register document (79 FR 22604), we provided a detailed review of the consultation with the field and information considered in developing the third round of the CFSRs and proposed a set of statewide data indicators for public comment. We considered all public comments and issued a final plan in the October 10, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 61241). Simultaneously, CB released CFSR Technical Bulletin #8, which provided more details on calculation methods and a workbook that showed individual state performance on the indicators and preliminary findings of whether the state met the national standards at that time based on data submitted as of July 2014. In responding to state and other stakeholder questions since the release of those publications, we have found errors in our descriptions and calculations that we are correcting here. We will release an amended technical bulletin and workbook concurrently with this Federal Register document to make applicable corrections to those documents. We will also release the associated syntax in SPSS and STATA format so that states and other interested parties can review the detail related to the indicators. Although we intend to provide tools that allow the state to monitor its performance results on the indicators on a periodic basis, we know the additional detail is helpful to states that want to monitor themselves more frequently or in more depth. Finally, since this document focuses on just the revisions and clarifications necessary to the Federal Register document from October 2014, we will also publish a document that incorporates these revisions and clarifications into the original document.

    Language Errors and Clarifications

    This section discusses the language errors and clarifications we are making to the original Federal Register document.

    Clarification of the Trial Home Visit Adjustment to Permanency Performance Areas 1, 2, and 3

    On page 61244, we provided a description of how we calculated the permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care indicator. In part, we explained that we had applied a trial home visit adjustment to this indicator. We stated that this meant that if a child discharges from foster care during the 12-month period to reunification with parents or other caretakers after a placement setting of a trial home visit, any time in that trial home visit that exceeds 30 days is discounted from the child's length of stay in foster care. We use six 6-month Adopting and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) reporting periods of data (3 years) to calculate the numerator in this indicator. We are clarifying that the trial home visit adjustment is applied to all AFCARS reporting periods used for the indicator.

    If a child discharges from foster care to reunification with parents or other caretakers after a placement setting of a trial home visit during any of the six report periods used for the indicator, any time in that trial home visit that exceeds 30 days is discounted from the length of stay in foster care. In other words, the actual date of discharge to permanency could occur at any time during the 3 years used to calculate this indicator, and the trial home visit would then be applied to see if it may result in a reduction in the length of time in foster care for the purposes of this data indicator.

    On pages 61244-61245, we explained that the trial home visit adjustment was also applied to the following indicators: Permanency in 12 months for children in foster care 12 to 23 months and permanency in 12 months for children in foster care 24 months or more. However, this is not accurate. We do not apply the trial home visit adjustment to these indicators because it has no impact on the outcomes for children in care on the first day and followed for only 12 months. This is because these indicators rely on only two AFCARS report periods (one year of data) and do not look beyond the 12-month period to see whether a child has discharged to permanency.

    Revisions to Attachment A—Statewide Data Indicators

    Attachment A provided a summary of each final statewide data indicator including the numerators, denominators, risk adjustments, and data periods used to calculate the national standards.

    In describing the permanency in 12-months indicator for children entering foster care, we said that we used the AFCARS periods 2011B through 2013A for calculating the national standard for this indicator. This was a typographical error. We used six AFCARS report periods for a total of 3 years of data: 2011B through 2014A.

    Also, the applicable exclusions and notes were partly in error for the following indicators: Permanency in 12 months for children in foster care 12 to 23 months and permanency in 12 months for children in foster care 24 months. We carried forward the same error described in the previous section with regard to the trial home visits adjustment. We do not apply the trial home visit adjustment to these indicators.

    Revisions to Attachment D—Data Quality Items, Limits, and Applicable Measures

    Attachment D provided information on the data quality limits applied in determining whether to include state data for calculating the indicators.

    Data quality limits are applied to avoid skewing results. There may be a number of reasons why a state's data exceeds a data quality limit, including outliers that exist in the data. Therefore, not all exclusions are necessarily the result of poor data quality. The data quality limits outlined in Attachment D are intended to be a guide to avoid misrepresenting state performance or national standards.

    Two listed data quality items had typographical errors that changed their meaning. The AFCARS Within-file data quality check, “Percent of children on 1st removal,” is applied to all indicators with the exception of recurrence of maltreatment. The limit noted was less than 95 percent but it should read more than 95 percent. The NCANDS Cross File Check named “Child IDs don't match across years” should read “Child IDs match across years.” This means that the state has not met the item limit if less than 1 percent of the Child IDs match across years, as we expect them to be based on patterns of recurrence.

    In addition, the term “Dropped cases” was used in the section on AFCARS Cross File Checks. This term refers to instances in which a child who is reported during one 6-month period is not reported in the next period, and there is no record that the child exited. However, this term is technically incorrect, as it is the record of the case that drops from the file. For clarity, this cross file check should instead be referred to as “Dropped records.”

    For all NCANDS data quality items outlined in Attachment D, it should be noted that these data quality items were applied to victims only. This includes all NCANDS cross file and within-file checks.

    With regard to the data quality items applied to the indicator of maltreatment in foster care, the table indicates that we apply the NCANDS cross file check, “Child IDs match across years, but dates of birth and sex do not match,” to this indicator. We do not apply this check to the maltreatment in foster-care indicator because it requires only 1 year of data.

    Finally, for clarification, the NCANDS data quality item “Some victims have AFCARS IDs” was previously located in the “NCANDS Data—Cross File Checks” section. It should be in the “NCANDS Within file checks” section, because it requires only the NCANDS child file and does not match with AFCARS.

    Changes to National Standards and State Performance

    This section discusses the changes or clarifications in the methods of calculating the national standards and state performance that affect the national standards we provided in the original document.

    We made one change to the application of data quality items that has an implication for the calculation of national standards and state performance. There was an oversight in the application of the data quality items for the measure of permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care. For this indicator, we originally applied the data quality items only to the first four data periods, but upon further investigation we determined that the data quality items should be applied to all six periods used in the calculation of this measure.

    There was a slight modification made to several calculations that require the date of discharge. When calculating the length of stay in foster care, age at exit, or other variables that require the data of discharge, we previously used an imputed version of the date of discharge. An imputed date of discharge was used when the date of discharge was missing for a child in one report period, but in the subsequent 6-month period the child was reported as being in a new removal episode with a value for his or her date of discharge from the prior foster care episode. We are no longer using the date of discharge from the prior foster care episode to impute missing dates of discharge and are using only the date of discharge from foster care submitted to us by the state. If that date is missing, it is treated as a missing value and no attempt is made to impute the value using subsequent files.

    In determining the national standards and the state-by-state performance outlined in the workbook, we inadvertently did not use the most recent submission for all periods of data for three states. We have re-run the analysis and national standards to incorporate these resubmissions and all data are now current as of July 10, 2014.

    Due to the above noted changes, Table 1 on page 61249 should be replaced as follows:

    Table 1—National Standards for CFSR Round 3 Statewide Data Indicators National standard Statewide Data Indicators for Safety Outcome 1: Maltreatment in Foster Care 8.50 victimizations per 100,000 days in foster care. Recurrence of Maltreatment 9.1 percent. Statewide Data Indicators for Permanency Outcome 1: Permanency in 12 Months for Children Entering Foster Care 40.5 percent. Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 12 to 23 Months 43.6 percent. Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 24 Months or More 30.3 percent. Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months 8.3 percent. Placement Stability 4.12 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

    On page 61254, we provided an overview of the number of states excluded from the national standards for each data indicator. Based on the changes noted here, these should be updated as follows:

    • Permanency in 12 months for first day cohorts with 12-23 months and 2 or more years prior time in care: Three states are now excluded instead of one.

    • Permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care indicator: Four states are now excluded instead of three.

    • Recurrence of maltreatment: Five states are now excluded instead of four.

    There was no change to the number of states excluded for the indicators of re-entry to foster care in 12 months, maltreatment in foster care, or placement stability.

    Changes to Monitoring Statewide Data Indicators in Program Improvement Plans

    The changes noted in relation to the calculation of national standards also have relevance to the calculation of each state's observed and risk-standardized performance, as well as the improvement factors used to set program improvement plan goals. Revised state-level data, including changes to results indicating the need for a program improvement plan, are reflected in the revised workbook.

    The changes in the workbook regarding setting program improvement plan targets also reflect a revision to the bootstrapping process outlined in Technical Bulletin #8. We began with three observed values for 3 years of data, aggregated at the state level. From those three values, we averaged them in different combinations to get seven values. From those 7 values, a bootstrapping process was used to get 30 values. These 30 values were then resampled 1,000 times. After careful review, we have determined that we do not have justification for bootstrapping to 30 values. We have eliminated that step and are now bootstrapping the 7 values to get 1,000 resamples. This yields a grand mean and improvement factor that is very similar to the original set, but is more reflective of the true parameters.

    Because of these changes, Table 2 has also been revised. In addition, upon further reflection we believe that in order to avoid confusion, it is best to use the terminology of floors and caps versus minimum and maximum amounts of improvement. Using the terms of floors and caps is also consistent with the previously issued Technical Bulletin #8. All other references to minimum and maximum levels of improvement in the original Federal Register document should be read as floors and caps. Table 2 should be replaced as follows:

    Table 2—Caps and Floors on Program Improvement Plan Improvement Factors Relevant to the Statewide Data Indicators Floor Cap Statewide Data Indicators for Safety Outcome 1: Maltreatment in Foster Care 0.904 0.812 Recurrence of Maltreatment 0.951 0.902 Statewide Data Indicators for Permanency Outcome 1: Permanency in 12 Months for Children Entering Foster care 1.031 1.063 Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 12 to 23 months 1.046 1.082 Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 24 Months or More 1.042 1.091 Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months 0.891 0.834 Placement Stability 0.959 0.904 Dated: May 5, 2015. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11515 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-25-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 48 CFR Parts 1328 and 1352 [Document No.: 150129094-5094-01] RIN 0605-AA37 Commerce Acquisition Regulation (CAR); Waiver of Bond Requirement for Contracts To Repair, Alter or Construct Certain Research and Survey Vessels for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration AGENCY:

    Department of Commerce (Commerce).

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), issue an interim final rule to provide procedures for waiving performance and payment bonds required under U.S. law, associated with contracts for the repair, alteration and construction of the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration's (NOAA) fleet of research and survey vessels operated by the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO). The regulations implement the authority provided to the Secretary of Commerce in Section 111 of the “Department of Commerce Appropriations Act, 2015,” and comport with language in the Appropriation Committee's report instructing NOAA to promulgate regulations prior to implementing the waiver authority. This final rule amends the CAR by inserting a section and amending a part to add the contract language for the waivers.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on May 13, 2015. However, Commerce will accept comments on this interim final rule until June 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The final rule is available at www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Department of Commerce: Room 1854, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    You may submit comments on this interim final rule on regulations.gov, search for RIN 0605-AA37, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. The Department of Commerce will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Virna Winters, 202-482-3483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 111 of the “Department of Commerce Appropriations Act, 2015,” Division B, Title I of Public Law 113-235 (Dec. 16, 2014) (Appropriations Act) granted the Secretary of Commerce the authority to waive the performance and payment bond requirement under 40 U.S.C. 3131 et seq., for the construction, alteration, or repair of ships in NOAA's fleet of vessels. 40 U.S.C. 3131 et seq. requires prime contractors to furnish performance and payment bonds for contracts in excess of $150,000, for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the Federal government including ship construction, alteration, and repairs. NOAA's Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) operates a fleet of hydrographic survey, oceanographic research and fisheries survey vessels, consistent with its mission to perform offshore and deep-sea survey operations, coastal mapping, oceanographic research, and other functions that ensures public safety and the preservation of the Nation's property and natural resources. The waiver authority will align the Commerce's authorities with those of other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of the Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, and is expected to address significant difficulties NOAA has experienced in obtaining competitive bids for ship repairs. The authorization for this waiver lasts as long as it is included in appropriations measures, or authorizing legislation, enacted by Congress.

    Commerce publishes this action to amend the CAR to provide guidance for implementing the authority granted to the Secretary of Commerce in the Appropriations Act. The following is a summary of the procedures which will be in the amendment to the CAR.

    NOAA ships enter into either a dry docking or dockside repair period every fiscal year, typically in the first or second quarter of the fiscal year. Each vessel is equipped with highly advanced survey instruments, state of the art electronics, computers, and navigational and communications systems, which must be kept operational to ensure the safety of the crew and the ship's schedule. It also is often necessary for emergency repairs to be made to NOAA's vessels without delay for safety purposes and to ensure that the ships can carry on their missions involving the collection of mission sensitive data, as well as immediate response capabilities for extreme weather-related events involving hurricanes. As noted above, prime contractors performing those maintenance activities on NOAA's vessels have been required to provide performance and payment bonds for that work. These bonding requirements have placed an undue burden on smaller shipyards that have limited financial resources and have hindered their ability to bid on NOAA's requirements. This has resulted in inadequate competition for repairs to the Atlantic and Pacific fleets, delays to ship schedules, inferior quality and increased costs to the Government.

    The Appropriations Act gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to waive the bonding requirement for the alteration, repair and construction of NOAA's vessels to encourage contractors, especially small shipyards, to bid on NOAA's vessel projects. In order to implement the authority in an efficient manner and consistent with the congressional mandate, this action allows NOAA to waive bond requirements for ship construction, alteration and repairs.

    Contracting Officers (CO) may not issue solicitations waiving the requirements for bonds until the waiver request is approved. The CO will retain the discretion to require bonds if the complexity of the work and the level of competition in the region warrant them. All solicitations for ship construction, alteration, or repairs where bonds are not required will include a provision informing potential offerors that the failure to pay subcontractors could adversely affect their past performance and have an impact on their eligibility for award of future contracts. Contractors will provide written confirmation that all subcontractors have been properly paid prior to submission of final invoice.

    Classification

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: This interim final rule has been drafted according to the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and has been determined to be “not significant” under those orders.

    The Department of Commerce finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3) and (d) to waive the notice and comment and 30-day delay in effectiveness periods for this action. Congress granted the Secretary of Commerce the authority to waive the bonding requirements involved in this action in the Appropriations Act. That authority lasts the duration of fiscal year 2015 and carries through any years in which Congress reauthorizes the authority. Because the waiver authority may be of limited duration, it is impracticable and contrary to the public's interest to submit this rule to the ordinary notice and comment timeframe. Doing so would restrict the time limit for the authority, contrary to Congressional intent, and thereby reduce or eliminate the benefits to the public and to the Government of waiving the bonding requirements. Use of the waiver will benefit the public by allowing greater competition for shipbuilding and ship repair activities, and helps NOAA's vessels maintain working operation for more days out of the year. Because allowing public comment and delaying the effectiveness of this rule for 30 days is impracticable and contrary to the public's interest, Commerce hereby waives those requirements.

    Although this interim rule will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register, Commerce is nonetheless seeking public comments on this rule and plans on publishing a final rule in the future that takes into account and responds to public comments.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act: Because notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply. 5 U.S.C. 603. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): This rule does not impose any new information collections subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects 48 CFR Part 1328

    Government procurement, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

    48 CFR Part 1352

    Government procurement, Matrix, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Ellen Herbst, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Commerce amends 48 CFR parts 1328 and 1352 as follows:

    PART 1328—BONDS AND INSURANCE 1. The authority citation for part 1328 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 414; 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    2. Add sections 1328.102, 1328.102-1, 1328.102-2, and 1328.102-3 to subpart 1328.1 to read as follows:
    1328.102 Waiver of performance and payment bonds for contracts involving the construction, alteration, and repair of NOAA's fleet of vessels.
    1328.102-1 Waiver policy.

    (a) Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of Commerce, the requirements of 40 U.S.C. 3131 through 3133 may be waived by virtue of the authority vested in him or her pursuant to the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130, Div. B, Title I, Sec. 111 (2014), with respect to contracts for the repair, alteration, and construction of NOAA's hydrographic survey, oceanographic research, and fisheries survey vessels operated by NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations in the Atlantic and Pacific regions including the Pacific Islands. The Department's policy and procedures for use of the waiver authority is set forth in CAM 1328.102.

    (b) Contracting officers are required to consider any unusual circumstances that may arise in which either payment or performance bonds, or both, will be advantageous to the Government in connection with these contracts prior to issuing solicitations.

    1328.102-2 Waiver authority.

    The designee authorized to approve bond waivers is set forth in CAM 1328.102.

    1328.102-3 Contract clause.

    The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1352.228-77, Contractor Assurance of Subcontractor Payments, in solicitations and contracts when performance and payment bonds are waived.

    PART 1352—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority for part 1352 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 414; 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    4. Add section 1352.228-77 to subpart 1352.2 to read as follows:
    1352.228-77 Contractor assurance of subcontractor payments.

    As prescribed in 48 CFR 1328.102-3, insert the following clause:

    Contractor Assurance of Subcontractor Payments May 2015

    (a) To protect the interests of subcontractors participating in the performance of this contract, the Government requires the assurance that all monies due to subcontractors is timely and properly made prior to the submission of the contractor's final invoice.

    (b) By accepting this award, in writing or by performance, the offeror/contractor represents that—it will provide full payment to all subcontractors utilized in the performance of the resultant contract prior to the submission of its final invoice.

    (c) No later than five (5) days after contract award the contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer with a list of all subcontractors to be utilized in the performance of this contract. The contractor must provide updates to the Contracting Officer throughout the contract, should changes be made.

    (d) The following shall be completed and provided accordingly:

    Subcontractor List—Contract No.__________ Name of subcontractor business Subcontractor point of contact with
  • contact information
  • (number/e-mail)
  • Contract line item(s) to which subcontract work is tied Applicable trade
  • (electrical,
  • mechanical, etc.)
  • (e) Reports by subcontractors of delayed or non-payment during the performance of the contract may impact the Government's continued payment of contractor invoices on a percentage of completion basis. (CAR clause, 1352.271-71, Method of Payment and Invoicing Instructions for Ship Repair).

    (f) The contractor shall include the following statement on its final invoice—“By submission of this invoice, assurance is herein provided that all monies due to any and all subcontractors used in the performance of this contract have been paid in full prior to the submission of this final invoice.”

    (g) Failure to pay subcontractors could adversely affect the contractor's past performance evaluation for this contract and have a negative impact on its eligibility for future contract awards.

    (h) The Government may seek any available remedies in the event the contractor fails to comply with the provisions of this clause.

    [FR Doc. 2015-10620 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-03-P
    80 92 Wednesday, May 13, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 309 [Docket No. FSIS-2014-0020] RIN 0583-AD54 Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend its regulations on ante-mortem inspection to remove a provision that permits establishments to set apart and hold for treatment veal calves that are unable to rise from a recumbent position and walk because they are tired or cold. Under the proposed rule, non-ambulatory disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter will be condemned and promptly euthanized. Prohibiting the slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves will improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (HMSA) and the humane slaughter implementing regulations. It will also improve the Agency's inspection efficiency by eliminating the time that FSIS inspection program personnel (IPP) spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory disabled veal calves. FSIS is also proposing to clarify in the regulations that all non-ambulatory disabled cattle must be promptly disposed of after they have been condemned.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E. Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2014-0020. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Requirements for Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal

    Under 9 CFR 309.3(e), non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are offered for slaughter, including those that have become non-ambulatory disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, must be condemned and disposed of properly. However, under 9 CFR 309.13(b), non-ambulatory disabled veal calves that are able to rise from a recumbent position and walk after they have been set aside and warmed or rested, and that are found to be otherwise free from disease, may be slaughtered for human food under appropriate FSIS supervision.

    In 2009, FSIS amended 9 CFR 309.3(e) to remove the case-by-case disposition determination of cattle that became non-ambulatory disabled after ante-mortem inspection to ensure that animals that may be unfit for human food do not proceed to slaughter and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the inspection system (74 FR 11463). FSIS decided that establishments could continue to set aside veal calves that were tired or cold because these conditions could be treated before presenting the animals for slaughter.

    Petition From the Humane Society of the United States

    In November 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) submitted a petition requesting that FSIS amend its regulations to remove the provision that allows veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold to be set aside to be warmed or rested (9 CFR 309.13(b)). The petition requested that FSIS amend its regulations to require that all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves offered for slaughter be condemned and promptly euthanized. The petition is available on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ddd8b7c-983f-4cb1-83e8-9e545e9345d0/Petition_HSUS_Humane_Handling.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    To support the requested action, the petition referred to video footage from an HSUS undercover investigation at an official veal slaughter establishment in August 2009. The video footage documents incidents in which the establishment owner and his employees repeatedly used electric prods and physical force to attempt to get non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise.

    After the release of the video footage, FSIS conducted its own investigation which found that the establishment repeatedly failed to handle animals humanely. FSIS immediately shut down the establishment, and Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack ordered the USDA's Office of Inspector General to conduct a criminal investigation. The establishment was only allowed to reopen under a new name and different ownership after reaching an agreement with FSIS that its facilities would be audited by an outside firm on a regular basis, and that employees would receive special training on humane handling of animals.

    HSUS's petition asserted that the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) is inconsistent with the language and intent of the HMSA because it fails to ensure that the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter be carried out only by humane methods (see 7 U.S.C. 1902). Similarly, the petition asserted that failing to require immediate euthanasia creates a financial incentive for establishments to engage in abusive conduct because a non-ambulatory disabled calf is worthless unless it is slaughtered. The petition asserted that removing the provision from 9 CFR 309.13(b) would eliminate uncertainty as to what is to be done with veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold, or because they are injured or sick, thereby ensuring the appropriate disposition of these animals. The petition also maintained that removing the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) would improve inspection efficiency by eliminating the time that FSIS IPP spend assessing the treatment of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves.

    On February 7, 2011, FSIS published a document in the Federal Register requesting public comments on the HSUS petition (76 FR 6572). In the document, the Agency explained that it had tentatively decided to grant the HSUS petition but determined that it would be useful to solicit public input on the issues raised in the petition before making a final decision. FSIS stated that the Agency believed that prohibiting slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves may remove potential uncertainty in determining the disposition of calves that have been set aside and would be consistent with the requirements for the other classes of non-ambulatory disabled cattle. FSIS also stated that prohibiting the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves would better ensure effective implementation of ante-mortem inspection pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(a) and of humane handling requirements pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. FSIS received approximately 75,000 comment letters on the petition. Most of the comments were form letters from a write-in campaign HSUS had organized. A summary of comments and the Agency's responses is below.

    After carefully considering the issues raised in the petition and comments submitted in response to the Federal Register document (76 FR 6572), FSIS granted the HSUS petition on March 13, 2013, and announced that the Agency would begin rulemaking when resources allowed.

    Recent Investigation

    On January 23, 2014, FSIS initiated an investigation into allegations of inhumane slaughter and handling of veal calves, covertly captured on video by HSUS, at another official veal slaughter establishment. Among other things, the video footage documents incidents in which veal slaughter establishment employees use physical force to attempt to get non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise.

    After reviewing the video footage and other evidence, FSIS found that the establishment did have a comprehensive systematic approach to its humane handling program, but that the approach was not consistently applied. As a result, FSIS withdrew its inspectors from the slaughter operations at the establishment, thereby halting slaughter operations, until the establishment provided the Agency with corrective actions and further planned preventive measures that would ensure that livestock at the establishment would be slaughtered humanely. The establishment provided the Agency with corrective and preventive actions on January 24, 2014. After a thorough review and evaluation of these materials, FSIS notified the establishment that its suspension would be held in abeyance on February 3, 2014. FSIS continues to verify that the establishment's corrective and further-planned actions are implemented and effective.

    Comments and Responses

    Approximately 70,000 comment letters that expressed support for the HSUS petition were submitted as part of the HSUS write-in campaign. FSIS also received over 4,000 comment letters in support of the petition from other write-in campaigns, animal welfare organizations, private citizens, and two veterinary associations. FSIS received approximately 200 comments from trade associations representing meat processors, cattle producers, dairy producers, and farm bureaus, as well as individual dairy farmers, veal processors, cattle producers, and private citizens that opposed granting the petition.

    Comments: Most of the commenters that supported the petition stated that the regulation that allows veal calves to be set apart and held for treatment violates the HMSA because it encourages conduct such as dragging, kicking, excessive shocking, and other means of forced movement that are clearly prohibited. The commenters asserted that FSIS cannot reasonably justify imposing a higher protective standard for mature cattle than it does for calves.

    The comments in support of the petition also asserted that granting the petition would eliminate incentives for veal calf producers to send extremely weak calves to slaughter, thereby improving on-farm conditions and conditions during transportation for these animals. According to the comments, veal calves are often fed all-liquid diets that are intended to be deficient in iron, making these animals more susceptible to gastrointestinal disorders and diseases. The comments also stated that veal calves are subjected to cruel confinement practices that contribute to their weakened condition. The comments stated that veal calf producers have the means to prevent conditions that can predispose calves to collapse at slaughter, and, therefore, the regulations should encourage improvements in on-farm and transportation practices.

    Many commenters in support of granting the petition asserted that rescinding the regulation that allows veal calves to be set apart and held for treatment would improve inspection efficiency and ensure the appropriate disposition of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves on ante-mortem inspection. The commenters argued that the rescission would eliminate the uncertainty inherent in determining whether these animals are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold, or because they are injured or sick.

    Some commenters asserted that the Agency had not articulated the nature of the “uncertainty” in determining the disposition of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves that it seeks to avoid by granting the HSUS petition. The commenters stated that such “uncertainty” could not be attributed to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) concerns because veal calves are too young to present a BSE risk. The commenters asserted that conditions that are commonly observed in veal calves can readily be treated before these animals are presented for slaughter.

    Response: Although FSIS has determined that cattle younger than 30 months do not present a serious risk of BSE, veal calves are vulnerable to other systemic and metabolic diseases and injury because of inadequate immunoglobulin transfer, nutritional inadequacies of an all-liquid iron-deficient diet, activity restriction, and stress. For example, veal calves are acutely susceptible to enteritis, which is the inflammation of the small intestine caused by infection that may lead to diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and dehydration. If adopted, this proposed rule will eliminate the time that FSIS IPP spend determining whether veal calves are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold or because they have diseases like enteritis. This proposed rule will also eliminate the time that FSIS IPP spend re-inspecting veal calves if they are again offered for slaughter. Therefore, this proposed rule will increase the time FSIS IPP can focus on other inspection activities.

    Comments: Several comments, most from trade associations representing meat processors, stated that instead of encouraging inhumane handling, allowing non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to be set apart for treatment gives these animals an opportunity to naturally show that they can gain the strength to rise and become ambulatory through additional nourishment and care. Therefore, the commenters asserted, allowing veal calves time to rest and gain warmth is, in fact, inherently humane. According to the commenters, granting the petition would do little to improve humane handling of veal calves because the slaughter establishments that do exercise their option to allow tired or cold non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rest do handle these calves humanely.

    Response: The 2009 inhumane handling incident referred to in the HSUS petition and the 2014 inhumane handling incident described above demonstrate that these animals are not always given an opportunity to naturally show that they can gain the strength to rise and become ambulatory through additional nourishment and care. FSIS also reviewed non-compliance records (NRs) from 2012 to 2014 and found three instances where FSIS inspectors observed ambulatory veal calves walk over non-ambulatory disabled veal calves and one instance where non-ambulatory disabled veal calves were physically lifted and dropped into holding pens. While these instances of non-compliance were corrected through corrected actions, FSIS has found that allowing reinspection of NAD veal may have created an incentive for some establishments to inhumanely attempt to force these animals to rise. In addition, allowing reinspection may have encouraged establishments or livestock producers to hold ill or injured veal calves from slaughter longer in an attempt to allow them to sufficiently recover to pass the reinspection before collapsing. FSIS is concerned that these veal calves may not have adequate access to water. From 2012 to 2014, FSIS documented over 30 NRs for failure to provide water in accordance with § 313.2(e). Furthermore, veal calves may not be able to drink the water that establishments provide because they are used to drinking from a bottle. Therefore, FSIS has determined that a change in the regulation is needed to ensure more effective and efficient implementation of inspection procedures and compliance with humane handling requirements at official veal slaughter establishments.

    Comments: Some commenters suggested that FSIS should only amend the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) to prohibit the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled “bob veal,” which are calves generally less than one week old. The commenters argued that bob veal should be treated differently than formula-fed and non-formula-fed calves. The comment recommended limiting the prohibition to bob veal because they are younger and weaker and thus more likely to become non-ambulatory disabled at slaughter than the older calves.

    A trade association representing farmers and processors of formula-fed veal noted that the inhumane handling incident referred to in the HSUS petition took place at a bob veal calf slaughter establishment. The commenter noted that bob veal calves are a small segment of young dairy calves that have not received the individualized care that is typical at a formula-fed veal farm. The commenter stated that farmers of formula-fed veal select the highest quality and healthiest bull calves available in sale barns or directly from dairy farmers. The commenter explained that the formula-fed veal calves raised in the U.S. receive individualized and specialized care and husbandry on veal farms until they are 20-22 weeks or approximately 450-500 pounds. The commenter noted that this treatment is in contrast to how bob veal calves, which are typically younger, weaker, and lighter calves, are treated. The commenter stated that a formula-fed veal calf that has been raised to market-weight carries a significant loss of investment compared to a bob veal calf that has not received the same individual care. According to the commenter, based on market value in 2013, a typical farmer of formula-fed veal is likely to lose $800 for each otherwise healthy non-ambulatory disabled veal calf that cannot proceed to slaughter compared with the $10-25 loss for each bob veal calf.

    Response: While the 2009 inhumane handling incident referred to in the HSUS petition took place at a bob veal calf slaughter establishment, the 2014 inhumane handling incident described above took place at a formula-fed veal calf slaughter establishment. Based on the evidence found in these investigations, FSIS believes that a change in the regulation is needed to ensure that there is better compliance with humane handling requirements at all official veal slaughter establishments and more effective and efficient implementation of inspection procedures.

    Also, as discussed below, the Agency's analysis of the estimated costs of this rule to formula-fed and non-formula-fed veal slaughter establishments would be about $0 to $8,225.00 annually, which is insignificant compared to their annual market value of about $283 million to $366 million.

    Proposed Amendments to 9 CFR 309.13(b) and 309.3(e)

    The above-mentioned incidents of inhumane handling at official veal calf slaughter establishments in 2009 and 2014 demonstrate that the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) may create an incentive for establishments to inhumanely force non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise and may provide an incentive for livestock producers and establishments to send weakened veal calves to slaughter in the hope that the veal calves are able to sufficiently recover to pass ante-mortem inspection. Sending such weakened veal calves to slaughter increases the chances that they will go down and then be subjected to conditions that are inhumane. This proposed rule will remove the incentive to send such weakened veal calves to slaughter and decrease the chances of inhumane conditions. In addition, prohibiting the slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves will be consistent with the requirements for the other classes of non-ambulatory disabled cattle.

    Therefore, after evaluating the comments, NRs, and information from the 2009 and 2014 incidents discussed above, FSIS is proposing to remove the second sentence in 9 CFR 309.13(b) that permits veal calves that are unable to rise from a recumbent position and walk because they are tired or cold to be set apart and held for treatment.

    In addition, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 309.3(e) to clarify in the regulations that non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and promptly disposed of properly. FSIS is proposing to make this change in response to questions from establishments on when non-ambulatory disabled cattle must be condemned and disposed of properly. In the preamble to the 2009 final rule, “Requirements for the Disposition of Cattle that Become Non-Ambulatory Disabled Following Ante-Mortem Inspection” (74 FR 11463; March 18, 2009), FSIS explained that the HMSA and regulations require that non-ambulatory disabled cattle be humanely handled and that humane handling requires that such cattle be promptly euthanized (74 FR 11464). “Promptly” means within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances. Under this proposed rule, non-ambulatory disabled cattle (including veal calves) that are offered for slaughter will have to be condemned and promptly euthanized.

    Also under this proposed rule, the carcasses, parts thereof, meat, or meat food products of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves will be considered unfit for human food and thus adulterated. The reinspection of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves by IPP will be discontinued, increasing the time IPP can focus on other inspection activities.

    FSIS is proposing this rule under 21 U.S.C. 621, which gives FSIS the authority to adopt regulations for the efficient administration of the FMIA. The amendment in this proposal is intended to facilitate more effective implementation of ante-mortem inspection pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(a) and of the humane handling requirements established pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(b).

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

    Baseline

    In calendar year (CY) 2013, federally-inspected veal calf establishments slaughtered a total of 725,020 veal calves (Table 1). Market value estimates for slaughtered veal calves based on data reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), were between $283 million and $366 million.1

    1 Bob Veal Market Value: $8.40-$90.00 per head, Data derived from USDA/AMS Lancaster County Weekly Cattle Summary (LS_LN145) Reports—03/03/2013, 06/21/2013, 09/27/2013, 12/20/2013; Formula and Non Formula-fed veal Market Value: $872.35-$1,028.09 per head, Data derived from USDA/AMS Weekly Veal Market Summary Reports—calendar year 2013.

    Table 1—Total Veal Calves Slaughtered and Market Value, CY 2013 Veal calf type Sum of head
  • count
  • (1,000)
  • Min market
  • value
  • ($1,000,000)
  • Max market
  • value
  • ($1,000,000)
  • Bob Veal 405.6 $3.4 $36.5 Formula-fed Veal 310.8 271.3 319.7 Non Formula-fed Veal 8.6 7.9 9.3 Grand Total * 725.0 282.6 365.5 Notes: Head Slaughtered source—FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS). * Sum may not add up due to rounding.

    The U.S. veal industry is made up of establishments in the small and very small Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)-size categories.2 Table 2 outlines the number of establishments and the total head slaughtered.

    2 HACCP size: Very Small Establishment = Less than 10 employees or less than $2.5 million in annual sales; Small Establishment = 10-499 employees; Large Establishment = 500 or more employees.

    Table 2—The Number of Veal Calves Slaughtered in Official Establishments, by HACCP Processing Size, in CY 2013 HACCP processing size Total number of establishments Bob veal SL
  • (1,000)
  • Formula-fed
  • veal SL
  • (1,000)
  • Non formula-
  • fed veal SL
  • (1,000)
  • Total SL
  • (1,000)
  • Small 46 275.3 310.7 1.4 587.4 Very Small 146 130.3 .125 7.2 137.6 Total * 192 405.6 310.8 8.6 725.0 Source: FSIS, PHIS. * Sum may not add up due to rounding.
    Expected Cost of the Proposed Rule

    The expected costs of the proposed rule for the veal establishments are a result of the lost market value of the non-ambulatory disabled veal calves that the affected establishments will no longer be able to slaughter for human food. The addition of the word “promptly” to 9 CFR 309.3(e) would not have any expected costs.

    To estimate the total first year cost to the veal industry, FSIS used CY 2013 PHIS data to obtain the expected minimum and maximum percent of non-ambulatory disabled calves out of the current veal calves slaughtered. Since FSIS did not have an exact count of the number of veal calves that were non-ambulatory and were re-inspected (after the calves rested and were able to move) and then sent for slaughter, the agency assumed that the number of deleted records 3 in PHIS was a close approximation that represented the scenario. FSIS is seeking comments on this assumption. FSIS applied those multipliers to the number of calves slaughtered in CY 2013 (see Table 3, below). The lower and upper bounds respectively, based on table 3, were 0.069% and 0.42% for non-ambulatory disabled affected bob veal calves, and 0.000% and 0.002% for the combined group of non-ambulatory disabled formula-fed and non-formula-fed veal calves.

    3 The records are not permanently deleted, but are marked and saved in another field of PHIS.

    Table 3—The Distribution of FSIS Condemned Veal Calves by Category, for CY 2013 Category Min percent
  • non-
  • ambulatory
  • disabled
  • veal
  • affected
  • Max percent
  • non-
  • ambulatory
  • disabled
  • veal
  • affected
  • affected
  • Bob Veal 0.069 0.420 Formula- and Non Formula-fed Veal 0.000 0.002 Source: FSIS, PHIS.

    Using the minimum and maximum values of non-ambulatory disabled affected veal calves, FSIS estimated the expected minimum and maximum total first year cost to the veal establishments, based on CY 2013 data.

    Table 4—Expected Quantified Total Costs to the U.S. Veal Industry Bob veal Formula- &
  • non formula-
  • fed veal
  • Minimum Percent Affected 0.069% 0.000% Maximum Percent Affected 0.420% 0.002% Min # of Veal Affected 282 0 Max # of Veal Affected 1702 8 Min Price per Head 8.4 872.35 Max Price per Head 90 1028.09 Minimum Cost 2368.8 0 Maximum Cost 153180 8224.72 Minimum U.S. Industry Cost 2368.8 Maximum U.S. Industry Cost 161404.72

    If the proposed rule is adopted, non-ambulatory disabled veal calves will not be re-inspected during ante-mortem inspection. The veal calves that are condemned during ante-mortem inspection will be euthanized. The cost of disposing of the dead calves varies across the region. We do not have adequate data to cost out the disposal fees for dead calves since we do not know how many establishments engage in this practice. Therefore, FSIS is seeking comments and any available data on this practice.

    The estimated annual cost to the veal industry would range between $2369 and $161405. The bob veal category would be the most affected section of the veal industry because, as shown in table 4, both the minimum and maximum numbers of bob veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled at ante-mortem inspection exceed the numbers of formula-fed and non-formula-fed veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled at ante-mortem inspection. According to comments to the petition and data provided by AMS, bob veal are also the weakest and the most vulnerable category of veal calves, and have the lowest market value to the industry.

    Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule

    FSIS predicts that this rule would provide Agency personnel with savings in terms of inspection time. According to PHIS data, it takes an inspector around 15 minutes to re-inspect a calf. Since FSIS will not have to re-inspect the veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled during ante-mortem inspection to determine their disposition, the Agency will save anywhere from 70.5 hours (minimum) to 428 hours (maximum) in total. This time will allow the inspector the ability to engage in other inspection activities instead.

    Table 5—Benefits in Terms of Time Saving Time to do ante-mortem inspection Bob veal
  • (15 min)
  • F & NF fed
    Min # of Veal Affected 282 0 Max # of Veal Affected 1702 8 Min time saved 70.5 0 Max time saved 425.5 2 Total Minimum Time Saved 70.5 hr Total Maximum Time Saved 427.5 hr

    The proposed rule will ensure the humane disposition of the non-ambulatory disabled veal calves. It will also increase the efficiency and effective implementation of inspection and humane handling requirements at official establishments. This rule would incentivize growers and transporters of cattle to improve animal welfare, both, before and during transport. A recent study conducted by researchers from the University Of Manitoba Department Of Animal Science's Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, has shown that transport and transport conditions, such as temperature, length of the trip, and space allowance (density of animals to size), are associated with cattle being dead, lame, and non-ambulatory at the unload. Of all the classes of cattle, calves, and cull cattle were the “more likely to be dead and non-ambulatory during the journey”, the study points. The authors indicate that animal condition upon loading plays an important risk factor in the outcome of the journey. The study concludes that, even though dead, lame, and non-ambulatory animals had very low incidences, the fact of being one or another indicated extremely poor welfare conditions of cattle. Since veal calves are a vulnerable population, those implied in transporting cattle should be encouraged to do so in a more humane and careful way. In addition, growers should be incentivized to grow healthier and stronger animals that can handle the stress and other issues associated with transportation.4

    4 González, L.A., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Bryan, M., Silasi, R., and Brown F. (2015). “Relationship between transport conditions and welfare outcomes during commercial long haul transport of cattle in North America”. American Society of Animal Science, 90(10):3640-51 doi: 10.2527/jas2011-4796.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment

    FSIS has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). FSIS is seeking comments on this determination.

    The Agency estimates that this rule would possibly affect 192 small and very small HACCP size veal slaughter establishments (as seen in table 2). Even though so many small and very small establishments are affected by this rule the volume of veal that will not be eligible for slaughter is very low. Further, the estimated total annual cost per establishment to the industry is between $12 (total minimum cost/number of establishments=2369/192) and $841 (total maximum cost/number of establishments=$161405/192).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated with this proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    E-Government Act

    FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things, promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this proposed rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted, (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Executive Order 13175

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

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax

    (202) 690-7442.

    Email

    [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 309

    Animal diseases, Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS proposes to amend 9 CFR part 309 as follows:

    PART 309—ANTE-MORTEM INSPECTION 1. The authority citation for part 309 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.

    2. Section 309.3(e) is revised to read as follows:
    § 309.3 Dead, dying, disabled, or diseased and similar livestock.

    (e) Establishment personnel must notify FSIS inspection personnel when cattle become non-ambulatory disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection. Non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and promptly disposed of in accordance with § 309.13.

    § 309.13 [AMENDED]
    3. Section 309.13(b) is amended by removing the second sentence. Done in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11559 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Part 1192 [Docket No. ATBCB-2013-0001] RIN 3014-AA42 Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 23, 2013, we, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), established the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (Committee) to advise us on revising and updating our accessibility guidelines issued pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act for transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, and high speed rail). The Committee will hold its seventh meeting on the following dates and times.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet on June 4, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on June 5, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Access Board conference room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Call-in information and a communication access real-time translation (CART) web streaming link will be posted on the Access Board's Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Web site page at www.access-board.gov/rvaac.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Beatty, Office of Technical and Information Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number (202) 272-0012 (Voice); (202) 272-0072 (TTY). Electronic mail address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 23, 2013, we published a notice announcing that we were establishing a Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (Committee) to make recommendations to us on matters associated with revising and updating our accessibility guidelines issued pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act for transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, and high speed rail). See 78 FR 30828 (May 23, 2013).

    The Committee will hold its seventh meeting on June 4, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on June 5, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The preliminary agenda for the June meeting includes deliberation of committee member concerns pertaining to its final report on accessibility of rail vehicles and consideration of process-related matters. The preliminary meeting agenda, along with information about the Committee, is available on our Web site at www.access-board.gov/rvaac.

    The Committee meeting will be open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have opportunities to address the Committee on issues of interest to them during a public comment period scheduled each day. The meetings will be accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, communication access real-time translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be provided. Persons attending the meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/the-board/policies/fragrance-free-environment for more information).

    Persons wishing to provide handouts or other written information to the Committee are requested to provide electronic formats to Paul Beatty via email at least five business days prior to the meeting so that alternate formats can be distributed to Committee members.

    David M. Capozzi, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11574 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0079; FRL-9927-61-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision to Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Storage Tanks and Transport Vessels AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Texas State Implementation (SIP) revision for control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from degassing of storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels. The revision reformats the existing requirement to comply with current rule writing standards, adds additional control options for owner/operators to use when complying, clarifies the monitoring and testing requirements of the rule, and makes non-substantive changes to VOC control provisions that apply in the Beaumont-Port Arthur nonattainment area (Hardin, Jefferson and Orange Counties), four counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area (Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties), El Paso County, and the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller Counties).

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before June 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. 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:

    Robert Todd, (214) 665-2156, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11449 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0759; FRL-9927-71-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively, the States). The submittals are comprised of the 2011 base year emissions inventories for the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the States' SIP submittals as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule and EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action. The TSD is available in the Docket for this rulemaking action. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by June 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0759 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected].

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0759, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 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-R03-OAR-2014-0759. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor, Washington, DC 20002; the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11563 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD 40 CFR Part 1600 Organization and Functions of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board AGENCY:

    Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule augments 40 CFR part 1600, which governs the administration of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). The proposed rule adds a requirement for the chairperson to add notation votes that have been calendared for public discussion to the agenda of a public meeting within 90 days of the calendared notation vote. The proposed rule also adds a requirement for the chairperson to conduct a minimum of four public meetings per year in Washington, DC. Following publication of this proposed rule, the CSB welcomes and will consider public comment, and then proceed to a final rule.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments concerning this proposed rule via U.S. mail or email. Written comments may be sent by U.S. mail to Kara Wenzel, Assistant General Counsel, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2175 K Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20037. You may submit electronic comments to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kara Wenzel, CSB Assistant General Counsel, 202-261-7625.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule will promote increased transparency and accountability for Board activities. It aligns with the Open Government principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration, as outlined in the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (74 FR 4685, Jan. 26, 2009). The Board conducts some of its business through a process of notation voting. In notation voting, Board Members may vote to approve, disapprove, or calendar a notation item for discussion at a public meeting. The addition of a rule for the consideration of calendared notation votes within 90 days of the calendaring action will ensure that calendaring is used in the way it was intended. The addition will allow Board Members to use calendaring to prompt timely public discussion on a topic before they vote on it, at their discretion. It has the added effect of providing an additional opportunity for stakeholder input on Board activities.

    The other portion of the new proposed rule will require the CSB chairperson to schedule at least four public meetings in Washington, DC, each year. It will permit other Board Members to add items for discussion to the agendas of such CSB public meetings. It will also ensure that these meetings consider, at a minimum, calendared notation votes, current investigations and other important mission-related activities, and quarterly agency action plan progress. This portion of the proposed rule is intended to increase the transparency of Board actions, to promote the Board's accountability to the public, and to ensure regular, relevant feedback is received from stakeholders related to the agency's mission work.

    Statutory Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301, 552(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(N).

    Regulatory Impact

    Administrative Procedure Act: 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), provides that when regulations involve matters of agency organization, procedure, or practice, the agency may publish regulations in final form. Because this proposed rule is intended to promote public participation and transparency for Board activities, the Board will accept and consider public comments up to 30 days before issuing a final rule.

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act: The CSB reviewed this proposed rule to determine whether it invokes issues that would subject it to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). While the PRA applies to agencies and collections of information conducted or sponsored by the CSB, the Act, 44 U.S.C. 3518(c), exempts collections of information that occur “during the conduct of . . . an administrative action, investigation, or audit involving an agency against specific individuals or entities,” except for investigations or audits “undertaken with reference to a category of individual or entities such as a class of licensees or an entire industry.” The rule proposed below fits squarely within this exemption, as it deals entirely with administrative matters internal to the agency. Therefore, we have determined that the PRA does not apply to this rule.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The proposed rule does not require the preparation of an assessment statement in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531. This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that may result in the annual expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than the annual threshold established by the Act ($128 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1600

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Mark Griffon, Board Member.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board proposes to amend 40 CFR part 1600 as follows:

    PART 1600—ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD 1. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301, 552(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(N).

    2. Amend § 1600.5 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 1600.5 Quorum and voting requirements.

    (b) Voting. The Board votes on items of business in meetings conducted pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act. Alternatively, whenever a Member of the Board is of the opinion that joint deliberation among the members of the Board upon any matter at a meeting is unnecessary in light of the nature of the matter, impracticable, or would impede the orderly disposition of agency business, such matter may be disposed of by employing notation voting procedures. A written notation of the vote of each participating Board member shall be recorded by the General Counsel who shall retain it in the records of the Board. If a Board member votes to calendar a notation item, the Board must consider the calendared notation item at a public meeting of the Board within 90 days of the date on which the item is calendared. A notation vote to schedule a public meeting may not be calendared. The Chairperson shall add any calendared notation item to the agenda for the next CSB public meeting if one is to occur within 90 days or to schedule a special meeting to consider any calendared notation item no later than 90 days from the calendar action.

    (c) Public Meetings and Agendas. The Chairperson, or in the absence of a chairperson, a member designated by the Board, shall schedule a minimum of four public meetings per year in Washington, DC, to take place during the months of October, January, April, and July.

    (1) Agenda. The Chairperson, or in the absence of a chairperson, a member designated by the Board, shall be responsible for preparation of a final meeting agenda. The final agenda may not differ in substance from the items published in the Sunshine Act notice for that meeting. Any member may submit agenda items related to CSB business for consideration at any public meeting, and the Chairperson shall include such items on the agenda. At a minimum, each quarterly meeting shall include the following agenda items:

    (i) Consideration and vote on any notation items calendared since the date of the last public meeting;

    (ii) A review by the Board of the schedule for completion of all open investigations, studies, and other important work of the Board; and

    (iii) A review and discussion by the Board of the progress in meeting the CSB's Annual Action Plan.

    (2) Publication of agenda information. The Chairperson shall be responsible for posting information related to any agenda item that is appropriate for public release on the CSB Web site no less than two days prior to a public meeting.

    [FR Doc. 2015-11422 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1842 and 1852 RIN 2700-AE14 Denied Access to NASA Facilities AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is proposing to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to delete the observance of legal holidays clause with its alternates and replace it with a new clause that prescribes conditions and procedures pertaining to the closure of NASA facilities.

    DATES:

    Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address below on or before July 13, 2015 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may submit comments, identified by RIN number 2700-AE14 via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be submitted to Andrew O'Rourke (Room 5L32), NASA Headquarters, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Washington, DC 20546. Comments may also be submitted to Andrew O'Rourke via email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew O'Rourke, NASA Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, 202-358-4560, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clause 1852.242-72, Observance of Legal Holidays, is included in Agency contracts where contractor performance is to be performed on a NASA facility. It was intended to identify dates that Government employees would not be available and provide notification to contractors of those dates considering that the absence of Government employees might impact contractor performance or contractor access to NASA facilities. Further, the same clause has two alternates, the first addresses contractors who are denied access to NASA workspaces within a NASA facility and the second addresses other instances, such as weather and safety emergencies, which could result in contractors being denied access to the entire NASA facility. Recent events, especially the Government shut-down during October 2013, have revealed a need for NASA to be more specific and to differentiate between these two conditions when contractor employees may be denied access to NASA workspaces or the entire NASA facility. The fact that Government employees may not be at a NASA facility is not an automatic reason for contractor personnel not to be required to be present at their required NASA workspace on a NASA facility. Unless a contractor is denied access to the NASA facility, contractors are expected to perform in accordance with their contractual requirements. This proposed NFS change provides clarity and information beneficial to NASA contractors that are denied access to a NASA facility when a NASA facility is closed to all personnel. Specifically, the change would delete the prescription at NFS 1842.7001, Observance of Legal Holidays, in its entirety, and clause 1852.242-72, Observance of Legal Holidays, with alternates, and replace it with the prescription at NFS 1842.7001 Denied Access to NASA Facilities and clause 1852.242-72, Denied Access to NASA Facilities. The clause would be included in solicitations and contracts where contractor personnel would be required to work onsite at a NASA facility.

    B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NASA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This proposed rule attempts to provide clarity and information beneficial to NASA contractors that are denied access to a NASA facility when a NASA facility is closed. This proposed rule imposes no new reporting requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that would meet the objectives of this proposed rule. NASA invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities. NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (RIN number 2700-AE14) in correspondence.

    D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule contains no information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR 1842 and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Cynthia D. Boots, Alternate Federal Register Liaison.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1842 and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1842—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 1842 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

    Subpart 1842.70 [Revised] 2. Subpart 1842.70 is revised to read as follows: Subpart 1842.70—Additional NASA Contract Clauses
    1842.7001 Denied Access to NASA Facilities.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.242-72, Denied Access to NASA Facilities, in solicitations and contracts where contractor personnel will be working onsite at a NASA facility such as: NASA Headquarters and NASA Centers, including Component Facilities and Technical and Service Support Centers. For a list of NASA facilities see NPD 1000.3 “The NASA Organization”. The contracting officer shall not insert the clause where contractor personnel will be working onsite at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory including the Deep Space Network Communication Facilities (Goldstone, CA; Canberra, Australia; and Madrid, Spain).

    PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority citation for part 1852 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    1852.242-72 [Revised]
    4. Section 1852.242-72 is revised to read as follows:
    1852.242-72 Denied Access to NASA Facilities.

    As prescribed in 1842.7001(a), insert the following clause:

    Denied Access to NASA Facilities (XX/XXXX)

    (a)(1) The performance of this contract requires contractor employees of the prime contractor or any subcontractor, affiliate, partner, joint venture, or team member with which the contractor is associated, including consultants engaged by any of these entities, to have access to, physical entry into, and to the extent authorized, mobility within, a NASA facility.

    (2) NASA may close and or deny contractor access to a NASA facility for a portion of a business day or longer due to any one of the following events—

    (i) Federal public holidays for federal employees in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 6103;

    (ii) Fires, floods, earthquakes, unusually severe weather to include snow storms, tornadoes and hurricanes;

    (iii) Occupational safety or health hazards;

    (iv) Non-appropriation of funds by Congress; or

    (v) Any other reason.

    (3) In such events, the contractor employees may be denied access to a NASA facility, in part or in whole, to perform work required by the contract. Contractor personnel already present at a NASA facility during such events may be required to leave the facility.

    (b) In all instances where contractor employees are denied access or required to vacate a NASA facility, in part or in whole, the contractor shall be responsible to ensure contractor personnel working under the contract comply. If the circumstances permit, the contracting officer will provide direction to the contractor, which could include continuing on-site performance during the NASA facility closure period. In the absence of such direction, the contractor shall exercise sound judgment to minimize unnecessary contract costs and performance impacts by, for example, performing required work off-site if possible or reassigning personnel to other activities if appropriate.

    (c) The contractor shall be responsible for monitoring the local radio, television stations, NASA Web sites, other communications channels, for example contracting officer notification, that the NASA facility is accessible. Once accessible the contractor shall resume contract performance as required by the contract.

    (d) For the period that NASA facilities were not accessible to contractor employees, the contracting officer may—

    (1) Adjust the contract performance or delivery schedule for a period equivalent to the period the NASA facility was not accessible;

    (2) Forego the work;

    (3) Reschedule the work by mutual agreement of the parties; or

    (4) Consider properly documented requests for equitable adjustment, claim, or any other remedy pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract.

    (e) Notification procedures of a NASA facility closure, including contractor denial of access, as follows—

    (1) The contractor shall be responsible for monitoring the local radio, television stations, NASA Web sites, and other communications channels (for example, contracting officer notification) for announcement of a NASA facility closure to include denial of access to the NASA facility. The contractor shall be responsible for notification of its employees of the NASA facility closure to include denial of access to the NASA facility. The dismissal of NASA employees in accordance with statute and regulations providing for such dismissals shall not, in itself, equate to a NASA facility closure in which contractor employees are denied access. Moreover, the leave status of NASA employees shall not be conveyed or imputed to contractor personnel. Accordingly, unless a NASA facility is closed and the contractor is denied access to the facility, the contractor shall continue performance in accordance with the contract.

    (2) NASA's Emergency Notification System (ENS). ENS is a NASA-wide Emergency Notification and Accountability System that provides NASA the ability to send messages, both Agency-related and/or Center-related, in the event of an emergency or emerging situation at a NASA facility. Notification is provided via multiple communication devices, e.g. Email, text, cellular, home/office numbers. The ENS provides the capability to respond to notifications and provide the safety status. Contractor employees may register for these notifications at the ENS Web site: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ops/nasaonly/ENSinformation.html.

    (End of clause)
    [FR Doc. 2015-10944 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board 49 CFR Parts 1300 and 1313 [Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1)] Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation Review AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board) will hold a public hearing on June 10, 2015, at its offices in Washington, DC, to further examine issues related to the accessibility of rate complaint procedures for grain shippers.

    DATES:

    The hearing will be held on June 10, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Hearing Room at the Board's headquarters located at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC. June 11, 2015, will be reserved should a second day of testimony be necessary to accommodate all parties wishing to testify. The hearing will be open for public observation. Any party wishing to speak at the hearing shall file with the Board a notice of intent to participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker, the time requested, and a summary of the key points the speaker intends to address) no later than May 29, 2015. Notices of intent to participate are not required to be served on the parties of record; they will be posted to the Board's Web site when they are filed. Parties shall file hearing exhibits, if any, by June 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All filings may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the “E-FILING” link on the Board's Web site at “www.stb.dot.gov.” Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies of the filing to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1), 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    Copies of written submissions will be posted to the Board's Web site and will be available for viewing and self-copying in the Board's Public Docket Room, Suite 131. Copies of the submissions will also be available (for a fee) by contacting the Board's Chief Records Officer at (202) 245-0238 or 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie Quinn at (202) 245-0382. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Where a railroad has market dominance—i.e., a shipper is captive to a single railroad—its transportation rates for common carrier service must be reasonable. 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(1), 10702. The Board's general standards for judging the reasonableness of rail freight rates are set forth in Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C. 2d 520 (1985), aff'd sub nom. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987). The Board has also adopted two simplified methods for determining the reasonableness of challenged rail rates, the Simplified Stand-Alone Cost (SAC) test and the Three-Benchmark test. See Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases (Simplified Standards), EP 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007), aff'd sub nom. CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB, 568 F.3d 236 (D.C. Cir.), vacated in part on reh'g, 584 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Under the Three-Benchmark method, the reasonableness of a challenged rate is determined by examining the challenged rate in relation to three benchmark figures, each of which is expressed as a revenue-to-variable cost (R/VC) ratio. Rate Regulation Reforms, EP 715, slip op. at 11 (STB served July 25, 2012).1 If a challenged rate is above a reasonable confidence interval around the estimate of the mean for the adjusted comparison group, it is presumed unreasonable and, absent any “other relevant factors,” the maximum lawful rate will be prescribed at that boundary level. See Simplified Standards, slip op. at 21-22.

    1 Under Simplified-SAC, the Board determines whether a captive shipper is being forced to cross-subsidize other parts of the railroad's rail network by comparing the costs and revenues of the actual operations and services provided under the assumption that all existing infrastructure along the predominant route used to haul the complainant's traffic is needed to serve the traffic on that route. Rate Regulation Reforms, EP 715, slip op. at n.2 (STB served Mar. 13, 2015).

    By a decision served in this proceeding on December 12, 2013, the Board invited public comment on how to ensure that the Board's rate complaint procedures are accessible to grain shippers and provide effective protection against unreasonable freight rail transportation rates. The Board sought input from interested parties on grain shippers' ability to effectively seek relief for unreasonable rates, including proposals for modifying existing procedures, or new alternative rate relief methodologies, should they be necessary.

    The public comment period was intended to allow parties to consider and propose ways that the Board could make the rate reasonableness process more accessible to grain shippers. In the comments, parties have raised a number of proposals and identified a number of issues that merit further discussion. Accordingly, the Board will hold a public hearing beginning at 9:30 a.m., on June 10, 2015, at its offices in Washington, DC, to further examine issues related to the accessibility of rate complaint procedures for grain shippers and provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the modifications to the existing procedures and the alternative rate relief methodologies proposed during the public comment period. In addition to their own proposals and responses, the parties should be prepared to discuss the following issues:

    Jurisdictional Threshold. In the comments, it was suggested that the Board's Uniform Railroad Costing System (URCS) prevents grain shippers from accessing potential rate relief because URCS over-estimates the cost of shipping grain. Although parties are currently prohibited from making movement-specific adjustments to URCS, parties are invited to discuss whether the Board should revisit this prohibition in determining the quantitative market dominance threshold in rate cases for grain shipments.

    Definition of Grain. In the comments, some shippers argued in favor of an expansive definition of “grain” that includes both grain and grain products. Because certain grain products, such as ethanol, require different treatment in terms of railroad operations, interested parties should be prepared to discuss whether an expansive definition of “grain” is appropriate in this proceeding.

    Modifications and Alternatives to the Three-Benchmark Approach in Grain Rates Cases. Several commenters argue that the Three-Benchmark test puts too many limitations on the types of shipments that a shipper can include in its comparison group upon which the Board relies to determine if the railroad's rate is unreasonable.2 Accordingly, parties should be prepared to discuss the idea of allowing the use of non-defendant traffic and/or traffic with R/VC ratios below 180% in comparison groups for grain shipments.

    2See Alliance for Rail Competition Opening, V.S. Fauth 22-24.

    In the comments, various parties have also proposed new methodologies that could be used specifically for rate cases involving grain shipments. These approaches include adopting a “Two-Benchmark” approach for grain shipments hauled by revenue adequate carriers 3 and replacing the existing Three-Benchmark approach with an “Ag Commodity Maximum Rate Methodology,” which includes a “Revenue Adequacy Adjustment Factor.” 4 To the extent that any parties feel that these approaches have merit or are flawed, they should be prepared to discuss.

    3See id. at 25.

    4See National Grain and Feed Association Opening 27-35.

    Revenue Adequacy. Interested parties are invited to address whether the Board should consider the revenues and costs of Canadian carriers' full-system operations, to include the parent company and subsidiaries, when determining revenue adequacy in rate reasonableness challenges of grain shipments.

    Aggregation of Claims. Interested parties are asked to address whether the Board should allow multiple agricultural farmers and other agricultural shippers to aggregate their distinct rate claims against the same carrier into a single proceeding.

    Other Ideas. Additionally, in further considering the matter of grain rates, parties are invited to discuss whether there are ways in which the Board could create greater transparency for grain shippers regarding how railroads set rates. To that end, parties at the hearing are asked to address the disclosure requirements for agricultural tariff rates under 49 CFR 1300.5 5 and whether this requirement should be modified to allow for increased transparency. Parties are also asked to address the requirement that rail carriers file agricultural contract summaries under 49 CFR part 1313 6 and whether this requirement should be modified to allow for increased transparency.

    5 Under § 1300.5(a), a rail carrier must publish, make available, and retain for public inspection its currently effective rates, schedules of rates, charges, and other service terms, and any scheduled changes to the same with respect to transportation of agricultural products (including grain, as defined in 7 U.S.C. 75 and products thereof). The information published must include an accurate description of the services offered to the public; the specific applicable rates (or the basis for calculating the rates), charges, and service terms; and be arranged in a way that allows for the determination of the exact rate, charges, and service terms applicable to any given shipment. 49 CFR 1300.5(b). Additionally, the rail carrier must highlight any increases, reductions, and other changes so that the nature and effective dates of those changes are readily identifiable. Id.

    6 Section 1313 requires that rail carriers subject to the Board's jurisdiction promptly file a summary of each contract for the transportation of agricultural products (including grain as defined in 7 U.S.C. 75) and allows complaints to be filed regarding such contracts. 49 CFR 1313.1 and 1313.2. The level of information that must be provided in the summary varies depending on whether contract is for grain and whether the shipment is to a port. At a minimum the summary must include: The carrier name; the specific commodity; the shipper's identity; the rail car data; the rates; and the charges.

    Board Releases and Live Video Streaming Available via the Internet

    Decisions and notices of the Board, including this notice, are available on the Board's Web site at “www.stb.dot.gov.” This hearing will be available on the Board's Web site by live video streaming. To access the hearing, click on the “Live Video” link under “Information Center” at the left side of the home page beginning at 9:30 a.m. on June 10, 2015.

    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

    It is ordered:

    1. A public hearing will be held on June 10, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in the Board's Hearing Room, at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC, as described above.

    2. Any party wishing to speak at the hearing shall file with the Board a notice of intent to participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker, the time requested, and a summary of the key points the speaker intends to address) no later than May 29, 2015. The notices of intent to participate need not be served on the parties of record. Parties appearing at the hearing shall file hearing exhibits, if any, by June 10, 2015.

    3. This decision is effective on its service date.

    Decided: May 8, 2015.

    By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.

    Raina S. Contee, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11558 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board 49 CFR Chapter X [Docket No. EP 722; Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2)] Railroad Revenue Adequacy; Petition of the Western Coal Traffic League To Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding To Abolish the Use of the Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow Model in Determining the Railroad Industry's Cost of Equity Capital AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board) will hold a public hearing on July 22-23, 2015, at its headquarters in Washington, DC, to further examine issues raised in Docket No. EP 722 related to railroad revenue adequacy, and issues raised in Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2) on how the Board calculates the railroad industry's cost of equity capital. These proceedings are not consolidated but are being addressed in the same decision for administrative convenience.

    DATES:

    The hearing will be held on July 22-23, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Hearing Room at the Board's headquarters located at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC. The hearing will be open for public observation. Any party wishing to speak at the hearing shall file with the Board by July 8, 2015, a notice of intent to participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker, and the time requested, and summarizing the key points that the speaker intends to address). The notices of intent to participate are not required to be served on the parties of record; they will be posted to the Board's Web site when they are filed. Parties shall file hearing exhibits, if any, by July 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All filings may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the “E-FILING” link on the Board's Web site at “www.stb.dot.gov.” Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies of the filing to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. [EP 722 or EP 664 (Sub-No. 2), as the case may be], 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    Copies of written submissions will be posted to the Board's Web site and will be available for viewing and self-copying in the Board's Public Docket Room, Suite 131. Copies of the submissions will also be available (for a fee) by contacting the Board's Chief Records Officer at (202) 245-0238 or 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For Docket No. EP 722: Scott Zimmerman at (202) 245-0386. For Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2): Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 2, 2014, the Board served a notice announcing that it would receive comments in Docket No. EP 722 to explore the Board's methodology for determining railroad revenue adequacy and the use of revenue adequacy in rate reasonableness cases, and in Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2) 1 to explore how the Board calculates the railroad industry's cost of equity capital. The Board coordinated the two proceedings by inviting comments in both cases on the same schedule. Comments and replies were due on September 5, 2014 and November 4, 2014, respectively.

    1 The Board instituted a rulemaking in this proceeding in response to a petition by the Western Coal Traffic League. Pet. of W. Coal Traffic League to Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding to Abolish the Use of Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow Model in Determining the R.R. Indus.'s Cost of Equity Capital, EP 664 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Dec. 20, 2013).

    Having reviewed the comments and replies filed in these proceedings, the Board will now hold a public hearing on July 22-23, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., at its headquarters in Washington, DC, to further examine these issues. The parties have raised a number of issues for the Board to consider. In Docket No. EP 722, many of the comments focused on the revenue adequacy component of Constrained Market Pricing, by which the Board judges the reasonableness of rail freight rates. The parties should be prepared to discuss issues related to the revenue adequacy constraint, as set forth in Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide (Coal Rate Guidelines), 1 I.C.C. 2d 520 (1985), and are invited to address the following questions:

    ○ In Coal Rate Guidelines, the Interstate Commerce Commission indicated that revenue adequacy is a long term concept that should be measured “over time.” 1 I.C.C.2d at 536. Some comments suggest that revenue adequacy should be measured over a business cycle, while others suggest that a business cycle would not be sufficient. If the revenue adequacy constraint were to be utilized, what would be an appropriate time period? What would be an appropriate definition for a “business cycle” if the Board were to use that as a time measure?

    ○ In Coal Rate Guidelines, the Interstate Commerce Commission stated that “[a] railroad seeking to earn revenues that would provide it, over the long term, a return on investment above the cost of capital would have to demonstrate with particularity: (1) A need for the higher revenues; (2) the harm it would suffer if it could not collect them; and (3) why the captive shippers should provide them.” Id. at 536 n.36. Some comments allude to this language in suggesting that, in the case of a revenue adequate railroad, that railroad should be required to justify rate increases on captive shippers. Should the Board consider requiring a revenue adequate railroad, whose increased rate has been challenged, to justify the increase on a complaining captive shipper? Would such an approach be consistent with the Board's governing statute and/or relevant case law?

    ○ Constrained market pricing imposes constraints on the extent to which a railroad may charge differentially higher rates on captive traffic, and several comments contend that captive shippers should not be required to differentially provide returns in excess of adequate revenue levels. Should a revenue adequate railroad's ability to differentially price be limited for all captive shippers or for a subset of captive shippers that are most likely to be subject to the railroad's market power? Is there a way to identify those shippers that are most likely to be subject to the railroad's market power, such as through Revenue to Variable Cost ratios, the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method, or something approximating the Maximum Mark-up Methodology used in the Board's rate proceedings?

    Additionally, the parties should be prepared to further explore the following issues raised in the comments and replies:

    ○ Some comments suggest that revenue adequacy should be tied to the availability of competitive access remedies. What competitive access remedies would be appropriate (and consistent with the Board's governing statute) when a railroad is revenue adequate? Because a proposal regarding competitive access remedies is currently pending before the Board, see Petition For Rulemaking to Adopt Revised Competitive Switching Rules, Docket No. EP 711, parties are asked to specifically consider the impact of revenue adequacy on that proposal, particularly in light of the recent service issues faced by the industry.

    ○ Some comments argue that any proposal that would limit the railroads' return on investment would negatively impact the railroads' ability to invest in their networks and expand capacity. Please discuss the impact of your revenue adequacy proposals on the railroads, again, in light of the recent service issues faced by the industry.

    With respect to Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2), the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the method the Board uses to make its annual industry cost of equity capital determinations needs to be modified and how such modifications, if any, should be implemented. The parties are also invited to discuss the following issues raised in the comments:

    ○ As part of its annual cost of capital determination, the Board uses a Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow (Multi-Stage DCF) model. Some comments suggest that the Board's Multi-Stage DCF model is biased upward. Does such a problem exist and, if so, how is it best corrected?

    ○ Since 2009, the Board has relied on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) as part of its annual cost of capital determination. Under CAPM, “beta” is used to measure the amount of non-diversifiable risk of the railroad industry. Some comments note that betas for the railroad industry have ranged above and below 1.0 since 2009. Do those changes in beta reflect actual differences in the riskiness of the railroad industry? Should the Board consider setting beta equal to 1.0 or some other figure?

    ○ Some comments suggest that the Board's approach for determining the “market risk premium” under CAPM is atypical. Is the Board's methodology sufficiently reliable or are there more commonly used approaches that the Board should consider adopting?

    ○ Certain comments note that the Board's CAPM analysis currently relies on a sample of four observations. Does this sample adequately reflect the railroad industry, or would using a broader sample, such as the S&P 500, lead to a more realistic estimate in determining the cost of equity?

    ○ Some comments contend that the Board should consider changes to how it determines Return on Investment. Would changes to the Return on Investment methodology require changes to the Cost of Capital methodology? Should the Board consider adjusting how it determines Return on Investment (e.g., using replacement costs) and how could those adjustments be implemented in a practicable manner?

    Board Releases and Live Video Streaming Available via the Internet

    Decisions and notices of the Board, including this notice, are available on the Board's Web site at www.stb.dot.gov. This hearing will be available on the Board's Web site by live video streaming. To access the hearing, click on the “Live Video” link under “Information Center” at the left side of the home page beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 22-23, 2015.

    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

    It is ordered:

    1. A public hearing will be held on July 22-23, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., at the Board's headquarters at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC, as described above.

    2. By July 8, 2015, any party wishing to speak at the hearing shall file with the Board a notice of intent to participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker, and the time requested, and summarizing the key points that the speaker intends to address). The notices of intent to participate need not be served on the parties of record. Parties appearing at the hearing shall file hearing exhibits, if any, by July 22, 2015.

    3. This decision is effective on its service date.

    Decided: May 8, 2015.

    By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.

    Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11565 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    80 92 Wednesday, May 13, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0022] Notice of Request To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection (Voluntary Recalls of Meat and Poultry Products) AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to extend the approved information collection regarding voluntary recalls from commerce of meat and poultry products. FSIS is making no changes to the approved collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on August 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Docket Clerk, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2015-0022. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, go to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6067, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 690-6510.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Voluntary Recalls of Meat and Poultry Products.

    OMB Control Number: 0583-0135.

    Expiration Date: 8/31/2015.

    Type of Request: Extension of an approved information collection.

    Abstract: FSIS, by delegation (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53), exercises the functions of the Secretary as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

    FSIS is requesting an extension of an approved information collection addressing paperwork requirements regarding the Agency's voluntary recalls from commerce of meat and poultry products. The approval for this information collection will expire August 31, 2015. Although FSIS is responsible for the inspection of egg products under the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq.), the Food and Drug Administration typically handles the recalls of egg products.

    A firm that has produced or imported meat or poultry product that is adulterated or misbranded and has distributed it in commerce, may voluntarily recall the product in question. When there is a recall, FSIS asks that the recalling firm (e.g., a manufacturer, distributor, or importer of record) provide the Agency with some basic information, including the identity of the recalled product, the reason for the recall, and information about the distributors and retail consignees to whom the product was actually shipped. Under the FMIA, firms are required to keep such records that fully and correctly disclose all transactions in their business (21 U.S.C. 642). Under the PPIA, firms are required to keep such records as are properly necessary for the effective enforcement of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 460(b)).

    When a firm voluntarily recalls a product, FSIS conducts recall effectiveness checks. In conducting recall effectiveness checks, if the recall is to the retail or consumer level, the Agency contacts the distributors and actual retail consignees to ensure that they were notified of the recall, to verify the amount of product they received, and to confirm that they are removing the product from commerce and returning it to the recalling firm or otherwise disposing of the product.

    FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment.

    Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that it will take respondents an average of approximately 1.1 hours to collect and make this information available to FSIS.

    Respondents: Official establishments, importers of record, and retail consignees.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,087.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6,740 hours.

    Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., Room 6077, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 690-6510.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

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

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected].

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Done at Washington, DC, on: May 8, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11582 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Santa Fe National Forest; New Mexico; Geothermal Leasing AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Santa Fe National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement to analyze the potential effects of geothermal development on 194,910 acres. The decision will be whether to proceed with geothermal leasing and, if so, under what stipulations.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by June 12, 2015. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in January, 2016 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in October, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Geothermal EIS Project, Santa Fe National Forest, 11 Forest Lane, Santa Fe, NM 87508. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 505-438-5390.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry Gore, Forest Geologist, via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has received expressions of interest in leasing approximately 46,000 acres of Santa Fe National Forest (SFNF) lands for exploration and development for geothermal energy production. The SFNF must decide whether these lands are available for leasing by the BLM and, if so, under what stipulations for protection of surface resources. The U.S. Geological Survey has identified approximately 194,000 acres of SFNF lands with significant geothermal potential. While the current expressed interest is for only a portion of this area, the entire area plus an additional approximately 900 acres for power transmission will be considered in the analysis in the event of future similar interest.

    Proposed Action

    Approximately 139,329 acres of the SFNF lands within the project area would be allocated as open to geothermal leasing subject to existing laws, regulations, formal orders and stipulations attached to the lease form, and the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. Stipulations proposed include: no surface occupancy; controlled surface use; and timing limitations.

    Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest, is the lead agency and the Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, is a cooperating agency in this analysis.

    Responsible Official

    The responsible official is the Forest Supervisor of the Santa Fe National Forest.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision will be whether to implement the action as proposed, implement an alternative which allows leasing under different stipulations or conditions, or not to implement the action. If the decision is to authorize leasing, that decision with associated stipulations and conditions will become an amendment to the Santa Fe National Forest Plan or will become a part of the Revised Forest Plan.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Two public meetings will be held to discuss the proposed action and solicit public input. One meeting will be held in Santa Fe, NM and one in the Cuba, NM area. Time and location of these meetings will be announced and posted on the forest's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/santafe/alerts-notices. The complete Proposed Action, with accompanying maps and descriptions of proposed stipulations, will also be posted at that Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/santafe/landmanagement/projects.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Maria T. Garcia, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11495 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-32-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 83—Huntsville, Alabama; Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc., (Motor Vehicle Engines and Transmissions), Huntsville, Alabama

    Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc. (TMMAL), an operator of FTZ 83, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Huntsville, Alabama. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 14, 2015.

    A separate request for subzone designation at the TMMAL facilities will be submitted and processed under Section 400.31 of the FTZ Board's regulations. The facilities are used for the production of spark-ignition engines, transmissions and related components for passenger motor vehicles. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt TMMAL from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, TMMAL would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to passenger motor vehicle engines, transmissions and related components (2.5%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: Plastic labels; plastic oil filler caps/clamps/oil seal rings; steel fittings/plugs/screws/bolts/pins/spring washers/hose clips; drain cock assemblies; valve levers; bearings (tapered roller, thrust, races, crank); flywheel subassemblies; pulleys; sprockets; key guides; washers (crankshaft); oil pressure switches; crank position sensors; and, wiring harnesses (duty rate ranges from 2.6 to 8.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 22, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11571 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board) will hold an open meeting on Monday, June 1, 2015. The Board was re-chartered in August 2013, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the travel and tourism industry.

    During this meeting, the Board will deliberate and potentially adopt a letter to the Secretary outlining the Board's priority recommendations. Board members will also hear an update from the working group formed to provide advice on the achievement of the national goal of improving the international arrivals and entry process for travelers to the United States. The agenda may change to accommodate Board business. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Board at http://trade.gov/ttab, at least one week in advance of the meeting.

    DATES:

    Monday, June 1, 2015, tentatively scheduled for 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. and open for public comments. The exact start and end times may change to accommodate participants' schedules; please check the Web site for the final agenda one week in advance of the meeting.

    The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meetings and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5 p.m. EDT on May 25, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Orange County Convention Center, 9899 International Drive, Orlando, Florida 32819. Guests are requested to register one week in advance by sending an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Niara Phillips, the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry.

    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption, and will receive a copy of the draft letter to be deliberated upon registering. Seating is limited and will be on a first come, first served basis. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    There will be 15 minutes of time allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration along with a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to bring at least 25 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the members of the Board and to the public at the meeting. In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Niara Phillips at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 25, 2015, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered on the meeting. Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Niara Phillips, Executive Secretary, United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11501 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-827] Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils (pencils) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014, based on the withdrawal of the review request by the one company.

    DATES:

    Effective date: May 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Kolberg or Sergio Balbontin at (202) 482-1785 or (202) 482-6478, respectively; 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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 3, 2015, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pencils from the PRC for the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014, based on a self-request by Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (SFTC).1 On April 23, 2015, SFTC timely withdrew its request for review.2

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015).

    2See letter from SFTC, re: “Withdrawal of Review Request: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cased Pencils from the PRC” dated April 23, 2015.

    Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(l), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, SFTC withdrew its request within the 90-day deadline. No other party requested an administrative review of SFTC. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the instant review with respect to SFTC.

    Because no other parties requested a review of this order for this period, we are rescinding the administrative review of the pencils order covering the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014, in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which tis administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.

    Notifications

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

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

    This notice is in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11573 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Committee on to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Fairfield Inn & Suites, 185 MacArthur Drive, New Bedford, MA 02740; telephone: (774) 634-2000; fax: (774) 634-2001.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee will review progress and make recommendations related to Amendment 19, which is considering measures to address timing issues that inhibit implementation of fishery specifications at the start of the scallop fishing year (March 1). The Committee will also discuss an issue that has been raised at previous meetings related to scallop fishing space in near shore areas and issues of differential catch rates for general category and limited access vessels. The Council may have a workshop later this year to discuss these issues further as well as review a draft action plan for Framework 27 that will consider fishery specifications for 2016 and default measures for 2017. The Committee will discuss final research priority recommendations for the 2016 Scallop Research Set-Aside announcement. All recommendations will be forwarded to the Council for their June 2015 meeting.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11569 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD796 Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshops; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS cancelled the Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification workshop originally scheduled for April 28, 2015, in Kenner, LA. The workshop instructors were not able to travel to the location due to intermittent power outages at the New Orleans airport. This workshop was announced in the Federal Register on March 6, 2015. NMFS has rescheduled the workshop for June 10, 2015, to be held at the same time and location, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Hilton Inn, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.

    DATES:

    The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification workshop originally scheduled for April 28, 2015, in Kenner, LA, has been rescheduled to June 10, 2015. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The location of the rescheduled workshop has not changed. It will be held in Kenner, LA. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/workshops/index.html.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 6, 2015, (80 FR 12152) in FR Doc. 2015-05174, on page 12153, in the third column, the date of the second Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification workshop listed under the heading “Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations” is corrected to read as follows:

    2. June 10, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Inn, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11467 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD931 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Observer Advisory Committee (OAC) will meet in Anchorage, AK.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on May 29, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Coast International Inn, 3450 Aviation Avenue, Susitna room, Anchorage, AK.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The agenda will be to discuss and provide recommendations on the observer program review documents (supplemental Environmental Assessment, 2014 Observer Annual Report) and observer regulatory amendment analyses. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11570 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Fishery Products Subject to Trade Restrictions Pursuant to Certification Under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing (HSDF) Moratorium Protection Act AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Kristin Rusello, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, F/IS5, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 427-8376, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Pursuant to the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection Act), if certain fish or fish products of a nation are subject to import prohibitions to facilitate enforcement, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires that other fish or fish products from that nation that are not subject to the import prohibitions must be accompanied by documentation of admissibility. A duly authorized official/agent of the applicant's Government must certify that the fish in the shipments being imported into the United States (U.S.) are of a species that are not subject to an import restriction of the U.S. If a nation is identified under the Moratorium Protection Act and fails to receive a certification decision from the Secretary of Commerce, products from that nation that are not subject to the import prohibitions must be accompanied by the documentation of admissibility.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submissions will be accepted via email or fax.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0651.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 60.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $10 in reporting/recordkeeping costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection 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 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 OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11490 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD888 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application submitted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration.

    Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on Exempted Fishing Permit applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line “Comments on NEFSC Study Fleet EFP.”

    Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on NEFSC Study Fleet EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-282-8493, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on March 18, 2015, to enable data collection activities that the regulations on commercial fishing would otherwise restrict. The EFP would exempt 37 federally permitted commercial fishing vessels from the regulations detailed below while participating in the Study Fleet Program and operating under projects managed by the NEFSC. The EFP would exempt participating vessels from minimum fish size restrictions; fish possession limits; prohibited fish species, not including species protected under the Endangered Species Act; and gear-specific fish possession restrictions for the purpose of at-sea sampling and, in limited situations for research purposes only, to retain and land fish.

    The NEFSC Study Fleet Program was established in 2002 to more fully characterize commercial fishing operations and to leverage sampling opportunities to augment NMFS data collection programs. Participating vessels are contracted by NEFSC to collect tow-by-tow catch and environmental data, and to fulfill specific biological sampling needs identified by NEFSC. To collect these data, the NEFSC Study Fleet Program has obtained an EFP to secure the necessary waivers needed by the vessels to obtain fish that would otherwise be prohibited by regulations.

    Crew trained by the NEFSC Study Fleet Program in methods that are consistent with the current NEFSC observer protocol, while under fishing operations, would sort, weigh, and measure fish that are to be discarded. An exemption from minimum fish size restrictions; fish possession limits; prohibited fish species, not including species protected under the Endangered Species Act; and gear-specific fish possession restrictions for at-sea sampling is required because some discarded species would be on deck slightly longer than under normal sorting procedures.

    Participating vessels would also be authorized to retain and land, in limited situations for research purposes only, fish that do not comply with fishing regulations. The vessels would be authorized to retain specific amounts of particular species in whole or round weight condition, in marked totes, which would be delivered to Study Fleet Program technicians. NEFSC would require participating vessels to obtain written approval from the NEFSC Study Fleet Program prior to landing any fish to ensure that the landed fish do not exceed any of the Study Fleet Program's collection needs. None of the landed biological samples from these trips would be sold for commercial use or used for any other purpose other than scientific research.

    The table below details the regulations from which the participating vessels would be exempt when retaining and landing fish for research purposes. The participating vessels would be required to comply with all other applicable requirements and restrictions specified at 50 CFR part 648, unless specifically exempted in this EFP. For vessels on a sector trip, all catch of Northeast multispecies stocks allocated to sectors would be deducted from the sector's Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE). Once a sector's ACE for a stock has been reached, vessels would no longer be allowed to fish in that stock area, unless they acquired additional ACE for the limiting stock. For non-sector vessels, all catch of Northeast multispecies stocks would be counted toward the appropriate quotas. Non-sector vessels would still be subject to applicable trimester total allowable catch (TAC) accountability measures, which state that when 90 percent of the trimester TAC for a stock is projected to be caught, the area where that stock is predominantly caught will close to vessels fishing with a specific gear type for the rest of that trimester.

    NEFSC Study Fleet Program EFP No. of Vessels 37 Exempted regulations in 50 CFR part 648 Size limits: § 648.83 NE multispecies minimum size. § 648.93 Monkfish minimum fish size. § 648.104 Summer flounder minimum fish size. § 648.147 Black sea bass minimum fish size. Possession restrictions: § 648.86(a) Haddock. § 648.86(b) Atlantic cod. § 648.86(g) Yellowtail flounder. § 648.86(j) Georges Bank winter flounder. § 648.86(l) Zero retention of Atlantic wolffish. § 648.86(o) Possession limits implemented by RA. § 648.94 Monkfish possession limit. § 648.106 Summer flounder possession restrictions. § 648.322 Skate possession and landing restrictions. § 648.145 Black sea bass possession limits. § 648.235 Spiny dogfish possession and landing restrictions. NEFSC Study Fleet Program's Sublegal Biological Sampling Needs

    As described above, biological samples would only be landed and collected by the Study Fleet Program after a formal request has been issued in writing by the Study Fleet Program. The following are the Study Fleet Program's sampling needs for retaining sublegal fish.

    Windowpane flounder—whole fish would be retained for age and growth work to support 2015 windowpane stock assessment. Otoliths and fish length will be collected to validate ages using marginal increment analysis. Windowpane flounder retained would not exceed 40 fish per month from all stock areas combined (Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank stock) or 480 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 30 lb (13.6 kg), and total weight would not exceed 360 lb (163.3 kg) for all trips combined.

    Atlantic wolffish—whole fish would be retained for maturity, fecundity, and life history research. Atlantic wolffish retained would not exceed 40 fish per month or 480 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 160 lb (72.6 kg), and total weight would not exceed 3,500 lb (1587.6 kg) for all trips combined.

    Cusk—whole fish would be retained or specimen sampled at sea by a Study Fleet scientist for maturity, fecundity, and life history research. Cusk retained would not exceed 40 fish per month or 480 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 100 lb (45.4 kg), and total weight would not exceed 1,440 lb (653.2 kg) for all trips combined.

    Atlantic halibut—specimen would be sampled at sea by a Study Fleet scientist for age, growth, maturity, fecundity, and diet research. Atlantic halibut retained would not exceed 20 fish per month or 240 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 200 lb (90.7 kg), and total weight would not exceed 5,000 lb (2268.0 kg) for all trips combined.

    Monkfish—whole fish would be retained for maturity and fecundity research. Monkfish retained would not exceed 10 fish per trip, or 120 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 100 lb (45.4 kg), and total weight would not exceed 1,200 lb (544.3 kg) for all trips combined.

    Atlantic cod—potential maturity, fecundity, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), food habits, and genetic research. Whole fish retained would not exceed 200 fish per month from each of the three stock areas (GOM, GB, SNE/MA), or 1,200 fish total from each stock area for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 300 lb (136.1 kg), and total weight would not exceed 8,500 lb (3855.5 kg) for all trips combined.

    Barndoor Skate—whole and, in some cases, live skates would be retained for age and growth research and species confirmation. The barndoor skates retained would not exceed 20 fish per 3-month period, or 80 skates total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 75 lb (34.0 kg), and total weight would not exceed 300 lb (136.1 kg) for all trips combined.

    Thorny Skate—whole and, in some cases, live skates would be retained for age and growth research and species confirmation. Thorny skates retained would not exceed 20 fish per 3-month period, or 80 skates total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 75 lb (34.0 kg), and total weight would not exceed 300 lb (136.1 kg) for all trips combined.

    Black Sea Bass—whole fish would be retained to support of an ongoing study at the NEFSC to evaluate BIA to measure fish energy density and reproductive potential for stock assessment. Black sea bass retained would not exceed 75 fish per quarter, or 300 black sea bass total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 250 lb (113.4 kg), and total weight would not exceed 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) for all trips combined.

    If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impact that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11470 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance Applicants AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Steve Kokkinakis, (240) 533-9021 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370) requires federal agencies to complete an environmental analysis for all major federal actions, including funding non-federal projects through federal financial assistance awards where Federal participation in the funded activity is expected to be significant. This Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance Applicants (Questionnaire) is used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to collect information about proposed activities for NEPA and other environmental compliance requirements associated with proposed projects, such as federal consultations. The Questionnaire is used in conjunction with NOAA Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA). Applicants are required to provide only the information from this Questionnaire that is specified in the FOA to which they are applying. The FOA may present these questions in one of two ways: (1) The applicable questions can be inserted directly into the FOA with reference to the OMB Control Number (0648-0538) for this form; or (2) The FOA can specify which questions (e.g. 1, 2) an applicant must answer, with the entire OMB-approved Questionnaire attached to the FOA. This Questionnaire has been revised to (1) remove repetitive questions; (2) revise specific questions to use plain language instead of NEPA-specific language; and (3) add questions that would be helpful to a wider range of NOAA programs. The revision reduced the overall number of questions by 22.

    II. Method of Collection

    The information may be submitted electronically or on paper (faxed or mailed).

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0538.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision and extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; state, local, or tribal government; and federal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,000 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection 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 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 OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11568 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NW-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: International Dolphin Conservation Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0387.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 144.

    Average Hours Per Response: 35 minutes each for a vessel permit application and for written notification to request active status for a small tuna purse seine vessel; 10 minutes for an operator permit application, a notification of vessel arrival or departure, a change in permit operator; a notification of a net modification or a monthly tuna storage removal report; 30 minutes for a request for a waiver to transit the ETP without a permit (and subsequent radio reporting) or for a special report documenting the origin of tuna (if requested by the NOAA Administrator); 10 hours for an experimental fishing operation waiver; 15 minutes for a request for a Dolphin Mortality Limit; 5 minutes for written notification to request inactive status for a small tuna purse seine vessel or for written notification of the intent to transfer a tuna purse seine vessel to foreign registry and flag; 60 minutes for a tuna tracking form or for a monthly tuna receiving report.

    Burden Hours: 179.

    Needs and Uses: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects information to implement the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (Act). The Act allows entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States (U.S.), under specific conditions, from nations in the International Dolphin Conservation Program that would otherwise be under embargo. The Act also allows U.S. fishing vessels to participate in the yellowfin tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) on terms equivalent with the vessels of other nations. NOAA collects information to allow tracking and verification of “dolphin safe” and “non-dolphin safe” tuna products from catch through the U.S. market.

    The regulations implementing the Act are at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300 form the basis for this collection of information. This collection includes permit applications, notifications, tuna tracking forms, reports, and certifications that provide information on vessel characteristics and operations in the ETP, the origin of tuna and tuna products, and certain other information necessary to implement the Act.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: Annually, monthly and on occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11489 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 150312253-5253-01] RIN 0660-XC018 Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF) announces that the closing deadline for submitting comments responsive to the May 18, 2015 request for public comments to identify substantive cybersecurity issues to be addressed by a multistakeholder process has been extended until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Wednesday, May 27, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, May 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by email to [email protected] Comments submitted by email should be machine-searchable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Attn: Cybersecurity RFC 2015, Washington, DC 20230. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number, on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internet-policy-task-force without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NTIA will also accept anonymous comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allan Friedman, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-4281; Email: [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs: (202) 482-7002.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 2011, the Department of Commerce published a Green Paper, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy, identifying the challenges of securing the digital ecosystem, and the importance of a multistakeholder policy model.1 Building off this approach, in March of 2015, the IPTF announced a new initiative to complement existing cybersecurity programs by focusing on risks that exist between multiple parts of the digital ecosystem.2 Please see the prior Notice, Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem, for the original questions posed in the request for public comments to identify substantive cybersecurity issues to be addressed by a multistakeholder process.3 The request for public comments originally set a deadline for submission of comments on May 18, 2015. With this notice, NTIA announces that the closing deadline for submission of comments has been extended until 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 27, 2015.

    1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy (June 2011) (“Green Paper”), available at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/upload/Cybersecurity_Green-Paper_FinalVersion.pdf.

    2See 80 FR 14360 (March 19, 2015) available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/cybersecurity_rfc_03192015.pdf.

    3Id.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11540 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Multistakeholder Process To Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Facial Recognition Technology AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will convene a meeting of a privacy multistakeholder process concerning the commercial use of facial recognition technology on June 11, 2015.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 11, 2015 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. See Supplementary Information for details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Verdi, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-8238; email [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: On February 23, 2012, the White House released Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy (the “Privacy Blueprint”).1 The Privacy Blueprint directs NTIA to convene multistakeholder processes to develop legally enforceable codes of conduct that specify how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights applies in specific business contexts.2 On December 3, 2013, NTIA announced that it would convene a multistakeholder process with the goal of developing a code of conduct to protect consumers' privacy and promote trust regarding facial recognition technology in the commercial context.3 On February 6, 2014, NTIA convened the first meeting of the facial recognition multistakeholder process, followed by additional meetings through December 2014.

    1 The Privacy Blueprint is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf.

    2Id.

    3 NTIA, Facial Recognition Technology, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology.

    Matters To Be Considered: The June 11, 2015 meeting is a continuation of a series of NTIA-convened multistakeholder discussions concerning facial recognition technology. Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop a code of conduct regarding facial recognition technology. The June 11, 2015 meeting will build on stakeholders' previous work. More information about stakeholders' work is available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology.

    Time and Date: NTIA will convene a meeting of the privacy multistakeholder process regarding facial recognition technology on June 11, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. The meeting date and time are subject to change. The meeting is subject to cancelation if stakeholders complete their work developing a code of conduct. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology, for the most current information.

    Place: The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006. The location of the meeting is subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology, for the most current information.

    Other Information: The meeting is open to the public and the press. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to John Verdi at (202) 482-8238 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. The meeting will also be webcast. Requests for real-time captioning of the webcast or other auxiliary aids should be directed to John Verdi at (202) 482-8238 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders viewing the webcast to participate remotely in the meeting through a moderated conference bridge, including polling functionality. Access details for the meeting are subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology, for the most current information.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11548 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent to Renew Collection 3038-0033, Notification of Pending Legal Proceedings AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the rule requiring notification of pending legal proceedings.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0033 by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rob Schwartz, Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; phone: (202) 418-5958; fax: (202) 418-5567; email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0033.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1 The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

    Title: Notification of Pending Legal Proceedings Pursuant to 17 CFR 1.60, OMB Control Number 3038-0033-Extension.

    Abstract: The rule is designed to assist the Commission in monitoring legal proceedings involving the responsibilities imposed on contract markets and their officials and futures commission merchants and their principals by the Commodity Exchange Act, or otherwise.

    Burden: The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 17 CFR section Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    1.60 105 1 .20 .20

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    (Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11507 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2015-0007] Partial Extension of Comment Deadline on CARD Act Request for Information AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 502(a) of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act or Act) requires the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) to conduct a review (Review) of the consumer credit card market, within the limits of its existing resources available for reporting purposes. In connection with conducting that Review, and in accordance with Section 502(b) of the CARD Act, the Bureau published a Request for Information in the Federal Register on March 19, 2015, soliciting from the public comment on a number of aspects of the consumer credit card market. The Request for Information provided a 60-day comment period that will end on May 18, 2015. To allow interested persons additional time to consider and submit their responses, the Bureau has determined that an extension of the comment period on four of the specific areas of interest noted in the original Request for Information—online disclosures, grace periods, add-on products, and debt collection—until June 17, 2015, is appropriate.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the Request for Information Regarding Credit Card Market, published March 19, 2015, at 80 FR 14365, is extended with respect to four areas of interest. Responses on those areas of interest specifically extended must now be received on or before June 17, 2015; the deadline for responses on all other areas remains unchanged.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2015-0007, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    Instructions: All submissions should include the agency name and docket number for this proposal. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern standard time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning (202) 435-7275.

    All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general inquiries, submission process questions, or any additional information, please contact Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, 202-435-7275.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 19, 2015, the Bureau published the Request for Information in the Federal Register, 80 FR 14365. The Request for Information seeks comment, data, and information from the public on the state of the credit card market, both generally and specifically to 12 issues and areas specifically identified by the Bureau.

    Since publication, the Bureau has received multiple requests for extension of the comment deadline. While the Bureau believes the initial deadline should provide sufficient time for the public to comment on these matters, it wants to ensure that all interested parties are able to provide information and insight to the Bureau as it seeks greater understanding of the credit card market.

    The Bureau wants to balance interested parties' desire to have additional time to consider the issues raised in the Request for Information, gather data, and prepare their responses, with the need to proceed expeditiously to consider comments. By extending the comment period for certain issues, the Bureau believes that it is effectively striking that balance. The Bureau believes that a 30-day extension on four of the twelve issues raised in the Request for Information—online disclosures, grace periods, add-on products, and debt collection—is appropriate, as these questions focus on particular areas of potential policy concern and may require additional time to respond. The comment period for those four issues will therefore close on June 17, 2015; the deadline for comments on all other areas and issues remains unchanged.

    Dated: May 5, 2015. Christopher A. D'Angelo, Chief of Staff, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11496 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2015-0005] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 12, 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Business Systems-Definition and Administration; DFARS 234, Earned Value Management System, OMB Control Number 0704-0479.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 12.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 12.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 676 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 8,112.

    Needs and Uses: DFARS clause 252.242-7005 requires contractors to respond to written determinations of significant deficiencies in the contractor's business systems as defined in the clause. The information contractors are required to submit in response to findings of significant deficiencies in their accounting system, estimating system, material management and accounting system and purchasing system has previously been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. This request specifically addresses information required by DFARS clause 252.234-7002, Earned Value Management System, for contractors to respond to determinations of significant deficiencies in a contractor's Earned Value Management System (EVMS). The requirements apply to entities that are contractually required to maintain an EVMS. DoD needs this information to document actions to correct significant deficiencies in contractor business systems. DoD contracting officers use the information to mitigate the risk of unallowable and unreasonable costs being charged on government contracts.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    DoD Public Collections Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Manuel Quinones, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11553 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Supplement 2) for the Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, General Reevaluation Study AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), New Orleans District intends to prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), to be integrated with a General Reevaluation Report (GRR), for the Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana Project. The GRR and SEIS will investigate deepening and maintaining the Mississippi River Ship Channel from 45 feet deep to as much as 50 feet deep.

    DATES:

    A public scoping meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 26, 2015 in Belle Chasse, LA. An open house will be held at 6:00 p.m. followed by the scoping meeting at 6:30 p.m. A second public scoping meeting will be held Thursday morning, May 28, 2015 in New Orleans, LA. An open house will be held at 9 a.m. followed by the scoping meeting at 9:30 a.m. A third public scoping meeting will be held Thursday evening, May 28, 2015 in Baton Rouge, LA. An open house will be held at 6:00 p.m. followed by the scoping meeting at 6:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The scoping meeting and open house on Tuesday, May 26 will be held at the Belle Chasse Branch Library, 8442 Highway 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037. The scoping meeting and open house in the morning of Thursday, May 28 will be held at Corps of Engineers District Office in the District Assembly Room, 7400 Leake Ave, New Orleans, LA 70118. The scoping meeting and open house in the evening of Thursday, May 28 will be held at Louisiana State Police Training Academy, 7901 Independence Blvd., Baton Rouge, LA 70806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions about the public scoping meeting, the GRR and SEIS should be addressed to: Mr. Richard Boe or Mr. Steve Roberts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Compliance Branch, P.O. Box 60267, New Orleans, LA 70160-0267, by email to [email protected] or [email protected], or by telephone at (504) 862-1505 or (504) 862-2517.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Project Background and Authorization.

    The 1981 Feasibility Study entitled “Deep-Draft Access to the Ports of New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana” (1981 Feasibility Study) was authorized by Section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945, (Pub. L. 79-14), which combined several existing deep-draft projects on the Mississippi River and modified them to provide new navigation channel dimensions. The 1981 Feasibility Study, which included an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), recommended deepening the Mississippi River's navigation channel to a 55-foot depth from Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico. A Chief of Engineers Report was completed in April 1983, and a Record of Decision was signed on December 23, 1986. The Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana project was authorized for construction by Section 101 of the 1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 99-88).

    The authorized plan provides for a navigation channel with a 55-foot depth over a 750-foot bottom width from the Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and a turning basin at the head of the deepened channel in Baton Rouge. Authorization also included deepening the existing 35 feet deep by 1,500 feet wide channel at the New Orleans harbor to 40 feet, providing river training works in South Pass and Pass a Loutre, and creating wetlands and upland habitat with dredged material along Southwest Pass.

    Phase I of the Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA Project consisted of a 45-foot channel from the Gulf of Mexico to river mile 181 near Donaldsonville, Louisiana, and was completed in December 1987. Phase II consisted of the remainder of the 45 foot channel from river mile 181 to Baton Rouge, and was completed in December 1994. Phase III of the Project was identified as the deepening of the entire channel to 55 feet from the Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge. The Non-Federal Sponsor, the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, has requested that an incremental phase of deepening the entire length of the channel to 50 feet be considered. A final phase of deepening the channel to 55 feet may be considered in the future. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 amended the Water Resources and Development Act of 1986, to increase the Federal threshold for full Federal channel maintenance responsibilities from 45 feet to 50 feet deep.

    The General Reevaluation Report will identify the depth that creates the greatest net benefits up to a 50 foot channel in order to proceed to implementation and to phase the remaining work accordingly. A report released by the Institute of Water Resources (IWR) in June 2012 evaluated the preparedness of U.S. ports to accommodate Post-Panamax size vessels. The Panama Canal is being enlarged to accommodate vessels that draft 50 feet (Post-Panamax vessels) and the enlarged waterway is expected to be completed in 2016. The IWR report found that these vessels currently call at U.S. ports and will dominate the world fleet in the future. Post-Panamax vessels will call in increasing numbers at U.S. ports that can accommodate them. Currently, Mississippi River ports cannot accommodate these vessels. There may be economic justification in expanding port projects to accommodate post-Panamax vessels. The ports located along the lower Mississippi River, being the dominant ports for the export of grains from the U.S., will likely play a key role in meeting these future needs if they are ready with a post-Panamax sized channel.

    2. Proposed Action

    The purpose of the GRR and SEIS is to identify the depth that creates the greatest net benefits up to a depth of 50 feet in order to implement the deepening the Mississippi River channel from the current depth of 45 feet. An evaluation of population growth trends, trade forecasts and examination of the current port capacities shows that there is very likely economic justification for deepening the channel. This GRR and SEIS will evaluate existing conditions, alternative designs, and provide environmental analysis of anticipated impacts associated with dredging and disposal alternatives. The handling of dredged material generated during construction, the engineering design of dredged material disposal areas, and several other aspects of the Project, that were evaluated in the 1981 Feasibility Report and EIS, will be updated as appropriate.

    3. Alternatives

    An evaluation of alternatives, including a “no action” alternative will be included. In the SEIS, the “no action” alternative will be the continued operation and maintenance of the 45 feet deep Mississippi River deep-draft navigation channel from Baton Rouge, LA to the Gulf of Mexico. Other alternatives will be determined through scoping, but are anticipated to include an alternative of a 48 feet deep channel and an alternative of a 50 feet deep channel. The plan with the highest net benefits (the difference between transportation cost savings and project costs) will be identified as the recommended plan. Previous evaluations of alternative dredging methods, dredged material handling, and disposal alternatives will also be updated and/or re-evaluated as appropriate.

    4. Scoping

    The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) relating to “Scoping” as set forth in at 40 CFR 1501.7 require an early and open process for determining the scope of the issues to be addressed in an EIS or SEIS and for identifying significant issues related to the proposed action. The public will be involved in the scoping and evaluation process through advertisements, notices, and other means. Federal, state and local agencies, and other interested groups will also be involved. Meetings to address discrete issues or parts or functions of the study may be held. All parties are invited to participate in the scoping process by identifying any additional concerns on issues, studies needed, alternatives, procedures, and other matters related to the scope of the SEIS.

    A. The Corps will provide additional notification of the times and locations of the public scoping meetings through newspaper advertisements and other means (see DATES). Following short presentations at the scoping meetings, verbal and written comments on the scope of the SEIS will be accepted. A transcript of verbal comments will be generated to ensure accuracy. Comments will also be accepted via email or postal mail.

    B. Issues. Issues that have been identified include, but are not limited to, the level of existing and forecasted vessel traffic, changes in socio-economic conditions since the 1981 Feasibility Report and EIS, evaluation of direct and indirect social and cultural impacts on affected communities and the appropriate and practicable mitigation measures to address those impacts, a re-evaluation of salt water intrusion on municipal drinking water supply, and re-evaluation of reasonable dredging and disposal alternatives and associated impacts. This non-exhaustive list of issues is intended to facilitate public comment on the scope of the SEIS. Concurrent with the NEPA process, the Corps will ensure compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders governing issues such as Federally-listed threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitats, health and safety, general environmental concerns, wetlands and other aquatic resources, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, navigation, recreation, water quality, and environmental justice. In selecting a recommended plan, the Corps will also consider issues identified and comments made throughout scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination. The Corps expects to better define the issues of concern and the methods that will be used to evaluate those issues through the scoping process.

    C. Environmental Review and Consultation. The proposed action (recommended plan) will undergo an evaluation for compliance with all applicable guidelines pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. This review will include a detailed reevaluation of all practicable alternatives as it relates to the handling and disposal of the dredged material. The Corps will develop and provide information on the resources to be impacted and the proposed mitigation measures as it relates to each of the alternatives. Although the Corps does not plan to invite any Federal agencies to be cooperating agencies, input and critical information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Federal, state, and local agencies is expected.

    5. Public Scoping Meeting Special Accommodations

    The public scoping meeting places will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Steve Roberts, (504) 862-2517 (voice), or email at [email protected] at least 5 business days prior to the meeting dates.

    6. Estimated Date of Draft SEIS Availability

    It is estimated that the draft SEIS will be available to the public for review and comment in December 2016. At least one public hearing will be held at that time, during which the public will be provided the opportunity to comment on the SEIS before it becomes final.

    Dated: May 5, 2015. Austin T. Appleton, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, Acting District Commander.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11556 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0062] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Federal Perkins Loan Program Master Promissory Note AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0062 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Federal Perkins Loan Program Master Promissory Note.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0074.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 276,934.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 138,467.

    Abstract: The Federal Perkins Loan Master Promissory Note (MPN) provides the terms and conditions of the Perkins Loan program and is prepared by the participating eligible institution and signed by the borrower. The borrower may receive loans for a single academic year or multiple academic years. The adoption of the MPN in the Perkins Loan Program has simplified the loan process by eliminating the need for institutions to prepare and students to sign, a promissory note each award year.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11474 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0063] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Gainful Employment Recent Graduates Employment and Earning Survey Pilot Test AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0063 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Gainful Employment Recent Graduates Employment and Earning Survey Pilot Test.

    OMB Control Number: 1845—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,040.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 170.

    Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is required by regulation to develop an earnings survey to support gainful employment program evaluations (see 34 CFR 668.406 as specified in final regulations published in the Federal Register in October 2014). NCES is responsible for developing the survey and the technical standards to which programs must adhere in its administration. The regulations specify that the Secretary of Education will publish in the Federal Register a pilot-tested earnings survey and the standards required for its administration. The draft standards are being published for public comment in a separate announcement. This request is to conduct a pilot test of the Recent Graduates Employment and Earnings Survey (RGEES). The RGEES pilot test will measure unit response rates and enable comparisons to earnings data collected through other surveys and in administrative records. The pilot study results will be used to compare median earnings collected through the survey to median earnings for graduates from comparable programs based on a match to the Social Security Administration as part of the 2012 gainful employment informational rates.

    Dated: May 11, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11665 Filed 5-11-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for OMB review and comment.

    SUMMARY:

    EIA has submitted the Forms EIA-457A, C, D, E, F and G, “2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and reinstatement under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection is a periodic series of surveys of households and their energy suppliers with the purpose of collecting and reporting energy characteristics, consumption, and expenditures data of homes in the United States.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before June 12, 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, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the:

    DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. And to James Berry, Survey Manager, EI-22, Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, or by email at [email protected]Alternatively, Mr. Berry may be contacted by telephone at (202) 586-5543.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Mr. Berry at the contact information given above. To view the forms online please go to: http://www.eia.gov/survey/#eia-457.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains:

    (1) OMB No. 1905-0092.

    (2) Information Collection Request Title: EIA-457A C, D, E, F, G, “Residential Energy Consumption Survey”.

    (3) Type of Request: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection for which approval has discontinued.

    (4) Purpose: Need for and proposed use of the information: The RECS is used to collect data on energy characteristics, consumption, and expenditures of U.S. homes. These data collections fulfill planning, analysis and decision-making needs of DOE, other Federal agencies, State governments, and the private sector. Respondents are households of selected housing units and their energy suppliers. Response obligations are Voluntary (households) and Mandatory (energy suppliers). This will be a proposed reinstatement of a previously approved collection and three-year clearance request to OMB. The content of the 2015 RECS will be largely unchanged from the 2009 RECS. Sampling will incorporate key definitions and elements from previous RECS. Housing units will be selected via a multi-stage area probability sample design and will be statistically representative of U.S. occupied housing units, as well as selected sub-national geographies. In addition to the billing data collection for 2015 RECS housing units, EIA will also collect billing data for household records in the RECS National Pilot study. Because the National Pilot sample design is similar to the 2015 RECS, EIA expects most energy suppliers that report in the 2015 RECS will also be in the sample for the National Pilot data collection.

    (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,351.

    (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 4,455.

    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,697.

    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: EIA estimates that there are no capital and start-up costs associated with this data collection. The information is maintained in the normal course of business. For household respondents no additional record keeping or other burden is required outside the interview process. The cost of burden hours to all household, rental agent, and energy supplier respondents is estimated to be $122,133 (1,697 annual burden hours times the current hourly rate of $71.97.) Therefore, other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.

    Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Public Law 93-275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2015. Nanda Srinivasan, Director, Office of Survey Development and Statistical Integration U.S. Energy Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11550 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1630-000] U.S. Borax, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of U.S. Borax, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is May 26, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11544 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-127-000.

    Applicants: Calpine Greenleaf, Inc.

    Description: Amendment to April 21, 2015 Application For Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Calpine Greenleaf, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-134-000.

    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, Indiana Michigan Power Company.

    Description: Application Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act to Acquire Transmission Facilities and Request for Expedited Consideration and Certain Waivers of American Electric Power Service Corporation.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5198.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-135-000.

    Applicants: Flat Water Wind Farm, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and Expedited Consideration of Flat Water Wind Farm, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2977-005.

    Applicants: Mesquite Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Mesquite Power, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150507-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-861-002.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-05-06 EIM Transition Compliance to be effective 3/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1052-002.

    Applicants: Transource Missouri, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: TMO Facilities Sharing Agreement Concurrence Compliance to be effective 4/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5197.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1679-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original Service Agreement No. 4137; Queue Y3-103 (ISA) to be effective 4/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1680-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 3024 KCP&L GMO and Transource Missouri Interconnection Agr to be effective 4/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150507-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1681-000.

    Applicants: Spokane Energy, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be effective 5/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150507-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1682-000.

    Applicants: TransCanyon DCR, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: TransCanyon Transmission Owner Tariff to be effective 7/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150507-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1683-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Termination of Lehi Highland Sub Trans Line Upgrade Construct Agmt to be effective 7/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150507-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/15.

    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 7, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11517 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1657-000] SEPG Energy Marketing Services, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of SEPG Energy Marketing Services, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is May 26, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11545 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-966-000.

    Applicants: WPX Energy Marketing, LLC,Morgan Stanley Capitol Group Inc.

    Description: Joint Petition of WPX Energy Marketing, LLC and Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. for Temporary Waiver of Capacity Release and Certain Other Regulations and Policies and Related Tariff Provisions, and Request for Expedited Treatment.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5133.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-967-000.

    Applicants: Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C., FERC Order 801 Compliance Filing to be effective 6/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-968-000.

    Applicants: Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C., FERC Order 801 Compliance Filing to be effective 6/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5138.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-969-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Filing—May 2015—LER 0222 Removal to be effective 5/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 5, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11462 Filed 5-12-15; 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-83-000.

    Applicants: Goodwell Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of Goodwell Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-84-000.

    Applicants: Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1488-005.

    Applicants: Quantum Pasco Power, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Quantum Pasco Power Revised Electric Tariff Filing to be effective 5/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1489-007.

    Applicants: Quantum Lake Power, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Quantum Lake Power Revised Electric Tariff Filing to be effective 5/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1046-006.

    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: KCP&L FSA Rate Schedule 140 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5170.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1048-005.

    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: KCP&L-GMO FSA Rate Schedule 136 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5171.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1442-001.

    Applicants: Municipal Energy of PA, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Update to Market-Based Rate Tariff Application to be effective 5/1/2015 under ER15-1442 Filing Type: 120.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1471-000.

    Applicants: Blue Sky West, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to April 7, 2015 Blue Sky West, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 4/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150430-5428.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1557-001.

    Applicants: Entrust Energy East, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Update to Notice of Succession and Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 4/22/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1673-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SWEPCO-Bentonville PSA Amendment to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1674-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., West Penn Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): West Penn Power submits Service Agreement No. 4119 to be effective 7/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1675-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Blaine NITSA, NOA and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1676-000.

    Applicants: Balko Wind Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Initial Filing for Balk Wind Transmission, LLC to be effective 5/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1677-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-06 Attachment P GFA Update Filing to be effective 7/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1678-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Duke Energy Ohio submits revised Service Agreement No. 3141 to be effective 4/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150506-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    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 6, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11543 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1668-000 ] Phoenix Energy Group, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Phoenix Energy Group, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is May 26, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11546 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9927-74-OGC] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club: Sierra Club v. McCarthy, No. 4:14-cv-02149-CRC (D.D.C.). On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to grant or deny within 60 days a petition submitted by Sierra Club on July 28, 2014, requesting that EPA object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services for Public Service Company of New Hampshire's Schiller Station power plant located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to take such action.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by June 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0312, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to [email protected]; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Bianco, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-3298; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to sign its response granting or denying the petition filed by the Sierra Club regarding Public Service Company of New Hampshire's Schiller Station power plant located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA, on or before July 31, 2015.

    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would expeditiously deliver notice of EPA's response to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication following signature of such response. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the procedure for the Plaintiffs to request costs of litigation, including attorney fees.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0312) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11564 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146; FRL-9927-64-OAR] Release of Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document for the Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). On or about May 4, 2015, the EPA will make available for public review the document titled Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide: Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document (REA Planning Document). This plan presents considerations and the proposed approach for conducting quantitative analyses of NO2 exposures or health risks in the current review of the primary NO2 NAAQS. This planning document is intended to facilitate Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) advice and public input in advance of reaching decisions on these quantitative analyses.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before July 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document will be available primarily via the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_2012_pd.html. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 566-9744.

    Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146, Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code: 28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please provide a total of two copies.

    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 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 EPA's Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: 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 materials, such as copyrighted material, will be made publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Scott Jenkins, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-1167; fax number: 919-541-5315; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through http://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 agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by reference a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

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

    • Describe any assumption 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.

    II. Information About the Document

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in her “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;” “the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary source;” and “for which * * *. [the Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria * * *. ” Air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air * * *. ” (42 U.S.C. 7408(b)). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria * * *. and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards * * *. and shall recommend to the Administrator any new * * *. standards and revisions of the existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate * * *. .” Since the early 1980s, this independent review function has been performed by the CASAC.

    Presently, the EPA is reviewing the primary NAAQS for NO2. The first draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen (Health Criteria) (ISA) was released on November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70040), and the draft Integrated Review Plan for the Primary NAAQS for Nitrogen Dioxide (IRP) (79 FR 7184) was released on February 10, 2014. Both documents were reviewed by CASAC at a public meeting in March 2014, and announced in a separate notice (79 FR 8701). The final IRP was released in June 2014 (79 FR 36801), and is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_2012_pd.html. The second draft ISA was made available to both CASAC and the public on January 29, 2015 (80 FR 5110).

    The REA Planning Document considers the degree to which important uncertainties identified in quantitative analyses from previous reviews have been addressed by newly available scientific evidence, tools, or information, including those in the second draft ISA. Based on these considerations, the document reaches preliminary conclusions on the extent to which updated quantitative analyses of exposures or health risks are warranted in the current review. For updated analyses that are supported, this planning document presents anticipated approaches to conducting such analyses and, where appropriate, preliminary results. This document is available on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_2012_pd.html.

    The REA Planning Document has been made available for review by CASAC and for public comment. Comments should be submitted to the docket, as described above. The CASAC review of this planning document and the second draft ISA is scheduled for June 2-3, 2015. A separate Federal Register notice will provide details about this meeting and the process for participation.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11566 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Wednesday, June 17, 2015, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

    PLACE:

    Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 131 “M” Street NE., Washington, DC 20507.

    STATUS:

    The meeting will be open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    OPEN SESSION:

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and

    2. Retaliation in the Workplace: Causes, Remedies, and Strategies for Prevention.

    Note:

    In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through security and escorted to the meeting room. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides information about Commission meetings on its Web site, eeoc.gov., and provides a recorded announcement a week in advance on future Commission sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.

    Dated: May 11, 2015. Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11652 Filed 5-11-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6570-01-M
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0031] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 13, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Control Number: 3060-0031.

    Title: Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License, FCC Form 314; Application for Consent to Transfer Control of Entity Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License, FCC Form 315; Section 73.3580, Local Public Notice of Filing of Broadcast Applications.

    Form Number: FCC Forms 314 and 315.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,840 respondents and 12,880 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.084 to 6 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303(b) and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 18,670 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $52,519,656.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impacts.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality and respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission.

    Needs and Uses: FCC Form 314 and the applicable exhibits/explanations are required to be filed when applying for consent for assignment of an AM, FM, LPFM or TV broadcast station construction permit or license. In addition, the applicant must notify the Commission when an approved assignment of a broadcast station construction permit or license has been consummated.

    FCC Form 315 and applicable exhibits/explanations are required to be filed when applying for transfer of control of an entity holding an AM, FM, LPFM or TV broadcast station construction permit or license. In addition, the applicant must notify the Commission when an approved transfer of control of a broadcast station construction permit or license has been consummated. Due to the similarities in the information collected by these two forms, OMB has assigned both forms OMB Control Number 3060-0031.

    47 CFR 73.3580 requires local public notice in a newspaper of general circulation published in the community in which a station is located of the filing of all applications for transfer of control or assignment of the license/permit. This notice must be completed within 30 days of the tendering of the application. This notice must be published at least twice a week for two consecutive weeks in a three-week period. A copy of this notice and the application must be placed in the station's public inspection file along with the application, pursuant to Section 73.3527. Additionally, an applicant for transfer of control of a license must broadcast the same notice over the station at least once daily on four days in the second week immediately following the tendering for filing of the application.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11551 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This hearing will be open to the public.

    Federal Register Notice of Previous Announcement—80 FR 24923 CHANGE IN THE HEARING:

    The hearing has been rescheduled for Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

    Person to Contact for Information:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11633 Filed 5-11-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice May 11, 2015. TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 26, 2015.

    PLACE:

    The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session: Secretary of Labor v. Black Beauty Coal Company, Docket No. LAKE 2009-570. (Issues include whether the safeguard notice in question as modified is valid.)

    Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

    Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Sarah L. Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11627 Filed 5-11-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice May 11, 2015. TIME AND DATE:

    11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 26, 2015.

    PLACE:

    The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session: Secretary of Labor v. Oak Grove Resources, LLC, Docket Nos. SE 2009-261-R, et al. (Issues include whether the Judge erred by ruling that a safeguard notice prohibiting the pushing of cars by locomotives was violated.)

    Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

    Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Sarah L. Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11628 Filed 5-11-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-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 8, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. AmeriBancShares, Inc., Wichita Falls, Texas, and AmeriBancShares, of Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; to merge with Northern Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire First National Bank of Chillicothe, both in Chillicothe, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 8, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11535 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0252; Docket 2015-0001; Sequence 15] General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Preparation, Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans AGENCY:

    Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

    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 regarding preparation, submission, and negotiation of subcontracting plans.

    This information collection will ensure that small and small, disadvantaged business concerns are afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate as subcontractors in negotiated procurements. The Preparation, Submission, and Negotiation of the Subcontracting Plans provision requires for all negotiated solicitations, having an anticipated award value over $650,000 ($1,500,000 for construction), the submission of a subcontracting plan with an offeror's proposal.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: July 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Christina Mullins, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, (202) 969-4066 or email [email protected]

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0252, Preparation, Submission and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans 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 3090-0252, Preparation, Submission and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0252, Preparation, Submission and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans” on your attached document.

    • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0252, Preparation, Submission and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-0252, Preparation, Submission and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans, 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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    The GSAR provision at 552.219-72 requires all offerors, other than small business concerns, responding to a negotiated solicitation to submit a subcontracting plan with their respective offers so that a plan can be negotiated concurrently with other parts of the proposal, including price and any technical and management proposals. The respondents are potential GSA contractors. The provision may be used when the contracting officer believes that the potential contract provides significant opportunities for small businesses as subcontractors. The contracting officer will use the information to evaluate whether GSA's expectation that subcontracting opportunities exist for small businesses is reasonable under the circumstances; negotiate goals consistent with statutory requirements and acquisition objectives; and expedite the award process. The provision is not applicable if an offeror submits a previously-approved commercial subcontracting plan.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 1,440.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Total Annual Responses: 1,440.

    Hours per Response: 12.

    Total Burden Hours: 17,280.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    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. 3090-0252, Preparation, Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Jeffrey A. Koses, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Senior Procurement Executive.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11533 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0044; Docket 2015-0001; Sequence 11] Public Buildings Service; Information Collection; Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453 AGENCY:

    Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration (GSA).

    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 regarding the Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, 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 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453,” on your attached document.

    • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Karen Handsfield, Public Buildings Service, at telephone 202-208-2444, or via email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The general public uses Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, to request the use of public space in Federal buildings and on Federal grounds for cultural, educational, or recreational activities. A copy, sample, or description of any material or item proposed for distribution or display must also accompany this request.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 8,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Hours per Response: 0.05.

    Total Burden Hours: 400.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    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. 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. David A. Shive, Acting Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11530 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0007; Docket 2015-0001; Sequence 4] General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information (GSA Form 527) AGENCY:

    Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

    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 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 regarding Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information (GSA Form 527).

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: July 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Tsujimoto, Program Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Policy, at 202-208-3585, or via email at [email protected]

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0007, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal searching Information Collection 3090-0007. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0007, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0007, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0007, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-0007, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information, 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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    The General Services Administration will be requesting the Office of Management and Budget to extend information collection 3090-0007, concerning GSA Form 527, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information. This form is used to determine the financial capability of prospective contractors as to whether they meet the financial responsibility standards in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.103(a) and 9.104-1 and also the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual 509.105-1.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 2,940.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.2.

    Total Responses: 3,528.

    Hours per Response: 1.5.

    Total Burden Hours: 5,292.

    The estimated annual burden has decreased since GSA's 2012 submission from 8,820 burden hours to 5,292 burden hours to reflect the widespread use of the option for potential contractors to submit financial statements and balance sheets in lieu of completing the applicable fields on GSA Form 527. The alternate submission of financial statements and balance sheets significantly reduces the burden on prospective contractors, as these documents are generally readily available. As such, the average estimated hours to complete a response has been reduced from 2.5 hours per response to 1.5 hours.

    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. 3090-0007, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information (GSA Form 527), in all correspondence.

    Public Comments: Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Jeffrey A. Koses, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11532 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0286; Docket 2015-0001; Sequence 14] General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; GSA Mentor-Protégé Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public 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 a previously approved information collection concerning the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, in the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM).

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0286, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program 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. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0286, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0286, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-0286, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Christina Mullins, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, (202) 969-4066 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The GSA Mentor-Protégé Program is designed to encourage GSA prime contractors to assist small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and HUBZone small businesses in enhancing their capabilities to perform GSA contracts and subcontracts, foster the establishment of long-term business relationships between these small business entities and GSA prime contractors, and increase the overall number of small business entities that receive GSA contract and subcontract awards.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 254.

    Responses per Respondent: 4.

    Total Annual Responses: 1,016.

    Hours per Response: 3.

    Total Burden Hours: 3,048.

    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. 3090-0286, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Jeffrey A. Koses, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy & Senior Procurement Executive.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11525 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-FAS-2015-01; Docket No. 2015-0002; Sequence 11] Modernizing the Federal Supply Schedule Program: Standardization of Part Number Data AGENCY:

    Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) of the General Services Administration (GSA) is publishing this notice in order to clarify the structured data elements required under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program price list clause.

    DATES:

    May 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Denise Alley, Procurement Analyst, FAS Office of Acquisition Management, at [email protected] or 703-605-2756.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The purpose of this notice is to clarify for existing FSS contractors that pursuant to the price list clause: (1.) Manufacturer Part Number (MPN) data is required for all awarded products, and (2.) Universal Product Code Type A (UPC-A) data is required for all awarded products for which this information is commercially available. FSS solicitation instructions have already been updated to clarify MPN and UPC-A data requirements for new offerors. This notice is solely intended to provide clarification for existing FSS contractors.

    FAS plans to begin efforts to obtain this data from existing FSS contractors 45 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Background

    The FAS is embarking on several initiatives to improve the quality of its offerings under the FSS program. A major piece of this effort involves the standardization of part number data in order to improve the quality of the descriptive data available to customers in FSS price lists published on gsaadvantage.gov. The goal is to provide customer agencies with quality, meaningful, complete data to better search and compare products, thereby enhancing competition and saving taxpayer dollars. This endeavor is a critical piece of a larger effort to modernize the FSS program as a whole, under which FAS aims to increase efficiency and effectiveness, facilitate the purchase of total solutions, maximize competition, and promote small business utilization across Government.

    The availability of MPN and UPC-A data improves overall data integrity, encouraging additional business from customers looking for the ability to quickly and accurately compare identical products. The standardization of part number data allows for greater transparency and improved business intelligence that will enable customers to make smarter, data-driven buying decisions. Collectively, these benefits will yield increased customer confidence as GSA works to make the FSS program the Government's premier acquisition vehicle.

    Unaltered MPN data is required for all products, except where the manufacturer has not assigned a part number to identify the item. UPC-A data is required for all products for which this information is commercially available. The FAS performed market research to determine the Federal Supply Schedules and Special Item Numbers (SINs) under which UPC-A data is commercially available—a complete listing can be viewed at http://eoffer.gsa.gov.

    MPN and UPC-A data is widely utilized throughout the commercial marketplace. FSS contractors are simply providing the existing MPN and UPC-A data that is used to classify their awarded FSS products. Many FSS contractors have already provided this data in their price lists. In fact, approximately 8 million MPNs and 1.3 million unique UPC-A codes are currently listed in FSS contractor price lists published on gsaadvantage.gov.

    Obtaining MPN and UPC-A data from existing FSS contractors will allow GSA to acquire baseline information across the contracts already awarded under the FSS program. A bilateral “mass modification” will be distributed by GSA to all contractors with FSS contracts that include products. FSS contractors will be required to sign the modification and provide this data in their price lists within 60 days of distribution.

    FSS contractors that do not provide this data will have noncompliant products “grayed-out” (i.e., no longer accessible/visible) within GSA's customer-facing eTools (GSA Advantage!, eBuy, etc.). In addition, GSA may consider noncompliance when determining whether to exercise the next contract option period. GSA might choose not to exercise the next option period, thereby allowing the contract to expire.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Lisa P. Grant, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Acquisition Management, Federal Acquisition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11534 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-89-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-15AEZ; Docket No. CDC-2015-0028] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection entitled Identification of Behavioral and Clinical Predictors of Early HIV Infection (Project DETECT).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0028 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Identification of Behavioral and Clinical Predictors of Early HIV Infection (Project DETECT)—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) requests a 3-year approval for a new data collection called “Identification of Behavioral and Clinical Predictors of Early HIV Infection (Project DETECT).”

    CDC provides guidelines for HIV testing and diagnosis for the United States, as well as technical guidance for its grantees. CDC will use the HIV testing data collected for this project to update these guidance documents to reflect the latest available testing technologies, their performance characteristics, and considerations regarding their use. Specifically, CDC will describe the information on behavioral and clinical characteristics of persons with early infection to help HIV test providers (including CDC grantees) choose which HIV tests to use, and target tests appropriately to persons at different levels of risk. This information will be disseminated primarily through guidance documents and articles in peer-reviewed journals.

    The primary study population will be persons at high risk for or diagnosed with HIV infection, many of whom will be men who have sex with men (MSM) because the majority of new HIV infections occur each year among this population. The goals of the project are to: (1) characterize the performance of new HIV tests for detecting established and early HIV infection at the point of care, relative to each other and to currently used gold standard, non-POC tests, and (2) identify behavioral and clinical predictors of early HIV infection.

    Project DETECT will enroll 1,667 persons annually at the primary study site clinic in Seattle, and an additional 200 persons will be enrolled from other clinics in the greater Seattle area. The study will be conducted in two phases.

    Phase 1: After a clinic client consents to participate, he/she will be assigned a unique participant ID and will then undergo testing with the seven new HIV tests under study. While awaiting test results, participants will undergo additional specimen collections and complete the Phase 1 Enrollment Survey.

    Phase 2: All Phase 1 participants whose results on the seven tests under investigation are not in agreement with one another (“discordant”) will be considered to have a potential early HIV infection. Nucleic amplification testing that detects viral nucleic acids will be conducted to confirm an HIV diagnosis and rule out false positives. Study investigators expect that each year, 50 participants with discordant test results will be invited to participate in serial follow-up specimen collections to assess the time point at which all HIV test results resolve and become concordant positive (indicating enrollment during early infection) or concordant negative (indicating one or more false-positive test results in Phase 1).

    The follow-up schedule will consist of up to nine visits scheduled at regular intervals over a 70-day period. At each follow-up visit, participants will be tested with the new HIV tests and additional oral fluid and blood specimens will also be collected for storage and use in future HIV test evaluations at CDC. Participants will be followed up only to the point at which all their test results become concordant. At each time point, participants will be asked to complete the Phase 2 HIV Symptom and Care survey that collects information on symptoms associated with early HIV infection as well as access to HIV care and treatment since the last Phase 2 visit. When all tests become concordant (i.e., at the last Phase 2 visit) participants will complete the Phase 2 behavioral survey to identify any behavioral changes during follow-up. Of the 50 Phase 2 participants; it is estimated that no more than 26, annually, will have early HIV infection.

    All data for the proposed information collection will be collected via an electronic Computer Assisted Self-Interview (CASI) survey. Participants will complete the surveys on an encrypted computer, with the exception of the Phase 2 Symptom and Care survey, which will be administered by a research assistant and then electronically entered into the CASI system. Data to be collected via CASI include questions on socio-demographics, medical care, HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis, antiretroviral treatment, sexually transmitted diseases (STD) history, symptoms of early HIV infection, substance use and sexual behavior.

    Data from the surveys will be merged with HIV test results and relevant clinical data using the unique identification (ID) number. Data will be stored on a secure server managed by the University of Washington Department of Medicine Information Technology (IT) Services.

    The participation of respondents is voluntary. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours for the proposed project are 2,111 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Avg. burden per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Persons eligible for study Phase 1 Consent 2,334 1 15/60 584 Enrolled participants Phase 1 Enrollment Survey A 1,667 1 45/60 1,251 Enrolled participants Phase 1 Enrollment Survey B 200 1 1 200 Enrolled participants Phase 2 Consent 50 1 15/60 13 Enrolled participants Phase 2 HIV Symptom and Care Survey 50 9 5/60 38 Enrolled participants Phase 2 Behavioral Survey 50 1 30/60 25 Total 2,111
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11511 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15JX] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS)—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requests a three-year approval for the HIV Outpatient Study data collection activity. The HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS) is a prospective longitudinal cohort of HIV-infected outpatients at nine well-established private HIV care practices and university-based U.S. clinics. Clinical data are abstracted on ongoing basis from the medical records of adult HIV-infected HOPS study participants, who also complete an optional seven minute telephone/web-based behavioral assessment as part of their annual clinic visit.

    Before enrolling in this study, all potential study participants will undergo an informed consent process (including signing of a written informed consent) which is estimated to take 15 minutes.

    The core areas of HOPS research extending through the present HIV treatment era include (i) monitoring death rates and causes of death (ii) characterizing the optimal patient management strategies to reduce HIV-related morbidity and mortality (e.g., effectiveness of antiretroviral therapies and other clinical interventions (iii) monitoring of sexual and drug use behaviors to inform Prevention with Positives, and (iv) investigating disparities in the HIV care continuum by various demographic factors. In recent years, the HOPS has been instrumental in bringing attention to emerging issues in chronic HIV infection with actionable opportunities for prevention, including: cardiovascular disease, fragility fractures, renal and hepatic disease, and cancers. The HOPS remains an important source for multi-year trend data concerning conditions and behaviors for which data are not readily available elsewhere, including: rates of opportunistic illnesses, rates of comorbid conditions (e.g., hypertension, obesity, diabetes) and antiretroviral drug resistance.

    Data will be collected through medical record abstraction by trained abstractors and by telephone or internet-based, computer-assisted interviews at nine funded study sites in six U.S. cities.

    Collection of data abstracted from patient medical records provides data in five general categories: Demographics and risk behaviors for HIV infection; symptoms; diagnosed conditions (definitive and presumptive); medications prescribed (including dose, duration, and reasons for stopping); all laboratory values, including CD4+ T-lymphocyte (CD4+) cell counts, plasma HIV-RNA determinations, and genotype, phenotype, and trophile results. Data on visit frequency, AIDS, and death are acquired from the clinic chart.

    Data collected using a brief Telephone Audio-Computer Assisted Self-Interview (T-ACASI) survey or an identical web-based Audio-Computer Assisted Self-Interview (ACASI) include: Age, sex at birth, use of alcohol and drugs, cigarette smoking, adherence to antiretroviral medications, types of sexual intercourse, condom use, and disclosure of HIV status to partners.

    We estimate consenting 450 new participants per year across all HOPS study sites (50 participants at each of the 9 sites). The consent process takes approximately 15 minutes to complete.

    Medical record abstractions will be completed on all eligible participants. All eligible participants will be offered the opportunity to participate in an optional short survey that will take approximately seven minutes.

    Participation of respondents is voluntary. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The estimated annual burden hours are 405.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Avg. burden per response
  • (in hrs.)
  • HOPS study Patients Behavioral survey 2,500 1 7/60 HOPS Study Patients Consent form 450 1 15/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11510 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-15AHO; Docket No. CDC-2015-0031] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection for a retrospective evaluation of the prevalence of acute flaccid myelitis with MRI grey matter findings among children aged ≤18 years.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0031 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Retrospective evaluation of the prevalence of acute flaccid myelitis with MRI grey matter findings among children aged ≤18 years—NEW—National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Acute onset limb weakness, commonly referred to as acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), is a relatively uncommon syndrome among children. From August-October 2014, several clusters of AFP among children were reported from several states within the United States (U.S.) and an epidemiologic investigation was initiated to elucidate the possible causes of these cases.

    CDC originally collected data under OMB Control Numbers 0920-1011 and 0920-0009. Cases were characterized by distinctive abnormalities on spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in which pathologic changes were largely restricted to the central grey matter of the spinal cord. Due to these findings and to differentiate this illness from other forms of AFP, CDC used the term `acute flaccid myelitis' (AFM).

    The main goal of this study is to obtain data in order to estimate the baseline rate of AFM that is accompanied by MRI changes confined to spinal grey matter among children ≤18 years of age that were seen at six pediatric medical centers in the United States. Data on spinal MRIs from years 2005-2014 will be collected from six sentinel medical centers. Physicians at these medical centers will examine the MRI reports and extract data on specific variables using a database developed by CDC.

    Data will then be sent to CDC, where 2005-2013 data will be compared with 2014 data in order to assess if 2014 rates of AFM were higher than in previous years. Furthermore, this evaluation will provide important information regarding characteristics of patients presenting with AFM and grey matter changes, assist in determining the potential for surveillance focusing on MRI findings because AFM is not routinely conducted in the United States and identify possible risk factors.

    The data will be used to estimate a baseline for the rate of AFM that occurs in the United States each year. This information has not been previously collected, since the U.S. does not collect routine surveillance for AFM/AFP.

    The participation of respondents is voluntary. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours for the proposed project are 4,250 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Avg. burden per response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Physicians Retrospective MRI Assessment for Acute Flaccid Myelitis: Patient Summary Form 6 8,500 5/60 4,250 Total 4,250
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11513 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-0728; Docket No. CDC-2015-0033] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed revision of the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) information collection. The NNDSS is the nation's public health surveillance system that monitors the occurrence and spread of diseases and conditions that are nationally notifiable or under national surveillance.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0033 by any of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (OMB Control No. 0920-0728, Expires 01/31/2017)—Revision—Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Public Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 241) authorizes CDC to disseminate nationally notifiable condition information. The Nationally Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) is based on data collected at the state, territorial and local levels as a result of legislation and regulations in those jurisdictions that require health care providers, medical laboratories, and other entities to submit health-related data on reportable conditions to public health departments. These reportable conditions, which include infectious and non-infectious diseases, vary by jurisdiction depending upon each jurisdiction's health priorities and needs. Infectious disease agents and environmental hazards often cross geographical boundaries. Each year, the Council of State and Territorial Disease Epidemiologists (CSTE), supported by CDC, determines which reportable conditions should be designated nationally notifiable and voluntarily submitted to CDC so that information can be shared across jurisdictional boundaries and both surveillance and prevention and control activities can be coordinated at regional and national levels.

    CDC requests a three-year approval for a revision the NNDSS information collection. This Revision includes requests for approval to receive: (1) Case notification data for Chikungunya, Dengue-like illness, Non-HPS Hantavirus, and Acute Flaccid Myelitis; (2) new laboratory and vaccine data elements for all conditions; and (3) new disease-specific data elements for Mumps, Pertussis, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

    Although this Revision includes case notifications that were not part of the last NNDSS Revision, the estimate of the average burden per response based on the burden tables from all of the consolidated applications has not changed. The burden on the states and cities is estimated to be 10 hours per response and the burden on the territories is estimated to be 5 hours per response. The addition of new vaccine, laboratory, and disease-specific data elements do not add any additional burden because the states, territories, and cities already collect those data elements. There will be no increase in burden for the states, territories, and cities to send those data elements to CDC. The estimated annual burden is 28,340 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Avg. burden per response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • States Weekly and Annual 50 52 10 26,000 Territories Weekly and Annual 5 52 5 1,300 Cities Weekly and Annual 2 52 10 1,040 Total 28,340
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11514 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60 Day-15-15AGK; Docket No. CDC-2015-0032] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a new information collection request entitled, “Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to HIV prevention for Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” to conduct qualitative research with most at risk HIV-negative MSM. The research is intended to understand issues surrounding HIV risk for MSM, identify influences of high risk behaviors and to investigate risk management and resiliency among HIV-negative MSM.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0032 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to HIV prevention for Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (Pulse Study)—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP)/Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) is requesting approval for one year of a data collection entitled, “Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to HIV prevention for Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM).” The purpose of this study is to conduct primarily qualitative research with most at risk HIV-negative MSM. There are four goals to this study: (1) Understand issues surrounding HIV risk for MSM; (2) learn more about how gay community or peer norms, and community identification influence risk behaviors; (3) understand individual HIV risk management, such as having an HIV-positive partner with suppressed viral load, barriers and facilitators for use of biomedical interventions (i.e., pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP); and (4) understand factors that promote resiliency among HIV-negative MSM.

    The present research will be conducted in the top five Southern metropolitan areas in the United States with the highest HIV diagnoses for MSM—Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. These cities rank among those in the South with the highest prevalence and incidence of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among black/African American and Hispanic/Latino MSM.

    The study population will consist of black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino (1) male adolescents who are attracted to men and report they are HIV negative or have not been tested and (2) adult MSM who are recently tested and verified as HIV-negative.

    All study participants will be 13 years of age or older. Participants will be recruited in the selected cities through referrals from Health Departments, clinics and other HIV testing centers. In addition, we will recruit via word-of-mouth referrals or flyers given out by community-based, advocacy, faith-based, and service-providing agencies.

    Primarily, we will use a qualitative research design and will include a brief quantitative survey to reduce participant burden where possible (for example, when we do not need to know an in-depth answer for socio-demographics, HIV testing history, housing status, health insurance status). The first portion of the interview instrument consists of brief structured questions to characterize the respondents. The second portion of the instrument consists of open-ended in-depth qualitative questions. This research design was chosen based on the exploratory nature of our study purpose.

    All data collection tools will be pre-tested and interviews conducted by trained personnel. The data collection will take place at a time and place that is convenient to the respondent. Locations will be private. Data collection may be audio-recorded and transcribed with the consent of the respondent.

    We anticipate that consent forms and screener forms to take five minutes to complete each. We anticipate 50 percent of HIV-negative MSM screened will be eligible for the study. The brief structured survey (15 minutes) and in-depth interview (45 minutes) for HIV-negative MSM are expected to take a total of 60 minutes (1 hour) total. We will complete interviews for 105 black/African-American and 45 Hispanic/Latino HIV-negative MSM at greatest risk for HIV in high prevalence cities in the U.S. South. We anticipate screening 300 potential respondents. The total number of burden hours are 192.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM Screener—English 210 1 5/60 18 General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM Screener—Spanish 90 1 5/60 8 General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM Contact Information Form—English 105 1 1/60 2 General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM Contact Information Form—Spanish 45 1 1/60 1 General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM Consent Form—English 95 1 5/60 8 General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM Consent Form—Spanish 35 1 5/60 3 General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM Assent for Minors Form—English 10 1 3/60 1 General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM Assent for Minors Form—Spanish 10 1 3/60 1 General Public—Adults HIV-negative MSM In-Depth Interview Guide—English 105 1 1 105 General Public—Adults HIV-negative In-Depth Interview Guide—Spanish 45 1 1 45 Total 192
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11512 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-0404] Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order; Draft Guidance for Tobacco Retailers; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for tobacco retailers entitled “Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order.” The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking with respect to imposing no-tobacco-sale orders (NTSOs) on retailers who have committed repeated violations of certain restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products. This draft guidance discusses, among other things, the period of time covered by an NTSO and a retailer's compliance with an NTSO.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the draft guidance may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the draft guidance.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft 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. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colleen Maschal, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 1-877-287-1373, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On June 22, 2009, President Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to give FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Section 906(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387f(d)) authorizes FDA to issue regulations that restrict the sale and distribution of tobacco products if FDA determines such regulations would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. Section 303(f)(8) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 333(f)(8)) authorizes FDA to impose an NTSO against a person found to have committed repeated violations, at a particular retail outlet, of restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products issued under section 906(d) of the FD&C Act, such as FDA's “Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents” (21 CFR part 1140). The term “no-tobacco-sale order” refers to an order prohibiting the sale of tobacco products at a retail outlet indefinitely or for a specified period of time under section 303(f)(8) of the FD&C Act. A “repeated violation” means “at least 5 violations of particular requirements over a 36-month period at a particular retail outlet that constitute a repeated violation . . .” (section 103(q)(1)(A) of the Tobacco Control Act).

    FDA conducts inspections of retail outlets to evaluate compliance with the requirements of the FD&C Act and implementing regulations. This draft guidance discusses the period of time to be covered by an NTSO where there is evidence of “repeated violations” at a particular retail outlet. It also discusses a retailer's compliance with an NTSO. This draft guidance is meant to supplement FDA's guidances entitled “Civil Money Penalties and No-Tobacco-Sale Orders for Tobacco Retailers” and “Civil Money Penalties for Tobacco Retailers and No-Tobacco-Sale Orders: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions.”

    II. Significance of Draft Guidance

    FDA is issuing this draft guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking with respect to the period of time to be covered by NTSOs and retailers' compliance with NTSOs. 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.

    III. Requests for Comments A. General Information About Submitting Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). 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.

    B. Public Availability of Comments

    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. As a matter of Agency practice, FDA generally does not post comments submitted by individuals in their individual capacity on http://www.regulations.gov. This is determined by information indicating that the submission is written by an individual, for example, the comment is identified with the category “Individual Consumer” under the field titled “Category (Required),” on the “Your Information” page on http://www.regulations.gov. For this docket, however, FDA will not be following this general practice. Instead, FDA will post on http://www.regulations.gov comments to this docket that have been submitted by individuals in their individual capacity. If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, please refer to 21 CFR 10.20.

    C. Information Identifying the Person Submitting the Comment

    Please note that your name, contact information, and other information identifying you will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov if you include that information in the body of your comments. For electronic comments submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, FDA will post the body of your comment on http://www.regulations.gov along with your state/province and country (if provided), the name of your representative (if any), and the category identifying you (e.g., individual, consumer, academic, industry). For written submissions submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post the body of your comments on http://www.regulations.gov, but you can put your name and/or contact information on a separate cover sheet and not in the body of your comments.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the draft guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11538 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1246] Investigational Enzyme Replacement Therapy Products: Nonclinical Assessment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Investigational Enzyme Replacement Therapy Products: Nonclinical Assessment.” This draft guidance is intended to advise the sponsors and individuals involved in the design and implementation of nonclinical studies on the substance and scope of nonclinical information needed to support first-in-human clinical trials, ongoing clinical development, and eventual approval of enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) products for the treatment of rare, life-threatening conditions.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft 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:

    Sushanta Chakder, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5108, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0861.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Investigational Enzyme Replacement Therapy Products: Nonclinical Assessment.”

    This draft guidance provides sponsors and individuals involved in the design and implementation of nonclinical studies with recommendations on the nonclinical information needed to support initiation of clinical trials, ongoing clinical development, and eventual licensure or approval for investigational ERT products. The recommendations in this guidance are applicable to ERT products indicated for lysosomal storage diseases or other diseases related to inborn errors of metabolism.

    Because of the wide array of clinical indications, natural history of disease, and product types, no single nonclinical program can be designed to address all ERT products, and a case-by-case approach to both toxicological evaluation and clinical development is warranted to optimize and expedite drug development. Common nonclinical issues, such as the number of animal species needed for safety assessment, selection of animal models and duration of the toxicology studies needed to support first-in-human trials, and nonclinical study requirements for ultimate licensure or market approval of the ERT product, are addressed in this guidance.

    This guidance is intended as an adjunct to the ICH guidances for industry entitled “M3(R2) Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals,” “M3(R2) Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals—Questions and Answers,” and “S6 Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals.”

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on nonclinical assessment of investigational ERT products. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014, and the information collection in the regulations on good laboratory practice for nonclinical laboratory studies (21 CFR part 58) is approved under OMB control number 0910-0119.

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). 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 document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11539 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1339] Determination That SODIUM SULAMYD (sulfacetamide sodium) Ophthalmic Solution and Ophthalmic Ointment Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the products as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Hopkins, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6223, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5418, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, a drug is removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

    Under § 314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved, (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been approved, and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the listed drug.

    FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the table in this document are no longer being marketed. (As requested by the applicant, FDA withdrew approval of NDA 005963 for SODIUM SULAMYD (sulfacetamide sodium) Ophthalmic Solution and Ophthalmic Ointment in the Federal Register of August 16, 2001 (66 FR 43017)).

    Application No. Drug Applicant NDA 005963 SODIUM SULAMYD (sulfacetamide sodium) Ophthalmic Solution 10%, Ophthalmic Solution 30%, and Ophthalmic Ointment 10% Schering Plough Corp., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd., Kenilworth, NJ 07033.

    FDA has reviewed its records and, under § 314.161, has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug products listed in this document in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” identifies, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.

    Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDA listed in this document are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to this NDA. Additional ANDAs that refer to these products may also be approved by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11529 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0312] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Extra Label Drug Use in Animals AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled, “Extra Label Drug Use in Animals” 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 18, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Extra Label Drug Use in Animals” 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 0910-0325. 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 6, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11526 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0611] Biosimilars: Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Biosimilars: Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.” This draft guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions from sponsors interested in developing proposed biosimilar products, biologics license application (BLA) holders, and other interested parties regarding FDA's interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act). This guidance revises the draft guidance entitled “Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009,” issued February 15, 2012, to provide new and revised questions and answers (Q&As).

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft 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:

    Sandra Benton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6340, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1042, or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Biosimilars: Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.” This draft guidance provides answers to common questions from sponsors interested in developing proposed biosimilar products, BLA holders, and other interested parties regarding FDA's interpretation of the BPCI Act. This guidance revises the draft guidance entitled “Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009,” issued February 15, 2012, to provide new and revised Q&As. It also includes certain original Q&As that have not yet been finalized.

    The BPCI Act, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) on March 23, 2010, created an abbreviated licensure pathway under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) for biological products demonstrated to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference product. This draft guidance describes FDA's current interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCI Act and includes Q&As in the following categories:

    • Biosimilarity or Interchangeability

    • Provisions Related to Requirement to Submit a BLA for a “Biological Product”

    • Exclusivity

    The Q&A format is intended to promote transparency and facilitate development programs for proposed biosimilar products by addressing questions that may arise in the early stages of development. In addition, these Q&As respond to questions the Agency has received from prospective BLA and new drug application (NDA) applicants regarding the appropriate statutory authority under which certain products will be regulated.

    In the Federal Register of February 15, 2012 (77 FR 8885), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.” Although interested parties can comment on any guidance at any time, to ensure that the Agency considered comments on the draft guidance before beginning work on the final version of the guidance, FDA requested that interested parties submit comments by April 16, 2012. FDA's consideration of these comments, among other things, is reflected in this revised draft guidance (which provides new and revised Q&As) and the final guidance. This revised draft guidance describes the status of the draft guidance Q&As provided in this revised draft guidance and the status of the final guidance Q&As that are included in the guidance entitled “Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.” FDA intends to update these guidances to include additional Q&As as appropriate.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). 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.

    III. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The submission of an investigational new drug application is covered under 21 CFR part 312 and approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0014. The submission of an NDA is covered under 21 CFR 314.50 and approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0001. The submission of a BLA under section 351(a) of the PHS Act is covered under part 601 (21 CFR part 601) and approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0338. The submission of a BLA under section 351(k) of the PHS Act is covered under part 601 and approved under OMB control number 0910-0719.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11528 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2000-D-0598 (Formerly 2000D-1631)] International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH GL23(R)); Studies To Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Genotoxicity Testing; Revised Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a revised guidance for industry (GFI) #116 entitled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Genotoxicity Testing” (VICH GL23(R)). This revised guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). In this VICH guidance, the recommendation for a second test to evaluate the potential of a chemical to produce chromosomal effects is revised. The revised guidance indicates that the potential of a chemical to produce chromosomal effects can be evaluated using one of the following three tests: (1) An in vitro chromosomal aberrations test using metaphase analysis, which detects both clastogenicity and aneugenicity; (2) an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test, which detects the activity of clastogenicity and aneugenicity; or (3) a mouse lymphoma test, which, with modification, can detect both gene mutation and chromosomal damage. This revised VICH guidance document is intended to facilitate the mutual acceptance of safety data necessary for the establishment of acceptable daily intakes for veterinary drug residues in human food by the relevant regulatory authorities.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidance at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the revised guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the revised guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the revised 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:

    Tong Zhou, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-153), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0826, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based, harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify, and then reduce, differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.

    FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.

    The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency, European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products, FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.

    Six observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of Canada, one representative from the industry of Canada, one representative from the government of South Africa, and one representative from the industry of South Africa. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.

    In the Federal Register of March 5, 2013 (78 FR 14306), FDA published a notice of availability for a draft revised guidance document entitled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Genotoxicity Testing” (VICH GL23(R)) giving interested persons until May 6, 2013, to comment on the draft revised guidance. FDA received one comment on the draft revised guidance, and that comment, as well as those received by other VICH member regulatory agencies, were considered as the guidance was finalized. The guidance announced in this document finalizes the draft revised guidance dated March 5, 2013. The revised guidance is a product of the Safety Expert Working Group of the VICH.

    This revised VICH guidance document recommends a second test to evaluate the potential of a chemical to produce chromosomal effects. The revised VICH guidance indicates that the potential of a chemical to produce chromosomal effects can be evaluated using one of the following three tests: (1) An in vitro chromosomal aberrations test using metaphase analysis, which detects both clastogenicity and aneugenicity; (2) an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test, which detects the activity of clastogenicity and aneugenicity; or (3) a mouse lymphoma test, which, with modification, can detect both gene mutation and chromosomal damage. This revised VICH guidance is intended to facilitate the mutual acceptance of safety data necessary for the establishment of acceptable daily intakes for veterinary drug residues in human food by the relevant regulatory authorities. The objective of this revised VICH guidance is to ensure international harmonization of genotoxicity testing.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance, developed under the VICH process, is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.

    IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). 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.

    VI. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the revised guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 7, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11527 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0128] Prescription Drug User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; request for comments

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing a public meeting on the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) for fiscal years (FYs) 2018 through 2022. PDUFA authorizes FDA to collect user fees for the process for the review of human drugs. The current legislative authority for PDUFA expires in September 2017. At that time, new legislation will be required for FDA to continue collecting user fees in future fiscal years. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that FDA begin the PDUFA reauthorization process by publishing a notice in the Federal Register requesting public input and holding a public meeting where the public may present its views on the reauthorization. FDA invites public comment as the Agency begins the process to reauthorize the program in FYs 2018-2022.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on July 15, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by June 30, 2015. See section III.B for information on how to register for the meeting. Submit either electronic or written comments by August 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, Sections B and C of the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    Submit electronic comments 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. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    Transcripts of the meeting will be available on the FDA Web site (http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM2005475.htm) approximately 30 days after the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Graham Thompson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1146, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5003, FAX: 301-847-8443.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    FDA is announcing a public meeting to begin the reauthorization process of PDUFA, the legislation that authorizes FDA to collect user fees for the process for the review of human drugs by various components in FDA including the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Office of the Commissioner, and the Office of Regulatory Affairs. The current authorization of the program (PDUFA V) expires in September 2017. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer be able to collect user fees for future fiscal years to fund the human drug review process. Section 736B(d)(2) (21 U.S.C. 379h-2(d)(2)) of the FD&C Act requires that before FDA begins negotiations with the regulated industry on PDUFA reauthorization, we do the following: (1) Publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting public input on the reauthorization, (2) hold a public meeting where the public may present its views on the reauthorization, (3) provide a period of 30 days after the public meeting to obtain written comments from the public, and (4) publish the comments on the FDA Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, the public meeting, the 30-day comment period after the meeting, and the posting of the comments on the FDA Web site will satisfy these requirements. The purpose of the meeting is to hear stakeholder views on PDUFA as we consider the features to propose, update, and discontinue in the next PDUFA. FDA is interested in responses to the following three questions and welcomes any other pertinent information stakeholders would like to share:

    • What is your assessment of the overall performance of PDUFA V thus far?

    • What current features of PDUFA should be reduced or discontinued to ensure the continued efficiency and effectiveness of the human drug review process?

    • What new features should FDA consider adding to the program to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the human drug review process?

    The following information is provided to help potential meeting participants better understand the history and evolution of PDUFA and its current status.

    II. What is PDUFA? What does it do?

    PDUFA is a law that authorizes FDA to collect fees from drug companies that submit marketing applications for certain human drug and biological products. PDUFA was originally enacted in 1992 as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (Pub. L. 102-571) for a period of 5 years. In 1997, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA, Pub. L. 105-115) which reauthorized the program (PDUFA II) for an additional 5 years. In 2002, Congress extended PDUFA again through FY 2007 (PDUFA III) in the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-188). In 2007, Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA, Pub. L. 110-85) reauthorized PDUFA through FY 2012 (PDUFA IV). Most recently, PDUFA was reauthorized through FY 2017 (PDUFA V) as Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA, Pub. L. 112-144).

    PDUFA's intent is to provide additional revenues so that FDA can hire more staff, improve systems, and establish a better managed human drug review process to make important therapies available to patients sooner without compromising review quality or FDA's high standards for safety, efficacy, and quality. As part of FDA's agreement with industry during each reauthorization, the Agency agrees to certain performance goals. These goals apply to the process for the review of original new human drug and biological product applications, resubmissions of original applications, and supplements to approved applications. During the first few years of PDUFA I, the additional funding enabled FDA to eliminate backlogs of original applications and supplements. Phased in over the 5 years of PDUFA I, the goals were to review and act on 90 percent of priority new drug applications (NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), and efficacy supplements within 6 months of submission of a complete application; to review and act on 90 percent of standard original NDAs, BLAs, and efficacy supplements within 12 months, and to review and act on resubmissions and manufacturing supplements within 6 months. Over the course of PDUFA I, FDA exceeded all of these performance goals and significantly reduced median review times of both priority and standard NDAs and BLAs.

    Under PDUFA II, the review performance goals were shortened and new procedural goals were added to improve FDA's interactions with industry sponsors and to help facilitate the drug development process. The procedural goals, for example, articulated timeframes for scheduling sponsor-requested meetings intended to address issues or questions regarding specific drug development programs, as well as timeframes for the timely response to industry-submitted questions on special study protocols. FDA met or exceeded nearly all of the review and procedural goals under PDUFA II. However, concerns grew that overworked review teams often had to return applications as “approvable” because they did not have the resources and sufficient staff time to work with the sponsors to resolve issues so that applications could be approved in the first review cycle.

    A sound financial footing and support for limited postmarket risk management were key themes of PDUFA III. Base user fee resources were significantly increased and a mechanism to account for changes in human drug review workload was adopted. PDUFA III also expanded the scope of user fee activities to include postmarket surveillance of new therapies for up to 3 years after marketing approval. FDA committed to the development of guidance for industry on risk assessment, risk management, and pharmacovigilance as well as guidance to review staff and industry on Good Review Management Principles and Practices (GRMPs). Initiatives to improve application submission and Agency-sponsor interactions during the drug development and application review processes were also adopted.

    With PDUFA's reauthorization under FDAAA Title I (PDUFA IV), FDA obtained a significant increase in base fee funding and committed to full implementation of GRMPs, which includes providing a planned review timeline for premarket review, development of new guidance for industry on innovative clinical trials, modernization of postmarket safety, and elimination of the 3-year limitation on fee support for postmarket surveillance. Additional provisions in FDAAA (Titles IV, V, and IX) gave FDA additional statutory authority that increased the pre- and postmarket review process requirements, added new deadlines, and effectively increased review workload. Specifically, the new provisions expanded FDA's drug safety authorities such as the authority to require risk evaluation mitigation strategies (REMS), order safety labeling changes, and require postmarket studies.

    With the current authorization of PDUFA under Title I of FDASIA, FDA implemented a new review program (“the Program”) to promote greater transparency and increase communication between the FDA review team and the applicant on the most innovative products reviewed by the Agency. The Program applies to all new molecular entity (NME) NDAs and original BLAs received by the Agency from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2017. The Program adds new opportunities for communication between the FDA review team and the applicant during review of a marketing application, including mid-cycle communications and late-cycle meetings, while adding 60 days to the review clock to provide for this increased interaction and to address review issues for these complex applications. PDUFA V also required two assessments of the impact of the Program. The first of these, the interim assessment, is available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM436448.pdf.

    In addition to continued commitment to a significant set of review, processing, and procedural goals, PDUFA V also included commitments related to enhancing regulatory science and expediting drug development, enhancing benefit-risk assessment in regulatory decisionmaking, modernizing the FDA drug safety system, and improving the efficiency of human drug review by requiring electronic submissions and standardization of electronic drug application data. The PDUFA V Commitment Letter (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM270412.pdf) requires that FDA report on the progress in satisfying these commitments in the annual PDUFA performance report. The FY 2014 report can be found at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UserFeeReports/PerformanceReports/ucm440180.htm. More information about FDA's implementation of PDUFA V can also be found at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm272170.htm. Key Federal Register documents, PDUFA-related guidances, performance reports, and financial reports can also be found at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/default.htm.

    III. Public Meeting Information A. Purpose and Scope of the Meeting

    Through this notice, FDA is announcing a public meeting to hear stakeholder views on what features the Agency should propose in the reauthorization of PDUFA for FYs 2018-2022. In general, the meeting format most likely will include presentations by FDA and a series of panels representing different stakeholder groups. We will also provide an opportunity for other stakeholders to provide public comment at the meeting. FDA policy issues are beyond the scope of these reauthorization discussions. Accordingly, the presentations should focus on process enhancements and funding issues, and not focus on policy issues.

    Please consider the following questions for this meeting:

    • What is your assessment of the overall performance of PDUFA V thus far?

    • What new features should FDA consider adding to the program to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the human drug review process?

    • What current features of PDUFA should be reduced or discontinued to ensure the continued efficiency and effectiveness of the human drug review process?

    B. Meeting Attendance and Participation

    We will conduct the meeting on July 15, 2015, at Building 31 of the FDA White Oak Campus (see ADDRESSES). If you wish to attend this meeting, visit http://pdufapublicmeeting.eventbrite.com. Please register by June 30, 2015. If you are unable to attend the meeting in person, you can register to view a live Web cast of the meeting. You will be asked to indicate in your registration if you plan to attend in person or via the Web cast. Your registration must also contain your complete contact information, including name, title, affiliation, address, email address, and phone number. Seating will be limited, so early registration is recommended. Registration is free and will be on a first-come, first-served basis. However, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization based on space limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once their registrations have been accepted. Onsite registration on the day of the meeting will be based on space availability. If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact Graham Thompson (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days before the meeting.

    In addition, any person may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). 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. To ensure consideration, all comments must be received by August 15, 2015.

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM2005475.htm.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11537 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1306] Dose Finding of Small Molecule Oncology Drugs; Public Workshop AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in cosponsorship with the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), is announcing a public workshop entitled “Dose Finding of Small Molecule Oncology Drugs.” The purpose of this 2-day workshop is to provide an interdisciplinary forum to discuss the best practices of dose finding and dose selection for small molecule kinase inhibitors developed for oncology indications. The goal is to foster robust scientific discussion to promote a movement away from the conventional 3+3 dose escalation trial design and move toward innovative designs that can potentially incorporate key clinical, pharmacologic, and pharmacometric data and, when appropriate, nonclinical information to guide dose selection. Ideally, this workshop will propel a movement toward integrating dose finding into the entire life cycle of product development as opposed to confining it to the Phase 1, first-in-human trial based on short-term safety measures.

    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on May 18 and 19, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20001, 202-628-2100.

    Contact Persons: Rasika Kalamegham, American Association for Cancer Research, 1425 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20005, 267-765-1029, [email protected]; and Christine Lincoln, Office of Hematology and Oncology Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002, [email protected]

    Registration: Registration is free and available on a first-come, first-served basis. You must register online by May 14, 2015, 5 p.m. Registration will be handled through AACR. Early registration is recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permits, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7 a.m.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Washington Court Hotel no later than May 14, 2015.

    To register for the public workshop, visit https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WTM2Z57. Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, email, and telephone number. Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been accepted. Registrants will be notified if they are on a waiting list.

    Streaming Audiocast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will also be available via audiocast. Persons interested in accessing the audiocast must register online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WTM2Z57. FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register. Early registration is recommended because audiocast connections are limited. Organizations are requested to register all participants but to listen using one connection per location. After registration, participants will be sent technical system requirements and connection access information after May 14, 2015.

    Comments: FDA is holding this public workshop to provide an interdisciplinary forum to discuss the best practices of dose finding and dose selection for small molecule kinase inhibitors developed for oncology indications. To permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of the public workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is June 18, 2015.

    Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, you may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 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.

    Transcript: As soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments). A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857. A link to the transcript will also be available approximately 45 days after the public workshop at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. Select this public workshop from the posted events list.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Since the approval of imatinib in 2001, FDA has approved 26 small molecule kinase inhibitors for the treatment of oncology indications. For the first several small molecule kinase inhibitors in development, it was common to see multiple dose-finding trials that evaluated multiple dose levels and dosing schedules. As additional small molecule kinase inhibitors entered clinical trials and the familiarity with this class of drugs increased, the number of dose-finding trials for each compound reduced in number. Although this may appear to be a product of increased efficiency in trial design and dose finding, proper doses or dose ranges appear to not have been identified for approved products, as evident by the high prevalence of dose reductions observed in registration trials and the high frequency of postmarketing requirements to study alternative doses. In some cases, critical cross-disciplinary information does not appear to be integrated into the dose-finding process. Given the recent history of approvals based on the results of early phase trials driven by extraordinary efficacy data, the incentive for conducting rigorous dose-finding trials may not be overtly apparent. However, the increasing need for the development of combination therapy due to resistance to monotherapy and poor tolerance of approved dosing regimens underscores the need for a more efficient process of dose selection in the early stages of study design.

    II. Summary

    FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the AACR agree to cosponsor a workshop focusing on providing a forum for discussion of best practices on dose finding of small molecule oncology drugs. The workshop will be held May 18 and 19, 2015, and is expected to include between 10 to 13 panelists and speakers (including a moderator) per each of the 4 sessions and will be open to the public.

    III. Purpose

    The purpose of this 2-day workshop is to provide an interdisciplinary forum to discuss the best practices of dose finding and dose selection for small molecule kinase inhibitors developed for oncology indications. The goal is to foster robust scientific discussion to promote a movement away from the conventional 3+3 dose escalation trial design and move toward adaptive designs that can potentially incorporate key clinical, pharmacologic, and pharmacometric data and, when appropriate, nonclinical information to guide dose selection. Ideally, this workshop will propel a movement toward integrating dose finding into the entire life cycle of product development as opposed to confining it to the Phase 1, first-in-human trial based on short-term safety measures.

    IV. Goals and Scope

    1. To identify key best practices in the nonclinical evaluation of a compound, including, but not limited to, selectivity, pharmacology, secondary pharmacology, and toxicology.

    2. To assess whether nonclinical information can be incorporated into the statistical assumptions of an adaptive dose-finding trial.

    3. To discuss the best practices of integrating human pharmacokinetic and pharmacometric data, including drug interaction, when appropriate, into dose-finding studies.

    4. To assess how drug exposure can be integrated into the statistical assumptions of an adaptive dose-finding trial and to assess whether evolving exposure data can be adapted into an ongoing trial.

    5. To discuss barriers in moving away from 3+3 designs toward adaptive designs and to encourage creative dose-finding trial designs that can replace the conventional 3+3 dose-finding study, where appropriate.

    6. To shift from conducting a large single-arm drug trial with the maximum tolerated dose based on a 28-day window to identify tolerable, biologically effective doses for confirmatory trials through prudent search of doses based on safety, efficacy, and patient tolerability.

    7. To discuss potential regulatory implications of dose-finding studies, including, but not limited to, product labeling of dose ranges, dose titration, and postmarketing studies.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11536 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Administration for Children and Families Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) announce plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA and ACF seek comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or mail the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Room 10C-03, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email [email protected] or call the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Quarterly Data Request.

    OMB No.: 0906-xxxx—New.

    Abstract: The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), administered by HRSA in close partnership with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), supports voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services during pregnancy and to parents with young children up to kindergarten entry. States and tribal entities are eligible to receive funding from the MIECHV Program and have the flexibility to tailor the program to serve the specific needs of their communities.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: In order to continuously monitor and provide oversight and quality improvement guidance and technical assistance to Home Visiting Program grantees, HHS is seeking to collect two categories of information: Service Utilization Data and Corrective Action Benchmark Data.

    Service Utilization Data is made up of four data categories:

    (1) Program Capacity: HHS is seeking to collect information related to the overall home visiting service capacity in number of families that grantees are able to provide to the communities they work in, the actual capacity being utilized at certain points in time, as well as updates of home visiting enrollment in number of families.

    (2) Place-Based Services: HHS is seeking to collect information about the geographic areas where home visiting services are being provided. Specifically, data on zip code and locally defined communities are being requested from Home Visiting Program grantees in order to allow grantees an opportunity to provide data about geographic areas that are most salient to their respective programs. Currently, HHS has the authority to collect information related to service area zip code on an annual basis (OMB-0915-0357, expiration 7/31/2017). HHS plans to allow the grantee to describe the service community at the neighborhood, town, or city level where services are provided based on their judgment of local salience, rather than solely at the county level, which is how geographic services are currently reported.

    (3) Family Engagement: Currently HHS has the authority to collect information related to family engagement (attrition) on an annual basis (OMB-0915-0357, expiration 7/31/2017). However, HHS has learned through grants monitoring and technical assistance efforts that family engagement is an ongoing and complex issue for home visiting service providers. In order to monitor grantee performance and target technical assistance efforts most effectively, HHS is seeking to collect information on family engagement on a more frequent basis. HHS proposes that in addition to annual reporting, Home Visiting Program grantees will report quarterly on the existing family engagement metrics they are required to submit. These metrics are currently defined as the number of participants currently receiving services who have completed the program, who stopped services before completion, and other participants.

    (4) Staff Recruitment and Retention: HHS is seeking to collect information related to the number of home visitors and other support staff who are currently employed directly or through sub-contracted grant funds. Staff recruitment and retention is a key component to the successful delivery of home visiting services and to maximizing the number of cases each local implementing agency can reach. Home Visiting Program grantees will report quarterly the actual number of staff and current vacancies in three categories: Home visitors, program administration, and support staff.

    Corrective Action Benchmark Data is made up of one category of data: Corrective Action Constructs. Home Visiting Program grantees who have not shown improvement in four of six Benchmark areas after 3 years of grant funding are statutorily required to complete corrective action plans, subject to approval by the Secretary, in order to show how they plan to achieve improvement in deficient areas. Currently HHS collects information related to selected Benchmark areas from all Home Visiting Program grantees on an annual basis (OMB-0915-0357, expiration 7/31/2017). In order to monitor grantee improvement toward meeting these Benchmarks, HHS is seeking to collect information from grantees on implementation of their corrective action plans on a more frequent basis. HHS proposes that grantees with corrective action plans report on a quarterly basis for the Benchmark measures for which they were deemed as not showing improvement. It is estimated that approximately 15 grantees per year will require this more frequent reporting.

    This information will be used to monitor and provide continued oversight for grantee performance and to target technical assistance resources to grantees.

    Likely Respondents: Home Visiting Program grantees.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Service Utilization Data: Service Utilization Data—Formula Grants 56 4 224 24 5,376 Service Utilization Data—Competitive Grants 44 4 176 24 4,224 Service Utilization Data—Tribal Grants 25 4 100 24 2,400 Corrective Action Benchmark Data: Corrective Action Constructs—MIECHV Grants 10 4 40 40 1,600 Corrective Action Constructs—Tribal Grants 5 4 20 40 800 Total 140 560 14,400

    HHS 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.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat. Linda K. Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary and Inter-Departmental Liaison for Early Childhood Development, Administration for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11547 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees From the Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet, Illinois, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    NIOSH gives notice of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet, Illinois, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority:

    42 CFR 83.9-83.12.

    Pursuant to 42 CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

    Facility: Blockson Chemical Company.

    Location: Joliet, Illinois.

    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All workers who worked in any area.

    Period of Employment: July 1, 1960 through December 31, 1991.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11471 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will hold a meeting on June 9-10, 2015. The meeting is open to the public. However, pre-registration is required for both public attendance and public comment. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should register at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac. Participants may also register by emailing [email protected] or by calling 202-690-5566 and providing their name, organization, and email address.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 9-10, 2015. The meeting times and agenda will be posted on the NVAC Web site at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac as soon as they become available.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    The meeting can also be accessed through a live webcast the day of the meeting. For more information, visit http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/upcomingmeetings/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715-H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The NVAC was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.

    The June NVAC meeting will include the presentation of recommendations from several of the NVAC working groups for deliberation and vote. The Vaccine Confidence Working Group will present their report and recommendations for measuring and evaluating how confidence in vaccines impacts the optimal use of recommended childhood vaccines in the United States. Following an update on current efforts by national stakeholders to improve Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine uptake among adolescents, the HPV working group will also present their report and recommendations identifying existing best practices to increase the use of the HPV vaccine in young adolescents. NVAC will review analyses and proposed recommendations on how vaccines could play more prominently in efforts described in the President's National Strategy and Action Plan to Combat Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria.

    An overview of the Vaccine Safety Research Agenda that was released on the NVPO Web site in February 2015 will also be provided. The Vaccine Safety Research Agenda outlines the efforts of federal agencies on vaccine safety and the ongoing and planned associated scientific activities and interagency coordination that contribute to the safety system. Informational presentations will also be provided to inform NVAC members of recent developments impacting the vaccine landscape including Congressional efforts to support the research and development of new vaccine products through the 21st Century Cures Initiative. More information on the meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the NVAC Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac.

    Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the National Vaccine Program Office at the address/phone listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/upcomingmeetings/index.html.

    Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods designated on the agenda. Public comments made during the meeting will be limited to three minutes per person to ensure time is allotted for all those wishing to speak. Individuals are also welcome to submit their written comments. Written comments should not exceed three pages in length. Individuals submitting written comments should email their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office ([email protected]) at least five business days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: May 4, 2015. Bruce Gellin, Executive Secretary, National Vaccine Advisory Committee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Director, National Vaccine Program Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11476 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-44-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Determination Concerning a Petition To Add a Class of Employees To the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice of a determination concerning a petition to add a class of employees from the St. Louis Airport Storage Site (SLAPS) in St. Louis, Missouri, to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-47, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority:

    [42U.S.C.7384q].

    On April 9, 2015, the Secretary of HHS determined that the following class of employees does not meet the statutory criteria for addition to the SEC as authorized under EEOICPA:

    All employees of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the St. Louis Airport Storage Site in St. Louis, Missouri, from November 3, 1971, through December 31, 1973, and from January 1, 1984,through December 31, 1998.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11475 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK DEM Fellowship Grant Review.

    Date: May 31-June 2, 2015.

    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Georgetown Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Carol J. Goter-Robinson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 748, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7791, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict SEP.

    Date: June 5, 2015.

    Time: 7:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Xiaodu Guo, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 761, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-4719, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-12-265: NIDDK Ancillary Studies (R01).

    Date: June 11, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jian Yang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 755, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7799, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; GPCR Signaling in Bone Program Project (PO1).

    Date: June 16, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dianne Camp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 756, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-594-7682, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Limited Competition for the Continuation of the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (Collaborative U01).

    Date: June 22, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dianne Camp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 756, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-594-7682, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 8, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11560 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.

    Date: June 9-10, 2015.

    Time: June 9, 2015, 12:00 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.

    Agenda: The NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) will review and discuss selected human gene transfer protocols and related data management activities. For more information, please check the meeting agenda at OBA Meetings Page (available at the following URL: http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-biotechnology-activities/event/2015-06-09-160000-2015-06-10-210000/rac-meeting).

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Conference Room E1/E2, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Time: June 10, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: The NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) will be holding a workshop to discuss Cytokine Release Syndrome after T Cell Immunotherapy. The focus of this workshop will be to review CRS experiences and establish a uniform definition, develop grading criteria, and optimize management strategies for CRS. For more information, please check the meeting agenda at OBA Meetings Page (available at the following URL: http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-biotechnology-activities/event/2015-06-09-160000-2015-06-10-210000/rac-meeting).

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Conference Room E1/E2, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Chris Nice, Program Assistant, Office of Biotechnology Activities, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9838, [email protected]

    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: http://oba.od.nih.gov/rdna/rdna.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    OMB's “Mandatory Information Requirements for Federal Assistance Program Announcements” (45 FR 39592, June 11, 1980) requires a statement concerning the official government programs contained in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Normally NIH lists in its announcements the number and title of affected individual programs for the guidance of the public. Because the guidance in this notice covers virtually every NIH and Federal research program in which DNA recombinant molecule techniques could be used, it has been determined not to be cost effective or in the public interest to attempt to list these programs. Such a list would likely require several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain that every Federal program would be included as many Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, both national and international, have elected to follow the NIH Guidelines. In lieu of the individual program listing, NIH invites readers to direct questions to the information address above about whether individual programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are affected.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 7, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11473 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed 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: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Virology—B Study Section.

    Date: June 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: John C. Pugh, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1206, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2398, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Bioinformatics in Surgical Sciences,;Imaging and Independent Living.

    Date: June 8, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Crowne Plaza Chicago Metro, 733 West Madison, Chicago, IL 60661.

    Contact Person: Guo Feng Xu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5122, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-9870, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Neurotoxicology and Alcohol Study Section.

    Date: June 8, 2015

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Maggiano's Little Italy, 5333 Wisconsin Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Christine Melchior, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5176, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1713, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health.

    Date: June 8, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Ping Wu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, HDM IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3166, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8428, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group; Psychosocial Risk and Disease Prevention Study Section.

    Date: June 8-9, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Stacey FitzSimmons, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3114, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-9956, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences Integrated Review Group; Arthritis, Connective Tissue and Skin Study Section.

    Date: June 8-9, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Westin Dallas Park Central, 12720 Merit Drive, Dallas, TX 75251.

    Contact Person: Aftab A. Ansari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4108, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-9931, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Vascular and Hematology Integrated Review Group; Vascular Cell and Molecular Biology Study Section.

    Date: June 8-9, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Fairmont Washington, DC, Georgetown, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Larry Pinkus, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4132, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1214, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Macromolecular Structure and Function A Study Section.

    Date: June 9-10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Washington, DC, Dupont Circle, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Nitsa Rosenzweig, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4152, MSC 7760, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 404-7419, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Kidney Molecular Biology and Genitourinary Organ Development.

    Date: June 9, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Kinzie Hotel, 20 West Kinzie Street, Chicago, IL 60654.

    Contact Person: Ryan G. Morris, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4205, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1501, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Somatosensory and Chemosensory Systems Study Section.

    Date: June 9-10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: M. Catherine Bennett, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5182, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1766, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Macromolecular Structure and Function D Study Section.

    Date: June 9, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: James W. Mack, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4154, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2037, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Emerging Technologies and Training Neurosciences Integrated Review Group; Neuroscience and Ophthalmic Imaging Technologies Study Section.

    Date: June 9-10, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Mayflower Park Hotel, 405 Olive Way, Seattle, WA 98101.

    Contact Person: Yvonne Bennett, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5199, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-379-3793, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 8, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11561 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; 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: Neurological Sciences Training Initial Review Group NST-1 Subcommittee.

    Date: May 11-12, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Raul A. Saavedra, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, BRAIN: Technologies for Large-Scale Recording.

    Date: July 9-10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Shanta Rajaram, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-435-6033, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 7, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11464 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed 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 materials, 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 Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel NIH Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00).

    Date: June 4, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Hiromi Ono, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4238, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6020, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel NIH Summer Research Experience Programs (R25).

    Date: June 4, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Hiromi Ono, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4238, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6020, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Exploratory Studies of Smoking Cessation Interventions for People with Schizophrenia (R21/R33).

    Date: June 18, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jagadeesh S. Rao, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4234, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 02892, 301-443-9511, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Integration of Infectious Diseases and Substance Abuse Intervention Services for Individuals Living with HIV (R01).

    Date: July 7, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Hiromi Ono, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4238, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6020, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 7, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11477 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed 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: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel, MD15-005, NIH, Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) Enhancing Diversity in Biomedical Data Science.

    Date: May 29, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20814, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Delia Olufokunbi Sam, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0684, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the intramural research review cycle.

    Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences, Integrated Review Group Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering Study Section.

    Date: June 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Baljit S Moonga, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1777, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Alcohol.

    Date: June 2, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Michael Selmanoff, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5164, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1119, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Population Sciences and Epidemiology Integrated Review Group, Infectious Diseases, Reproductive Health, Asthma and Pulmonary Conditions, Study Section.

    Date: June 4-5, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Pier 2620 Hotel Fisherman's Wharf, 2620 Jones Street, San Francisco, CA 94133.

    Contact Person: Lisa Steele, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 257-2638, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group, Basic Mechanisms of Cancer Therapeutics Study Section.

    Date: June 8-9, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Lambratu Rahman Sesay, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3493, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cancer Drug Development and Therapeutics.

    Date: June 9-10, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Lilia Topol, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6192, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0131, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, AREA: Oncological Sciences Grant Applications.

    Date: June 9, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sally A Mulhern, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-5877, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group, Cardiovascular Differentiation and Development Study Section.

    Date: June 10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Monaco Alexandria, 480 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Sara Ahlgren, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, RM 4136, Bethesda, MD 20817-7814, 301-435-0904, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group, Integrative Nutrition and Metabolic Processes Study Section.

    Date: June 10-11, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Gregory S Shelness, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, RKL2 BG RM 6156, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Bethesda, MD 20892-7892, (301) 435-0492, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group, Surgery, Anesthesiology and Trauma Study Section.

    Date: June 10-11, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda:To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Denver Hotel, 3801 Quebec St., Denver, CO 80207.

    Contact Person: Weihua Luo, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5114, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1170, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group, Genomics, Computational Biology and Technology Study Section.

    Date: June 10-11, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Row Hotel, 2015 Massachusetts Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Barbara J Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2218, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0603, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group Aging Systems and Geriatrics Study Section.

    Date: June 10-11, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Inn of Chicago, 162 East Ohio Street, Chicago, IL 60611.

    Contact Person: Inese Z. Beitins, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6152, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1034, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR13-137: Bioengineering Research.

    Date: June 10, 2015.

    Time: 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Mayflower Park Hotel, 405 Olive Way, Seattle, WA 98101.

    Contact Person: Yvonne Bennett, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5199, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-379-3793, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Integrative Nutrition and Metabolic Processes.

    Date: June 10, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Gary Hunnicutt, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6164, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0229, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 7, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11472 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Council of Research Advocates.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Council of Research Advocates.

    Date: June 10, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: NCI Update, Introduction to NCI and Discussion of Major NCI Initiatives, Working Group Updates.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, C-Wing, Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Kelley Landy, NCI Office of Advocacy Relations, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Room 10A28, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3194, [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: deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncra/ncra.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 7, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11466 Filed 5-12-15; 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 Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, Presbycusis and Neural Bases.

    Date: July 8, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute On Aging, National Institutes Of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7700, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 7, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11465 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0092] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessels and Certificate of Use AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessels and Certificate of Use (CBP Form 5125). CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before July 13, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessels and Certificate of Use.

    OMB Number: 1651-0092.

    Form Number: CBP Form 5125.

    Abstract: CBP Form 5125, Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessel and Certificate of Use, is used to request the permission of the CBP port director for the withdrawal and lading of bonded merchandise (especially alcoholic beverages) for use on board fishing vessels involved in international trade. The applicant must certify on CBP Form 5125 that supplies on board were either consumed, or that all unused quantities remain on board and are adequately secured for use on the next voyage. CBP uses this form to collect information such as the name and identification number of the vessel, ports of departure and destination, and information about the crew members. The information collected on this form is authorized by Section 1309 and 1317 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and is provided for by 19 CFR 10.59(e) and 10.65, and 27 CFR 290. CBP Form 5125 is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%205125.pdf.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Carriers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 500.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 165.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11542 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4210-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4210-DR), dated March 31, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 31, 2015.

    Fayette, Mercer, and Tucker Counties for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11499 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4215-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Georgia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4215-DR), dated April 20, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 20, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 20, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Georgia resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of February 15-17, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Georgia.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Benigno Bern Ruiz, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Banks, Barrow, Dawson, Elbert, Forsyth, Franklin, Habersham, Hall, Jackson, Lumpkin, Madison, Oglethorpe, Pickens, Stephens, and White Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Georgia are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11497 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1506] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: April 22, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and Case No. Chief executive officer
  • of community
  • Community map
  • repository
  • Online location of letter of
  • map revision
  • Effective date of
  • modification
  • Community
  • No.
  • California: Alameda City of Alameda, (14-09-4034P) The Honorable Trish Herrera Spencer, Mayor, City of Alameda, City Hall, 2236 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 Public Works Deparment, 950 West Mall Square, Alameda, CA 94501 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. June 24, 2015 060002 San Diego City of San Marcos (14-09-3620P) The Honorable Jim Desmond, Mayor, City of San Marcos, 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 920691 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 13, 2015 060296 Idaho: Valley (Unincorporated Areas) (15-10-0326P) The Honorable Gordon Cruickshank, Chairman, Valley County Board of Commissioners, 219 North Main Street, Cascade, ID 83611 County Building Officials Office, Courthouse Annex, 108 West Spring Street, Cascade, ID 84611 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 10, 2015 160220 Illinois: Adams City of Quincy (14-05-9237P) The Honorable Kyle Moore, Mayor, City of Quincy, 730 Maine Street, Quincy, IL 62301 Quincy City Hall, 730 Maine Street, Quincy, IL 62301 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 7, 2015 170003 Adams (Unincorporated Areas) (14-05-9237P) The Honorable Les Post, Adams County Chairman, 101 North 54th Street, Quincy, IL 62305 Adams County Highway Department, 101 North 54th Street, Quincy, IL 62305 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 7, 2015 170001 McHenry Village of Johnsburg (14-05-5961P) The Honorable Edwin P. Hettermann, President, Village of Johnsburg, 1515 Channel Beach Avenue, Johnsburg, IL 60051 1515 West Channel Beach Avenue, Johnsburg, IL 60050 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 14, 2015 170486 Iowa: Black Hawk City of Cedar Falls (14-07-2387P) The Honorable Jon Crews, Mayor, City of Cedar Falls, 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, IA 50613 220 Clay Street, 220 Clay Street, IA 50613 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 15, 2015 190017 Poweshiek (Unincorporated Areas) (15-07-0505P) The Honorable Lamoyne Gaard, Chairman, Poweshiek County Board of Supervisors, 931 Summer Street, Grinnell, IA 50112 PO Box 297, 4802 Barnes City Road, Montezuma, IA 50112 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 16, 2015 190902 Ohio: Hocking City of Logan (14-05-9281P) The Honorable J. Martin Irvine, Mayor, City of Logan, 10 South Mulberry Street, Logan, OH 43138 10 S. Mulberry Street, Logan, OH 43138 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 13, 2015 390274 Hocking (Unincorporated Areas) (14-05-9281P) Mr. Larry Dicken, County Commissioner, Hocking County, 1 East Main Street, Logan, OH 43138 88 South Market Street, Logan, OH 43138 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 13, 2015 390272 Warren City of Mason (14-05-9134P) The Honorable David Nichols, Mayor, City of Mason, 6000 Mason-Montgomery Road, Mason, OH 45040 6000 Mason-Montgomery Road, Mason, OH 45040. http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc July 6, 2015 390559 Massachusetts: Barnstable Town of Barnstable (15-01-0831P) The Honorable Jessica Rapp Grassetti, Council President, Barnstable Town Council, Barnstable Town Hall, 367 Main Street, Hyannis, MA 02601 1019 Main Street, Branford, CT 06405 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc July 17, 2015 250001 Norfolk City of Quincy (15-01-0275P) The Honorable Thomas P. Koch, Mayor, City of Quincy, Quincy City Hall, 1305 Hancock Street, Quincy, MA 02169. 1305 Hancock Street, Quincy, MA 02169. http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc July 17, 2015 255219 Wisconsin: Washington (Unincorporated Areas) (15-05-0254P) The Honorable Herbert J. Tennies, Chairperson, Washington County, Courthouse Government Center, 432 East Washington Street, Suite 3029, West Bend, WI 53095 432 East Washington Street, West Bend, WI 53095 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 1, 2015 550471 Washington Village of Newburg (15-05-0254P) The Honorable William R. Sackett, President, Village of Newburg, Post Office Box 50, 614 Main Street, Newburg, WI 53060 614 Main Street, Newburg, WI 53060 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. July 1, 2015 550056
    [FR Doc. 2015-11500 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4211-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Tennessee; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4211-DR), dated April 2, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 2, 2015.

    Hardin County for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11498 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0020] Homeland Security Advisory Council—Task Force Name Change AGENCY:

    The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Homeland Security Advisory Council Employee Morale Task Force name change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Jeh Johnson tasked his Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) to establish a DHS Employee Morale Task Force on Thursday, October 9, 2014. This notice informs the public of a change in name from DHS Employee Morale Task Force to DHS Employee Task Force. The underlying tasking to the Task Force from Secretary Johnson, as published in the Federal Register, [Docket No. DHS-2014-0045], shall remain unchanged.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Walls, Director, Homeland Security Advisory Council at 202-447-3135 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Homeland Security Advisory Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, and actionable advice and recommendations for the consideration of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The Homeland Security Advisory Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, state and local government, the private sector, and academia.

    Tasking

    The underlying tasking from Secretary Johnson, as published in the Federal Register, [Docket No. DHS-2014-0045], shall remain unchanged. As such, the DHS Employee Task Force (formally referred to as the DHS Employee Morale Task Force) should develop findings and recommendations in the following topic areas. The DHS Employee Task Force should address, among other closely related topics, the following questions: (1) What are the core or root causes of continued low morale in the Department of Homeland Security? (2) How can DHS strengthen its leadership cadre, in order to both enhance mission effectiveness and also increase employee morale? (3) How can DHS work as a whole, across the agency components, to recognize their distinct cultures and build a greater sense of belonging and improve employee morale? (4) Referencing the 2007 HSAC DHS Morale Assessment: which of those recommendations were successfully implemented? For those items that were not but still remain relevant, what changes should be made to increase the likelihood of successful implementation and organizational adoption?

    Schedule

    The DHS Employee Task Force's findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Homeland Security Advisory Council for their deliberation and vote during a public meeting. Once the report is approved it will be sent to the Secretary for his review and acceptance.

    Dated: April 30, 2015. Sarah E. Morgenthau, Executive Director, Homeland Security Advisory Council, DHS.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11505 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9M-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0005] RIN 1601-ZA15 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards; Guidance for the Expedited Approval Program AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), is issuing guidance to comply with the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (the Act). The Act amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require DHS to issue guidance for an Expedited Approval Program that identifies specific security measures sufficient to meet risk-based performance standards established as part of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulations.

    DATES:

    The Guidance for the Expedited Approval Program is effective on June 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice, the Expedited Approval Program, or the guidance document for the Expedited Approval Program, call or email David Wulf, Director, DHS/NPPD/IP/ISCD at [email protected] or via phone at 703-235-5263. Questions may also be directed to Director Wulf by mail at 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528-0610. Questions that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI),1 Sensitive Security Information (SSI),2 or Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) 3 should be properly safeguarded.

    1 For more information about CVI see 6 CFR 27.400 and the CVI Procedural Manual at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_cvi_proceduresmanual.pdf.

    2 For more information about SSI see 49 CFR part 1520 and the SSI Program Web page at http://www.tsa.gov/stakeholders/sensitive-security-information-ssi.

    3 For more information about PCII see 6 CFR part 29 and the PCII Program Web page at http://www.dhs.gov/protected-critical-infrastructure-information-pcii-program.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Viewing Material. The Expedited Approval Program guidance may be found as part of docket DHS-2015-0005 by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting DHS-2015-0005 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.” The Expedited Approval Program guidance may also be found on www.dhs.gov/chemicalsecurity.

    Authority and Background

    On December 18, 2014, the President signed into law the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (the Act) (Pub. L. 113-254). The Act amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296) to re-codify and reauthorize the CFATS program and add new provisions to the program while preserving most of the existing CFATS regulations.4 DHS is issuing guidance to comply with section 2102(c)(4)(B) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which specifically requires the Secretary to issue guidance for an Expedited Approval Program that identifies specific security measures that are sufficient to meet the risk based performance standards established as part of CFATS. Section 2102(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires the Secretary to issue this guidance within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act (June 16, 2015).

    4 Section 2 of the Act added a new Title XXI to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Title XXI contains new sections numbered 2101 through 2109. Citations to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 throughout this document reference those sections of Title XXI.

    Overview of the Guidance for the CFATS Expedited Approval Program

    Section 2102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, among other actions, modifies CFATS by adding a new process by which a high-risk chemical facility, currently assigned to (risk-based) Tier 3 or Tier 4 by DHS, can meet its regulatory requirement to draft and implement a Site Security Plan. Section 2102(c)(4) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 labels this new process the “Expedited Approval Program.”

    Participation in the Expedited Approval Program is optional for Tier 3 and Tier 4 chemical facilities. If a Tier 3 or Tier 4 chemical facility opts not to participate in the Expedited Approval Program, it must comply with the other CFATS requirements for submission of a Site Security Plan (or an Alternative Security Program) to DHS for review, and for implementation of the submitted plan. See generally 6 CFR part 27, subpart B (describing requirements for submission and implementation of Site Security Plans and Alternative Security Programs outside of the Expedited Approval Program). Under the Expedited Approval Program, a Tier 3 or Tier 4 chemical facility may submit a Site Security Plan to DHS, which must either follow the prescriptive measures described in the guidance document announced by this Notice of Availability, or the Tier 3 or Tier 4 chemical facility must certify that any material deviations from the guidance meet the risk-based performance standards contained in CFATS.5 If a Tier 3 or Tier 4 chemical facility chooses to submit a Site Security Plan in accordance with the guidance, DHS can review the Site Security Plan for facial deficiency within 100 days after the date on which the Plan is received by DHS, as outlined in section 2102(c)(4)(G)(i) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. DHS will subsequently monitor facilities' compliance with their Site Security Plans in accordance with this guidance through inspections and audits conducted under CFATS.

    5 The CFATS risk-based performance standards are described at 6 CFR 27.230.

    Exemption From Administrative Procedure Act Requirements

    Section 2102(c)(4)(B)(iii)(I) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides that the Secretary is exempt from the requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, if the Secretary issues the guidance on or before June 16, 2015. Accordingly, DHS is issuing this guidance without regard to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

    Exemption From the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Section 2102(c)(4)(B)(iii)(II) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides that the Secretary is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Subchapter I, if the Secretary issues the guidance on or before June 16, 2015. Accordingly, DHS is issuing guidance without regard to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Issuance of Agency Guidance for the Expedited Approval Program

    Section 2102(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 directs the Department to issue prescriptive guidance for chemical facilities that choose to submit Site Security Plans as part of an Expedited Approval Program that “identifies specific security measures that are sufficient to meet the risk-based performance standards.” The Expedited Approval Program guidance may be found on www.dhs.gov/chemicalsecurity and is also available in the docket.

    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and section 2102(c)(4) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 622(c)(4)).

    Suzanne Spaulding, Under Secretary, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11503 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) Program AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0062, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision to the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). TSA has combined two previously-approved ICRs (1652-0061 and 1652-0062) into this single request to simplify the collection, increase transparency, and reduce duplication. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on February 11, 2015 at 80 FR 7623. The collection allows TSA to conduct transportation security-related assessments during site visits with surface transportation security and operating officials.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by June 12, 2015. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) Program.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0062 (Combining 1652-0061 and 1652-0062).

    Forms(s): Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) electronic checklist.

    Affected Public: Highway transportation asset owners and operators, and public transportation agencies, including mass transit bus, rail transit, long-distance rail, and other, less common types of service (cable cars, inclined planes, funiculars, and automated guide way systems).

    Abstract: TSA's BASE program works with existing and new transportation operators to identify their current security posture, to identify security gaps, and to implement countermeasures throughout the surface modes of transportation by asking established questions with major transportation asset owners and operators. Data and results collected through the BASE program will inform TSA's policy and program initiatives and allow TSA to provide focused resources and tools to enhance the overall security posture within the surface transportation community.

    Number of Respondents: 890.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 9,440 hours annually (Public Transportation—6,440 hours; Highway—3,000 hours).

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11506 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5867-FA-01] Announcement of Funding Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of funding awards.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding awards made by the Department to public housing agencies (PHA) in FY 2014 under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. This announcement lists the names, addresses, and amount of the awards to PHAs for non-competitive funding awards for housing conversion actions, public housing relocations and replacements, moderate rehabilitation replacements, and HOPE VI voucher awards.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Milan Ozdinec, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Housing Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4204, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone number 202-402-1380. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-927-7589.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The regulations governing the HCV program are located at 24 CFR 982. The regulations for allocating housing assistance budget authority under Section 213(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 are located at 24 CFR part 791, subpart D.

    The purpose of the rental assistance program is to assist eligible families pay their rent for decent, safe, and sanitary housing. The FY 2014 awardees announced in this announcement were provided HCV program tenant protection vouchers (TPVs) funds on an as-needed, non-competitive basis, i.e., not consistent with the provisions of a Notice of Funding Availability. TPV awards made to PHAs for program actions that displace families living in public housing were made on a first-come, first-served basis in accordance with PIH Notice 2007-10, Voucher Funding in Connection with the Demolition or Disposition of Occupied Public Housing Units,1 and PIH Notice 2014-05, Implementation of the Federal Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Provision for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.2 Awards for the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) were provided for Rental Supplement and Rental Assistance Payment Projects (RAD component #2) consistent with PIH Notice 2012-32.3 Announcements of funding awards provided under the NOFA process for Mainstream, Designated Housing, Family Unification (FUP), and Veterans Assistance Supportive Housing (VASH) programs will be published in a separate Federal Register notice.

    1http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_11380.pdf.

    2http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=PIHHCVFundImplNotice031814.pdf.

    3http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=pih2012-32rev1.pdf.

    Awards published under this notice were provided (1) to assist families living in HUD-owned properties that are being sold; (2) to assist families affected by the expiration or termination of their Project-based Section 8 and Moderate Rehabilitation contracts; (3) to assist families in properties where the owner has prepaid the HUD mortgage; (4) to assist families in projects where the Rental Supplement and Rental Assistance Payments contracts are expiring (Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD—Second Component); (5) to provide relocation housing assistance in connection with the demolition of public housing; (6) to provide replacement housing assistance for single room occupancy (SRO) units that fail housing quality standards (HQS); (7) to assist families in public housing developments that are scheduled for demolition in connection with a HUD-approved HOPE VI revitalization or demolition grant, and (8) to assist families consistent with PIH Notice 2013-08 4 and 2014-04, Funding for Tenant Protection Voucher for Certain At-Risk Households in Low Vacancy Areas.5

    4http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=pih2013-08.pdf.

    5http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=14-04pihn.pdf.

    A special administrative fee of $200 per occupied unit was provided to PHAs to compensate for any extraordinary HCV program administrative costs associated with the Multifamily Housing conversion action(s).

    The Department awarded total new budget authority of $115,915,271 for 14,503 housing choice vouchers to recipients under all of the above-mentioned categories. This budget authority includes $620,266 of unobligated commitments made in FY 2013. These funds were reserved by September 30, 2013, but not contracted until FY 2014, and thus have been included with obligated commitments for FY 2014.

    In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of those awards as shown in Appendix A alphabetically by State then by PHA name.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Indian Housing. Appendix A—Section 8 Rental Assistance Programs Announcement of Awards for Fiscal Year 2014 Housing agency Address Units Award Special Fees Special Fees for At-Risk Households CA: CITY OF BERKELEY HA 1901 FAIRVIEW ST, BERKELEY, CA 94703 0 $6,800 CA: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HA 505 WEST JULIAN ST, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 0 1,400 CA: SAN DIEGO HSG COMM 1122 BROADWAY, STE 300, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 0 1,000 CA: HA OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE 3203 LEAHY WAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94550 0 800 CA: CITY OF BALDWIN PARK HA 14403 PACIFIC AVE, BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706 0 3,200 CT: CONNECTICUT DEPT OF HOUSING 505 HUDSON ST, HARTFORD, CT 06106 0 25,200 FL: MIAMI DADE HA 701 NW 1ST COURT, 16TH FL, MIAMI, FL 33136 0 34,200 IL: CHICAGO HA 60 EAST VAN BUREN ST, 11TH FL, CHICAGO, IL 60605 0 12,400 NH: NASHUA HA 40 EAST PEARL ST, 1ST FL, NASHUA, NH 03060 0 400 NH: CONCORD HA 10 FERRY ST, STE 302, CONCORD, NH 03301 0 4,200 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORP 38-40 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12207 0 36,800 Total for Special Fees—At-Risk Households 0 126,400 Special Fees for Opt-Outs/Terminations AK: AK HSG FINANCE CORP PO BOX 101020, ANCHORAGE, AK 99510 0 14,800 AR: SPRINGDALE HA PO BOX 2085, SPRINGDALE, AR 72765 0 2,400 AR: HA OF THE CITY OF SILOAM P2802 HWY 412 EAST, SILOAM SPRINGS, AR 72761 0 2,000 CA: CITY OF LOS ANGELES HA 2600 WILSHIRE BLVD, 3RD FL, LOS ANGELES, CA 90057 0 200 CA: SAN DIEGO HSG COMM 1122 BROADWAY, STE 300, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 0 6,400 CA: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HCD 3989 RUFFIN RD, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 0 4,800 CA: CITY OF POMONA HA 505 S. GAREY AVE, POMONA, CA 91769 0 600 CA: CITY OF OCEANSIDE COMM DEV 300 N. COAST HWY NEVADA ST ANNEX, OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 0 2,400 CO: LOVELAND HA 375 W. 37TH ST, #200, LOVELAND, CO 80538 0 2,400 CO: FORT COLLINS HA 1715 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 0 10,000 CT: BRIDGEPORT HA 150 HIGHLAND AVE, BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 0 1,800 CT: CONNECTICUT DEPT OF HOUSING 505 HUDSON ST, HARTFORD, CT 06106 0 3,800 GA: HA OF CITY OF JONESBORO 203 HIGHTOWER ST, JONESBORO, GA 30237 0 7,400 IA: FORT DODGE HOUSING AGENCY 700 SOUTH 17TH ST, FORT DODGE, IA 50501 0 2,200 IA: MASON CITY HA 22 N. GEORGIA, STE 214, MASON CITY, IA 50401 0 2,200 IA: SOUTHERN IOWA REG HA 219 N PINE, CRESTON, IA 50801 0 3,200 IA: MARSHALLTOWN LRHA 24 NORTH CENTER ST, MARSHALLTOWN, IA 50158 0 3,000 IA: MID IOWA REGIONAL HOUSING 1605 1ST AVE NORTH, STE 1, FORT DODGE, IA 50501 0 5,400 IL: HA OF HENRY 125 N. CHESTNUT ST, KEWANEE, IL 61443 0 1,800 IN: INDIANAPOLIS HA 1919 N. MERIDIAN ST, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 0 8,600 KS: FORD COUNTY HA PO BOX 1636, DODGE CITY, KS 67801 0 800 MA: WORCESTER HA 40 BELMONT ST, WORCESTER, MA 01605 0 5,200 MA: PLYMOUTH HA POB 3537, PLYMOUTH, MA 02361 0 2,200 MA: MASSACHUSETTS DHCD 100 CAMBRIDGE ST, BOSTON, MA 02114 0 11,200 MD: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHARLES 8190 PORT TOBACCO RD, PORT TOBACCO, MD 20677 0 3,600 MD: BALTIMORE CO. HOUSING OFFICE 6401 YORK RD, 1 ST FL, BALTIMORE, MD 21212 0 7,200 ME: MAINE STATE HA 353 WATER ST, AUGUSTA, ME 04330 0 1,200 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG DEV AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 0 76,000 MN: ST. CLOUD HRA 1225 WEST ST. GERMAIN, ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 0 1,400 MN: NW MN MULTI-COUNTY HRA PO BOX 128, MENTOR, MN 56736 0 1,800 MO: ST. LOUIS HA 3520 PAGE BLVD, ST. LOUIS, MO 63106 0 9,200 MS: HA OF TENNESSEE VALLEY PO BOX 132, CORINTH, MS 38834 0 4,600 MT: BUTTE HA 220 CURTIS ST, BUTTE, MT 59701 0 6,600 MT: MT DEPT OF COMMERCE 301 S. PARK, HELENA, MT 59620 0 3,600 NC: GREENSBORO HA PO BOX 21287, GREENSBORO, NC 27420 0 4,000 ND: STUTSMAN COUNTY HA 217 1ST AVE NORTH, JAMESTOWN, ND 58401 0 5,000 ND: BARNES COUNTY HA 120 12TH STREET NW., VALLEY CITY, ND 58072 0 9,800 NE: FREMONT HA 2510 NORTH CLARKSON, STE #100, FREMONT, NE 68025 0 1,400 NY: TOWN OF ISLIP HA 963 MONTAUK HWY, OAKDALE, NY 11769 0 1,600 NY: TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN DOH ONE INDEPENDENCE HILL, FARMINGVILLE, NY 11738 0 17,200 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORP 38-40 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12207 0 1,600 OH: COLUMBUS METRO HA 880 EAST 11TH AVE, COLUMBUS, OH 43211 0 4,600 OH: CINCINNATI METRO HA 16 WEST CENTRAL PKWK, CINCINNATI, OH 45210 0 2,000 OR: HSG & COMM SERV AGENCY OF LANE 177 DAY ISLAND RD, EUGENE, OR 97401 0 5,400 RQ: MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN PO BOX 36-2138, SAN JUAN, PR 00936 0 1,600 RQ: MUNICIPALITY OF BAYAMON PO 1588, BAYAMON, PR 00960 0 9,200 SC: HA OF GREENWOOD PO BOX 973, GREENWOOD, SC 29648 0 1,600 SD: PIERRE HSG & REDEV COMM 301 W. PLEASANT AVE, PIERRE, SD 57501 0 2,400 SD: YANKTON HSG & REDEV COMM PO BOX 176, YANKTON, SD 57078 0 800 TX: TARRANT COUNTY HOUSING 2100 CIRCLE DR, STE 200, FORT WORTH, TX 76119 0 6,000 TX: HA OF ODESSA 124 E. SECOND ST, ODESSA, TX 79761 0 10,200 TX: TYLER HA 213 N. BONNER, TYLER, TX 75710 0 7,800 VA: RICHMOND REDEV & HA 901 CHAMBERLAYNE PKWY, RICHMOND, VA 23220 0 4,000 VA: DANVILLE REDEV & HA 651 CARDINAL PLACE, DANVILLE, VA 24541 0 11,200 VA: LYNCHBURG REDEV & HA 918 COMMERCE ST, LYNCHBURG, VA 24505 0 17,200 VA: VIRGINIA HSG DEV AUTH 601 SOUTH BELVIDERE ST, RICHMOND, VA 23220 0 20,000 WA: SEATTLE HA 120 SIXTH AVE NORTH, SEATTLE, WA 98109 0 3,800 WA: KING COUNTY HA 600 ANDOVER PARK WEST, SEATTLE, WA 98188 0 21,000 WA: HA OF SNOHOMISH 12625 4TH AVE W, STE 200, EVERETT, WA 98204 0 7,200 WA: SPOKANE HA WEST 55 MISSION ST, STE 104, SPOKANE, WA 99201 0 17,000 WI: MILWAUKEE COUNTY HA 2711 W WELLS ST, RM 102, MILWAUKEE, WI 53208 0 5,600 WI: WISCONSIN HSG & ECON DEV AUTH PO BOX 1728, MADISON, WI 53701 0 12,600 WV: PARKERSBURG HA 1901 CAMERON AVE, PARKERSBURG, WV 26101 0 1,000 Total for Special Fees—Opt-Outs/Terminations 0 432,800 Special Fees for Property Disposition Relocation IA: CITY OF DES MOINES MUNICIPAL 100 EAST EUCLID, STE 101, DES MOINES, IA 50313 0 1,000 Total for Special Fees—Property Disposition Relocation 0 1,000 Special Fees for Prepayment AL: HA OF SELMA PO BOX 950, SELMA, AL 36702 0 3,600 CA: CITY OF FRESNO HA 1331 FULTON MALL, FRESNO, CA 93776 0 1,200 CA: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO HA 801 12TH ST, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 0 13,800 CA: COUNTY OF FRESNO HA 1331 FULTON MALL, FRESNO, CA 93776 0 9,600 CA: COUNTY OF MONTEREY HA 123 RICO ST, SALINAS, CA 93907 0 19,200 CA: CITY OF FAIRFIELD HA 823-B JEFFERSON ST, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 0 6,200 CO: HA OF CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER 777 GRANT ST, DENVER, CO 80203 0 5,600 DC: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HA 1133 NORTH CAPITOL ST, NE., WASHINGTON, DC 20002 0 2,000 ID: HA OF THE CITY OF POCATELLO PO BOX 4161, POCATELLO, ID 83205 0 8,600 ID: IDAHO HFA 565 W MYRTLE ST, BOISE, ID 83707 0 4,600 IL: CHICAGO HA 60 EAST VAN BUREN ST, 11TH FL, CHICAGO, IL 60605 0 80,000 IL: MCLEAN COUNTY HA 104 EAST WOOD ST, BLOOMINGTON, IL 61701 0 19,200 IN: HA OF CITY OF EVANSVILLE 500 COURT ST, EVANSVILLE, IN 47708 0 8,000 KY: SOMERSET HA PO BOX 449, SOMERSET, KY 42501 0 12,200 KY: HOPKINSVILLE HA 400 NORTH ELM ST, HOPKINSVILLE, KY 42240 0 16,000 KY: CUMBERLAND VALLEY HA PO BOX 806, BARBOURVILLE, KY 40906 0 1,200 MA: CAMBRIDGE HA 675 MASSACHUSETTS AVE, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 0 93,800 MA: HOLYOKE HA 475 MAPLE ST, HOLYOKE, MA 01040 0 24,200 MA: NORTH ADAMS HA 150 ASHLAND ST, NORTH ADAMS, MA 01247 0 11,600 MA: GREENFIELD HA ONE ELM TERRACE, GREENFIELD TOWN, MA 01301 0 15,200 MA: COMM DEV PROG COMM OF 100 CAMBRIDGE ST, BOSTON, MA 02114 0 23,600 MD: HA OF BALTIMORE 417 EAST FAYETTE ST, BALTIMORE, MD 21201 0 34,000 MD: MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOC 10400 DETRICK AVE, KENSINGTON, MD 20895 0 28,800 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG DEV AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 0 82,600 MN: MINNEAPOLIS PHA 1001 WASHINGTON AVE NORTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 0 3,800 MN: CROOKSTON HSG AND ECONOMIC 110 SARGENT ST, CROOKSTON, MN 56716 0 5,400 MN: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HRA 390 ROBERT ST NORTH, ST. PAUL, MN 55101 0 17,000 MO: HA OF KANSAS 920 MAIN ST, STE 701, KANSAS CITY, MO 64106 0 17,400 NJ: ATLANTIC CITY HA 227 VERMONT AVE, ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 08401 0 20,800 NY: HA OF UTICA CITY 509 SECOND ST, UTICA, NY 13501 0 28,200 NY: ALBANY HA 200 SOUTH PEARL, ALBANY, NY 12202 0 21,000 NY: HA OF ROCHESTER 675 WEST MAIN ST, ROCHESTER, NY 14611 0 37,600 NY: WHITE PLAINS HA 223 DR MARTIN L KING JR BLVD, WHITE PLAINS, NY 10601 0 11,600 NY: HA OF ITHACA 800 S PLAIN ST, ITHACA, NY 14850 0 13,800 NY: HA OF AUBURN 20 THORNTON AVE, AUBURN, NY 13021 0 27,400 NY: NEW YORK DHPD 100 GOLD ST, RM 501, NEW YORK, NY 10038 0 198,000 NY: CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS COMM DEV 1022 MAIN ST, NIAGARA FALLS, NY 14301 0 20,200 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORP 38-40 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12207 0 11,800 OH: CUYAHOGA MHA 8120 KINSMAN RD, CLEVELAND, OH 44104 0 27,000 OH: WAYNE MHA 345 NORTH MARKET ST, WOOSTER, OH 44691 0 6,200 OR: HA OF HILLSBORO 111 NE LINCOLN ST, STE 200-L, HILLSBORO, OR 97124 0 14,400 PA: HA OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH 200 ROSS ST, PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 0 8,200 PA: ALLEGHENY COUNTY HA 625 STANWIX ST, 12TH FL, PITTSBURGH, PA 15222 0 13,400 PA: HARRISBURG HA 351 CHESTNUT ST, 12TH FL, HARRISBURG, PA 17101 0 39,000 PA: JOHNSTOWN HA 501 CHESTNUT ST, JOHNSTOWN, PA 15907 0 32,000 VA: ROANOKE REDEV & HA 2624 SALEM TRNPK, NW., ROANOKE, VA 24017 0 12,000 WV: WHEELING HA 11 COMMUNITY ST, WHEELING, WV 26003 0 4,400 WV: PARKERSBURG HA 1901 CAMERON AVE, PARKERSBURG, WV 26101 0 17,200 WV: HA OF THE CITY OF BECKLEY 100 BECKWOODS DR, BECKLEY, WV 25802 0 27,800 Total for Special Fees—Prepayment 0 1,160,400 Special Fees for RAD Conversions IL: ELGIN HA 120 SOUTH STATE ST, ELGIN, IL 60123 0 29,800 IL: DUPAGE COUNTY HA 711 EAST ROOSEVELT RD, WHEATON, IL 60187 0 13,200 MA: BOSTON HA 52 CHAUNCY ST, BOSTON, MA 02111 0 3,400 MA: HOLYOKE HA 475 MAPLE ST, HOLYOKE, MA 01040 0 11,600 MA: TAUNTON HA 30 OLNEY ST, STE B, TAUNTON, MA 02780 0 14,400 MA: SPRINGFIELD HA 25 SAAB COURT, SPRINGFIELD, MA 01101 0 30,200 MA: HAVERHILL HA 25-C WASHINGTON ST, HAVERHILL, MA 01831 0 22,600 MA: MASSACHUSETTS DHCD 100 CAMBRIDGE ST, BOSTON, MA 02114 0 35,200 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG DEV AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 0 145,000 NJ: JERSEY CITY HA 400 US HWY #1, JERSEY CITY, NJ 07306 0 61,600 NJ: EAST ORANGE HA 160 HALSTED ST, EAST ORANGE, NJ 07018 0 33,200 NJ: VINELAND HA 191 CHESTNUT AVE, VINELAND, NJ 08360 0 400 NY: ALBANY HA 200 SOUTH PEARL, ALBANY, NY 12202 0 28,600 NY: VILLAGE OF MANLIUS 990 JAMES ST, SYRACUSE, NY 13203 0 119,000 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORP 38-40 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12207 0 47,200 Total for Special Fees—RAD Conversions 0 595,400 Special Fees for Rent Supplement GA: HA MACON 2015 FELTON AVE, MACON, GA 31208 0 33,400 MA: FITCHBURG HA 50 DAY ST, FITCHBURG, MA 01420 0 4,000 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG DEV AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 0 13,000 ND: RICHLAND COUNTY HA 230 8TH AVE WEST, WEST FARGO, ND 58078 0 3,200 Total for Special Fees—Rent Supplement 0 53,600 Total for Special Fees 0 2,369,600 Public Housing Tenant Protection Family Unification Program WA: KING COUNTY HA 600 ANDOVER PARK WEST, SEATTLE, WA 98188 69 842,581 Total for Family Unification Program 69 842,581 Moderate Rehabilitation Replacement CA: OAKLAND HA 1619 HARRISON ST, OAKLAND, CA 94612 9 32,382 DC: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HA 1133 NORTH CAPITOL ST, NE., WASHINGTON, DC 20002 6 83,994 FL: MIAMI DADE HA 701 NW 1ST COURT, 16TH FL, MIAMI, FL 33136 4 37,252 ND: STUTSMAN COUNTY HA 217 1ST AVE NORTH, JAMESTOWN, ND 58401 38 127,984 NJ: NEW JERSEY DCA 101 SOUTH BROAD ST, TRENTON, NJ 08608 22 217,437 OH: CUYAHOGA MHA 8120 KINSMAN RD, CLEVELAND, OH 44104 16 61,248 OK: OKLAHOMA HSG FIN AGENCY 100 NW 63RD ST, STE 200, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73116 2 9,809 SD: BROOKINGS HA 1310 MAIN AVE SOUTH, BROOKINGS, SD 57006 7 33,369 TX: HOUSTON HA 2640 FOUNTAIN VIEW, HOUSTON, TX 77057 3 23,197 VA: RICHMOND REDEV & HA 901 CHAMBERLAYNE PKWY, RICHMOND, VA 23220 5 41,557 VA: WISE COUNTY REDEV & HA PO BOX 630, COEBURN, VA 24230 2 8,585 Total for Moderate Rehabilitation Replacement 114 676,814 Moderate Rehabilitation Replacement (RAD) NY: NEW YORK DHPD 100 GOLD ST, RM 501, NEW YORK, NY 10038 236 2,841,276 Total for Moderate Rehabilitation Replacement (RAD) 236 2,841,276 Public Housing Relocation AK: AK HSG FINANCE CORP PO BOX 101020, ANCHORAGE, AK 99510 16 124,546 AL: H/A CITY OF MONTGOMERY 525 SOUTH LAWRENCE ST, MONTGOMERY, AL 36104 6 38,346 CA: SAN FRANCISCO HA 1815 EGBERT AVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 70 1,052,572 CA: CITY OF OXNARD HA 435 SOUTH D ST, OXNARD, CA 93030 114 1,107,807 CO: BOULDER CITY HA 4800 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 53 447,745 CO: HA OF CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER 777 GRANT ST, DENVER, CO 80203 50 453,360 DC: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HA 1133 NORTH CAPITOL ST, NE., WASHINGTON, DC 20002 9 126,084 GA: HA AUGUSTA 1435 WALTON WAY, AUGUSTA, GA 30914 279 1,869,939 IL: HA OF COUNTY OF LAKE 33928 N. US HWY 45, GRAYSLAKE, IL 60030 115 973,521 IL: MORGAN COUNTY HA 301 WEST BEECHER AVE, JACKSONVILLE, IL 62650 10 38,497 IN: HAMMOND HA 1402 173RD ST, HAMMOND, IN 46324 82 560,683 MA: BOSTON HA 52 CHAUNCY ST, BOSTON, MA 02111 25 326,631 MN: ST PAUL PHA 555 NORTH WABASHA, STE 400, ST. PAUL, MN 55102 2 15,826 NJ: GLASSBORO HA 737 LINCOLN BLVD, GLASSBORO, NJ 08028 6 48,607 RI: NEWPORT HA 120B HILLSIDE AVE, NEWPORT, RI 02840 18 196,044 RQ: PUERTO RICO DEPT OF HSG PO BOX 21365, SAN JUAN, PR 00928 102 669,896 TX: SAN ANTONIO HA 818 S. FLORES ST, SAN ANTONIO, TX 78295 246 1,602,611 TX: HA OF ORANGE PO BOX 3107, ORANGE, TX 77630 27 159,285 VA: BRISTOL REDEV & HA 809 EDMOND ST, BRISTOL, VA 24201 10 38,281 VA: NORFOLK REDEV & HA 201 GRANBY ST, NORFOLK, VA 23501 8 68,094 VA: HAMPTON REDEV & HA PO BOX 280, HAMPTON, VA 23669 271 2,291,282 WA: HA OF CITY OF RENTON 970 HARRINGTON AVE, NE., RENTON, WA 98056 84 764,235 WA: SEATTLE HA 120 SIXTH AVE NORTH, SEATTLE, WA 98109 172 1,824,908 WA: HA OF CITY OF VANCOUVER 2500 MAIN ST, STE #200, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 90 99,672 Total for Public Housing Relocation 1,865 14,898,472 Witness Relocation CA: COUNTY OF ORANGE HA 1770 NORTH BROADWAY, SANTA ANA, CA 92706 1 26,580 CT: CONNECTICUT DEPT OF HOUSING 505 HUDSON ST, HARTFORD, CT 06106 1 18,912 FL: HA WEST PALM BEACH GENERAL 1715 DIVISION AVE, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33407 1 21,096 FL: BROWARD COUNTY HA 4780 NORTH STATE RD 7, LAUDERDALE LAKES, FL 33319 1 12,816 MA: BOSTON HA 52 CHAUNCY ST, BOSTON, MA 02111 5 77,644 MA: ATTLEBORO HA 37 CARLON ST, ATTLEBORO, MA 02703 1 22,812 MA: MALDEN HA 630 SALEM ST, MALDEN, MA 02148 1 19,077 MD: MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOC 10400 DETRICK AVE, KENSINGTON, MD 20895 2 40,992 MO: HA OF KANSAS 920 MAIN ST, STE 701, KANSAS CITY, MO 64106 1 13,512 NJ: TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN 5605 N CRESCENT BLVD, PENNSAUKEN, NJ 08110 1 15,060 Total for Witness Relocation 15 268,501 Total for Public Housing Tenant Protection 2,299 19,527,644 Housing Tenant Protection Certain At-Risk Households in Low Vacancy Areas CA: CITY OF BERKELEY HA 1901 FAIRVIEW ST, BERKELEY, CA 94703 34 385,199 CA: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HA 505 WEST JULIAN ST, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 7 67,888 CA: SAN DIEGO HSG COMM 1122 BROADWAY, STE 300, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 2 14,142 CA: HA OF CITY OF LIVERMORE 3203 LEAHY WAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94550 4 39,490 CA: CITY OF BALDWIN PARK HA 14403 PACIFIC AVE, BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706 15 126,587 CT: CONNECTICUT DEPT OF HOUSING 505 HUDSON ST, HARTFORD, CT 06106 126 1,041,957 FL: MIAMI DADE HA 701 NW 1ST COURT, 16TH FL, MIAMI, FL 33136 171 1,423,062 IL: CHICAGO HA 60 EAST VAN BUREN ST, 11TH FL, CHICAGO, IL 60605 55 384,420 NH: NASHUA HA 40 EAST PEARL ST, 1ST FL, NASHUA, NH 03060 3 26,747 NH: CONCORD HA 10 FERRY ST, STE 302, CONCORD, NH 03301 21 135,860 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORP 38-40 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12207 184 915,056 Total for Certain At-Risk Households in Low Vacancy Areas 622 4,560,408 Rent Supplement GA: HA OF MACON 2015 FELTON AVE, MACON, GA 31208 167 995,107 MA: FITCHBURG HA 50 DAY ST, FITCHBURG, MA 01420 20 151,216 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG DEV AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 65 387,577 ND: RICHLAND COUNTY HA 230 8TH AVE WEST, WEST FARGO, ND 58078 16 56,148 Total for Rent Supplement 268 1,590,048 Property Disposition IA: CITY OF DES MOINES MUNICIPAL 100 EAST EUCLID, STE 101, DES MOINES, IA 50313 5 25,852 Total for Property Disposition Relocation 5 25,852 Prepayment—RAD MA: BOSTON HA 52 CHAUNCY ST, BOSTON, MA 02111 17 169,784 MA: HOLYOKE HA 475 MAPLE ST, HOLYOKE, MA 01040 51 306,403 MA: TAUNTON HA 30 OLNEY ST, STE B, TAUNTON, MA 02780 72 682,110 MA: SPRINGFIELD HA 25 SAAB COURT, SPRINGFIELD, MA 01101 151 1,062,394 MA: HAVERHILL HA 25-C WASHINGTON ST, HAVERHILL, MA 01831 113 874,177 MA: MASSACHUSETTS DHCD 100 CAMBRIDGE ST, BOSTON, MA 02114 176 1,942,449 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG DEV AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 630 3,922,841 NJ: JERSEY CITY HA 400 US HWY #1, JERSEY CITY, NJ 07306 308 2,971,177 NJ: EAST ORANGE HA 160 HALSTED ST, EAST ORANGE, NJ 07018 166 1,674,934 NY: ALBANY HA 200 SOUTH PEARL, ALBANY, NY 12202 143 877,717 NY: VILLAGE OF MANLIUS 990 JAMES ST, SYRACUSE, NY 13203 595 2,949,628 Total for Prepayment—RAD 2,422 17,433,614 Prepayments AL: HA OF SELMA PO BOX 950, SELMA, AL 36702 18 75,752 CA: CITY OF FRESNO HA 1331 FULTON MALL, FRESNO, CA 93776 6 38,286 CA: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO HA 801 12TH ST, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 69 609,350 CA: COUNTY OF FRESNO HA 1331 FULTON MALL, FRESNO, CA 93776 48 295,932 CA: COUNTY OF MONTEREY HA 123 RICO ST, SALINAS, CA 93907 96 813,415 CA: CITY OF FAIRFIELD 823-B JEFFERSON ST, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 31 290,148 CO: HA OF CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER 777 GRANT ST, DENVER, CO 80203 28 256,537 DC: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HA 1133 NORTH CAPITOL ST NE., WASHINGTON, DC 20002 10 62,924 HI: CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU 715 SOUTH KING ST, STE 311, HONOLULU, HI 96813 0 118,714 ID: HA OF THE CITY OF POCATELLO PO BOX 4161, POCATELLO, ID 83205 43 225,136 ID: IDAHO HSG FIN AGENCY 565 W MYRTLE ST, BOISE, ID 83707 23 110,160 IL: CHICAGO HA 60 EAST VAN BUREN ST, 11TH FL, CHICAGO, IL 60605 400 4,109,844 IL: MCLEAN COUNTY HA 104 EAST WOOD ST, BLOOMINGTON, IL 61701 96 511,857 KY: SOMERSET HA PO BOX 449, SOMERSET, KY 42501 61 212,126 KY: HOPKINSVILLE HA 400 NORTH ELM ST, HOPKINSVILLE, KY 42240 80 273,163 KY: CUMBERLAND VALLEY HA PO BOX 806, BARBOURVILLE, KY 40906 6 25,517 MA: CAMBRIDGE HA 675 MASSACHUSETTS AVE, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 469 7,475,054 MA: HOLYOKE HA 475 MAPLE ST, HOLYOKE, MA 01040 121 726,958 MA: WORCESTER HA 40 BELMONT ST, WORCESTER, MA 01605 102 189,307 MA: NORTH ADAMS HA 150 ASHLAND ST, NORTH ADAMS, MA 01247 58 360,924 MA: GREENFIELD HA ONE ELM TERRACE, GREENFIELD TOWN, MA 01301 76 463,731 MA: MASSACHUSETTS DHCD 100 CAMBRIDGE ST, BOSTON, MA 02114 118 1,302,361 MD: HA OF BALTIMORE 417 EAST FAYETTE ST, BALTIMORE, MD 21201 170 2,914,268 MD: MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOC 10400 DETRICK AVE, KENSINGTON, MD 20895 144 1,947,681 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG DEV AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 413 2,570,107 MN: MINNEAPOLIS PHA 1001 WASHINGTON AVE, NORTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 19 167,475 MN: CROOKSTON HSG & ECON DEV 110 SARGENT ST, CROOKSTON, MN 56716 27 112,165 MN: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HRA 390 ROBERT ST, NORTH, ST. PAUL, MN 55101 85 113,577 MO: HA OF KANSAS 920 MAIN ST, STE 701, KANSAS CITY, MO 64106 87 482,440 NJ: ATLANTIC CITY HA 227 VERMONT AVE, ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 08401 104 1,001,283 NY: HA OF UTICA CITY 509 SECOND ST, UTICA, NY 13501 141 724,261 NY: ALBANY HA 200 SOUTH PEARL, ALBANY, NY 12202 105 649,891 NY: HA OF ROCHESTER 675 WEST MAIN ST, ROCHESTER, NY 14611 188 1,031,692 NY: WHITE PLAINS HA 223 DR MARTIN L KING JR BLVD, WHITE PLAINS, NY 10601 58 708,932 NY: HA OF ITHACA 800 S PLAIN ST, ITHACA, NY 14850 69 459,482 NY: HA OF AUBURN 20 THORNTON AVE, AUBURN, NY 13021 137 547,781 NY: NEW YORK DHPD 100 GOLD ST, RM 501, NEW YORK, NY 10038 990 12,043,468 NY: CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS HA 1022 MAIN ST, NIAGARA FALLS, NY 14301 101 422,673 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORPORATION 38-40 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12207 59 556,580 OH: CUYAHOGA MHA 8120 KINSMAN RD, CLEVELAND, OH 44104 135 863,630 OH: WAYNE MHA 345 NORTH MARKET ST, WOOSTER, OH 44691 31 139,452 OR: HA OF HILLSBORO 111 NE LINCOLN ST, STE 200-L, HILLSBORO, OR 97124 72 506,105 PA: HA OF CITY OF PITTSBURGH 200 ROSS ST, PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 41 275,737 PA: ALLEGHENY COUNTY HA 625 STANWIX ST, 12TH FL, PITTSBURGH, PA 15222 67 58,328 PA: HARRISBURG HA 351 CHESTNUT ST, 12TH FL, HARRISBURG, PA 17101 195 1,409,897 PA: JOHNSTOWN HA 501 CHESTNUT ST, JOHNSTOWN, PA 15907 160 641,280 VA: ROANOKE REDEV & HA 2624 SALEM TRNPK, NW., ROANOKE, VA 24017 60 199,622 WA: SPOKANE HA WEST 55 MISSION ST, STE 104, SPOKANE, WA 99201 66 333,021 WV: WHEELING HA 11 COMMUNITY ST, WHEELING, WV 26003 22 105,972 WV: PARKERSBURG HA 1901 CAMERON AVE, PARKERSBURG, WV 26101 86 370,581 WV: HA OF THE CITY OF BECKLEY 100 BECKWOODS DR, BECKLEY, WV 25802 139 544,686 Total for Prepayment 5,930 50,449,263 RAD—Conversion Assistance Rent Supplement—RAD IL: ELGIN HA 120 SOUTH STATE ST, ELGIN, IL 60123 149 1,480,268 IL: DUPAGE COUNTY HA 711 EAST ROOSEVELT RD, WHEATON, IL 60187 66 625,380 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG. DEV. AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 95 588,957 NJ: ENGLEWOOD HA 111 WEST ST, ENGLEWOOD, NJ 07631 108 1,282,232 NJ: VINELAND HA 191 CHESTNUT AVE, VINELAND, NJ 08360 0 104,147 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORP 38-40 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12207 236 1,399,135 Total for Rent Supplement—RAD 654 5,480,119 Termination/Opt-out Vouchers AK: AK HSG FINANCE CORP PO BOX 101020, ANCHORAGE, AK 99510 74 576,028 AR: SPRINGDALE HA PO BOX 2085, SPRINGDALE, AR 72765 12 48,174 AR: HA OF THE CITY OF SILOAM 2802 HWY 412 EAST, SILOAM SPRINGS, AR 72761 10 39,650 CA: CITY OF LOS ANGELES HA 2600 WILSHIRE BLVD, 3RD FL, LOS ANGELES, CA 90057 1 10,377 CA: SAN DIEGO HSG COMM 1122 BROADWAY, STE, 300, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 32 339,417 CA: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 3989 RUFFIN RD, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 24 38,461 CA: CITY OF POMONA 505 S GAREY AVE, POMONA, CA 91769 3 34,483 CA: CITY OF OCEANSIDE COMM DEV 300 N COAST HWY NEVADA ST ANNEX, OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 12 123,900 CO: HA OF CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER 777 GRANT ST, DENVER, CO 80203 118 624,126 CO: LOVELAND HA 375 W 37TH ST, STE #200, LOVELAND, CO 80538 12 83,640 CO: FORT COLLINS HA 1715 W MOUNTAIN AVE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 50 394,512 CT: BRIDGEPORT HA 150 HIGHLAND AVE, BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 9 92,471 CT: CONNECTICUT DEPT OF HOUSING 505 HUDSON ST, HARTFORD, CT 06106 19 187,905 GA: HA CITY OF JONESBORO 203 HIGHTOWER ST, JONESBORO, GA 30237 37 255,804 IA: FORT DODGE HOUSING AGENCY 700 SOUTH 17TH ST, FORT DODGE, IA 50501 38 107,538 IA: CITY OF MASON CITY 22 N GEORGIA, STE 214, MASON CITY, IA 50401 11 62,756 IA: SOUTHERN IOWA REG HA 219 N PINE, CRESTON, IA 50801 16 63,735 IA: MARSHALLTOWN LRHA 24 NORTH CENTER ST, MARSHALLTOWN, IA 50158 15 46,111 ID: IDAHO HSG FIN AGENCY 565 W MYRTLE ST, BOISE, ID 83707 7 19,623 IL: HA OF HENRY 125 N CHESTNUT ST, KEWANEE, IL 61443 9 38,887 IN: INDIANAPOLIS HOUSING AGENCY 1919 N MERIDIAN ST, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 43 266,400 KS: FORD COUNTY HA PO BOX 1636, DODGE CITY, KS 67801 4 15,023 MA: WORCESTER HA 40 BELMONT ST, WORCESTER, MA 01605 26 184,579 MA: PLYMOUTH HA POB 3537, PLYMOUTH, MA 02361 11 111,586 MA: MASSACHUSETTS DHCD 100 CAMBRIDGE ST, BOSTON, MA 02114 56 618,164 MD: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHARLES 8190 PORT TOBACCO RD, PORT TOBACCO, MD 20677 18 18,032 MD: BALTIMORE CO HOUSING OFFICE 6401 YORK ROAD, 1 ST FL, BALTIMORE, MD 21212 36 341,310 ME: MAINE STATE HA 353 WATER ST, AUGUSTA, ME 04330 6 38,512 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG DEV AUTH PO BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 380 2,274,461 MN: ST. CLOUD HRA 1225 WEST ST. GERMAIN, ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 7 35,919 MN: NW MN MULTI-COUNTY HRA PO BOX 128, MENTOR, MN 56736 9 30,311 MO: ST. LOUIS HA 3520 PAGE BLVD, ST. LOUIS, MO 63106 46 315,242 MS: HA OF TENNESSEE VALLEY PO BOX 1329, CORINTH, MS 38834 23 95,839 MT: BUTTE HA 220 CURTIS ST, BUTTE, MT 59701 33 122,444 MT: MT DEPT OF COMMERCE 301 S. PARK, HELENA, MT 59620 18 88,595 NC: GREENSBORO HA PO BOX 21287, GREENSBORO, NC 27420 20 17,352 ND: STUTSMAN COUNTY HOUSING 217 1ST AVE N, JAMESTOWN, ND 58401 25 75,954 ND: BARNES COUNTY HA 120 12TH ST NW., VALLEY CITY, ND 58072 49 184,479 NE: FREMONT HA 2510 NORTH CLARKSON, #100, FREMONT, NE 68025 7 22,101 NY: TOWN OF ISLIP HA 963 MONTAUK HWY, OAKDALE, NY 11769 8 27,126 NY: TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN DOH ONE INDEPENDENCE HILL, FARMINGVILLE, NY 11738 86 1,253,044 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORP 38-40 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12207 8 75,468 OH: COLUMBUS METRO HA 880 EAST 11TH AVE, COLUMBUS, OH 43211 23 145,574 OH: CINCINNATI METRO HA 16 WEST CENTRAL PKWY, CINCINNATI, OH 45210 10 63,673 OR: HA & COMM SERV AGENCY OF LAKE 177 DAY ISLAND RD, EUGENE, OR 97401 27 145,269 RQ: MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN PO BOX 36-2138, SAN JUAN, PR 00936 8 52,137 RQ: MUNICIPALITY OF BAYAMON PO 1588, BAYAMON, PR 00960. 46 299,929 SC: HA OF GREENWOOD PO BOX 973, GREENWOOD, SC 29648 8 37,412 SD: PIERRE HSG & REDEV 301 W. PLEASANT AVE, PIERRE, SD 57501 12 41,931 SD: YANKTON HSG & REDEV COMM PO BOX 176, YANKTON, SD 57078 4 12,631 TX: TARRANT COUNTY HA 2100 CIRCLE DR, STE, 200, FORT WORTH, TX 76119 30 208,613 TX: HA OF ODESSA 124 E. SECOND ST., ODESSA, TX 79761 51 339,636 TX: TYLER HA 2039 213 N. BONNER, TYLER, TX 75710 39 271,487 VA: RICHMOND REDEV & HA 901 CHAMBERLAYNE PKWY, RICHMOND, VA 23220 20 166,992 VA: DANVILLE REDEV & HA 651 CARDINAL PLACE, DANVILLE, VA 24541 56 72,796 VA: LYNCHBURG REDEV & HA 918 COMMERCE ST, LYNCHBURG, VA 24505 86 377,217 VA: VIRGINIA HSG & REDEV AUTH 601 SOUTH BELVIDERE ST, RICHMOND, VA 23220 100 63,727 WA: SEATTLE HA 120 SIXTH AVE NORTH, SEATTLE, WA 98109 19 192,747 WA: KING COUNTY HA 600 ANDOVER PARK WEST, SEATTLE, WA 98188 105 1,286,850 WA: HA OF SNOHOMISH 12625 4TH AVE W, STE, 200, EVERETT, WA 98204 36 317,758 WA: SPOKANE HA WEST 55 MISSION ST, STE, 104, SPOKANE, WA 99201 85 428,096 WI: MILWAUKEE CO HA 2711 W WELLS ST, RM 102, MILWAUKEE, WI 28 186,437 WI: WISCONSIN HSG & ECON DEV PO BOX 1728, MADISON, WI 53701 63 302,514 WV: PARKERSBURG HA 1901 CAMERON AVE, PARKERSBURG, WV 26101 5 21,546 Total for Termination/Opt-out Vouchers 2,289 14,434,511 Total for Housing Tenant Protection 12,190 93,973,815 CPD Tenant Protection SRO Replacement CO: COLORADO DIV OF HOUSING 1313 SHERMAN ST, RM 518, DENVER, CO 80203 14 44,212 Total for CPD Tenant Protection 14 44,212 Grand Total Including Special Fees 14,503 115,915,271
    [FR Doc. 2015-11579 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2015-N065; FXES11120200000-156-FF02ENEH00] Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan; CEMEX Balcones Quarry Northeast Area in Comal County, Texas AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make available the draft Environmental Assessment (dEA) for the draft CEMEX Balcones Quarry Northeast Area Habitat Conservation Plan (CEMEX dHCP) and the CEMEX dHCP. CEMEX Construction Materials South, LLC (Applicant), has applied to the Service for an incidental take permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. The requested permit, which would be in effect for a period of 15 years, if granted, would authorize incidental take of the federally listed golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia, GCWA). The proposed take would occur on 199.4 acres (Permit Area) within the CEMEX Balcones Quarry Northeast Area tract in Comal County, Texas, as a result of activities associated with the Applicant's proposed clearing and implementation of quarrying activities (Covered Activities).

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be received or postmarked on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of Documents:

    Internet: You may obtain copies of all of the documents on the Internet at the Service's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/.

    U.S. Mail: A limited number of CD-ROM and printed copies of the draft EA and draft HCP are available, by request, from Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758-4460; telephone 512-490-0057; fax 512-490-0974. Please note that your request is in reference to the CEMEX dHCP.

    The ITP application is available by mail from the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103.

    In-Person: Copies of the dEA and dHCP are also available for public inspection and review at the following locations, by appointment and written request only, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.:

    ○ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

    ○ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.

    Comment submission: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:

    Electronically: Submit electronic comments to [email protected] Please note that your request is in reference to the CEMEX dHCP.

    By hard copy: Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758-4460; telephone 512-490-0057; fax 512-490-0974. Please note that your request is in reference to the CEMEX dHCP.

    Please refer to permit number TE58612B when submitting comments. We request that you send comments by only the methods described above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758 or (512) 490-0057.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, make available the draft Environmental Assessment (dEA) for the CEMEX Balcones Quarry Northeast Area Habitat Conservation Plan (CEMEX dHCP) and the dHCP. In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we advise the public that:

    1. We have gathered the information necessary to determine impacts and formulate alternatives for the dEA related to potential issuance of an ITP to the Applicant; and

    2. The Applicant has developed a dHCP as part of the application for an ITP, which describes the measures the Applicant has agreed to take to minimize and mitigate the effects of incidental take of GCWAs to the maximum extent practicable pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

    The applicant has applied for an ITP that would be in effect for 15 years, if granted, and would authorize incidental take of the federally endangered GCWA. As described in the dHCP, the proposed incidental take would occur on 199.4 acres in Comal County, Texas, and would result from activities associated with otherwise lawful activities, including the clearing and implementation of quarrying activities (Covered Activities). The dEA considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementation of the dHCP, including the measures that will be implemented to minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, the impacts of the incidental take of the GCWA.

    Proposed Action

    The proposed action involves the issuance of an ITP by the Service for the Covered Activities in the Permit Area, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The ITP would cover “take” of the GCWA associated with the clearing and implementation of quarrying activities within the Permit Area.

    The requested term of the permit is 15 years. To meet the requirements of a section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP, the Applicant has developed and proposes to implement its dHCP, which describes the conservation measures the Applicant has agreed to undertake to minimize and mitigate for the impacts of the proposed incidental take of the GCWA to the maximum extent practicable, and ensures that incidental take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.

    The Applicant proposes to mitigate with the purchase of 147.44 acres of high-quality habitat, likely from a Service-approved conservation bank with Comal County in its service area.

    Alternatives

    The only alternative to the proposed action we are considering as part of this process is the No Action alternative, in which no ITP would be issued. Under a No Action alternative, the Service would not issue the requested ITP for the CEMEX Balcones Northeast Area Tract, and, therefore, the Applicant would not implement the conservation measures described in the dHCP.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: April 16, 2015. Joy E. Nicholopoulos, Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11521 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Comment Request for Information Collection for OMB 1205-0009, Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed (ETA 203), Extension Without Revisions AGENCY:

    Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data on characteristics of the insured unemployed, the current expiration date of December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Thomas Stengle, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-693-2991 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Email: [email protected] To obtain a copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR), please contact the person listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The ETA 203, Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed, is a monthly snapshot of the demographic composition of the claimant population in the Unemployment Insurance system. It is based on those who file a claim in the week containing the 19th day of the month, which reflects unemployment during the week containing the 12th day of the month. This corresponds with the sample frame used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the production of labor force statistics they produce. This report serves a variety of socio-economic needs because it provides aggregate data reflecting unemployment insurance claimants' sex, race/ethnic group, age, industry, and occupation.

    II. Review Focus

    The Department is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions

    Type of Review: Extension without revision.

    Title: Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed, ETA 203.

    OMB Number: 1205-0009.

    Affected Public: State Workforce Agencies.

    Total Annual Respondents: 53.

    Annual Frequency: Monthly.

    Total Annual Responses: 636.

    Average Time per Response: 20 minutes (0.33 hours).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 210 Hours.

    Total Annual Burden Cost for Respondents: There is no burden cost.

    We will summarize and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, the comments received in response to this comments request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11647 Filed 5-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts Arts Advisory Panel Meetings AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that 18 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference from the National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (all meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate):

    Dance (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 3, 2015; 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Dance (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 4, 2015; 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Dance (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 4, 2015; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Local Arts Agencies (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 4, 2015; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Leadership (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 5, 2015; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Opera (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 5, 2015; 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Opera (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 5, 2015; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Theater and Musical Theater (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 11, 2015; 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Theater and Musical Theater (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 11, 2015; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Artist Communities (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 12, 2015; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Presenting and Multidisciplinary Works (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 15, 2015; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Folk and Traditional Arts (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 16, 2015; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Presenting and Multidisciplinary Works (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 17, 2015; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Presenting and Multidisciplinary Works (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 18, 2015; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Folk and Traditional Arts (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 19, 2015; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Arts Education (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 23, 2015; 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Visual Arts (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 30, 2015; 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Visual Arts (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    DATES:

    June 30, 2015; 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506; [email protected], or call 202/682-5691.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11518 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) (1115).

    Date/Time:

    June 11, 2015: 12:20 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    June 12, 2015: 8:25 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.

    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1235, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    Type of Meeting: Open.

    Contact Person: Carmen Whitson, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1105, Arlington, Virginia 22203 703/292-8900.

    Purpose of Meeting: To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, programs and activities on the CISE community. To provide advice to the Assistant Director for CISE on issues related to long-range planning, and to form ad hoc subcommittees and working groups to carry out needed studies and tasks.

    Agenda:

    • Overview and CISE Update • Review of NSF Advanced Cyberinfrastructure major activities and Data Hubs • Working group breakout sessions and report out: New partnership models for CISE research, Data Science • Presentation and discussion on The Rising and Broadening Tide in CS Education • Update on Envisioning CISE 2025 • Discussion with NSF Director, Dr. France Córdova • Closing remarks and wrap-up
    Dated: May 6, 2015. Suzanne Plimpton, Acting, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11479 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection will hold a meeting on May 21, 2015, at the U.S. NRC Region IV Office, 1600 East Lamar Boulevard, Arlington, Texas 76011-4511.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Thursday, May 21, 2015-9:45 a.m. Until 3:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will meet with Region IV staff to discuss items of mutual interest. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Michael Snodderly (Telephone 301-415-2241 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2014 (79 FR59307-59308).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    Dated: May 5, 2015. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11580 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. CP2015-64; Order No. 2474] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an addition to Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: May 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On May 6, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Expedited Package Services 3 (GEPS 3) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).1

    1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 3 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal, May 6, 2015 (Notice).

    To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

    II. Notice of Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015-64 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than May 14, 2015. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in this docket.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015-64 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).

    3. Comments are due no later than May 14, 2015.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11478 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74895; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-050] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Billing Policies May 7, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on May 1, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 7007, and re-title it “Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims and Billing Policy,” and to require NASDAQ members to submit billing disputes within a certain time period.

    While changes to the Pricing Schedule [sic] pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendment to be operative on July 1, 2015.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 7007, which was recently filed,3 to require all pricing disputes to be submitted to the Exchange in writing 4 and accompanied by supporting documentation within sixty days of receipt of an invoice. The Exchange believes that this practice will conserve Exchange resources, which are expended when untimely billing disputes require staff to research applicable fees and order information beyond two months after the invoice was issued.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74823 (April 28, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-046) (amending Rule 7007).

    4 The Exchange invoice specifies the Exchange contact persons with whom to dispute the invoice.

    The sixty days limitation would apply to invoices for transactional activity occurring in July 2015 and thereafter.5 The Exchange proposes to apply the billing policy in Rule 7007 to the following 7000 series Rules: 7001 (Membership Fees), 7014 (Market Quality Incentive Programs: Investor Support Program), 7015 (Access Services), 7016 (Nasdaq Risk Management), 7018 (Nasdaq Market Center Order Execution and Routing), 7021 (NasdaqTrader.com Trading and Compliance Data Package Fee), 7024 (Clearly Erroneous Module), 7027 (Aggregation of Activity of Affiliated Members), 7029 (Installation, Removal or Relocation), 7030 (Other Services), 7034 (Co-Location Services), 7038 (Step-Outs and Sales Fees Transfers), 7041 (Nasdaq Regulation Reconnaissance Service), 7042 (Non-Tape Riskless Submissions), 7043 (Inclusion of Transaction Fees in Clearing Reports Submitted to ACT), 7049 (Nasdaq InterACT), 7051 (Direct Connectivity to Nasdaq), 7055 (Short Sale Monitor), 7058 (QView), 7060 (Equity Trade Journal for Clearing Firms) and 7061 (Limit Locator).

    5 This proposal would not apply to invoices related to June 2015 billing.

    Further, this proposal would provide a cost savings to the Exchange in that it would alleviate administrative burdens related to belated billing disputes, which divert staff resources away from the Exchange's regulatory and business purposes. A similar requirement with respect to initiating billing disputes is in place today for Options Participants on NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”).6

    6See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 7, entitled “NASDAQ Options Fee Disputes.”

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the title of Exchange Rule 7007 from “Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims” to “Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims and Billing Policy.” The Exchange believes that the proposed title provides a more specific description of Rule 7007.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by providing a uniform practice for disputing fees.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes the requirement that billing disputes for certain specified fees and rebates must be submitted to the Exchange within sixty days from receipt of the invoice will set objective standards and will be fair to members. The proposal equally applies to all NASDAQ equity members. Also, the Exchange's administrative costs would be lowered as a result of this policy.

    The Exchange believes that sixty days is ample time to review an invoice and dispute any pricing related to the transactions for that time period. An identical policy applies today with respect to NOM billing.9 The Exchange is seeking to apply this policy to all NASDAQ members alike in the same manner.

    9See Chapter XV, Section 7 in the NOM Rules.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The billing policy would apply uniformly to all NASDAQ equity members as it does today with all NOM Participants. All NASDAQ members would be subject to this policy.

    The Exchange believes that this practice will conserve Exchange resources, which are expended when untimely billing disputes require staff to research applicable fees and order information beyond two months after the invoice is issued.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 10 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.11

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-050 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-050. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-050, and should be submitted on or before June 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    [FR Doc. 2015-11481 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74898; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-039] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors May 7, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on May 6, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange seeks to amend Exchange rules related to the nullification and adjustment of options transactions including obvious errors. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Background

    For several months the Exchange has been working with other options exchanges to identify ways to improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The goal of the process that the options exchanges have undertaken is to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions as well as a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions. As described below, the Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges and the Exchange have agreed to propose will provide transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest.

    The Proposed Rule is the culmination of this coordinated effort and reflects discussions by the options exchanges to universally adopt: (1) certain provisions already in place on one or more options exchanges; and (2) new provisions that the options exchanges collectively believe will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions. Thus, although the Proposed Rule is in many ways similar to and based on the Exchange's Current Rule, the Exchange is adopting various provisions to conform with existing rules of one or more options exchanges and also to adopt rules that are not currently in place on any options exchange. As noted above, in order to adopt a rule that is similar in most material respects to the rules adopted by other options exchanges, the Exchange proposes to delete the Current Rule in its entirety and to replace it with the Proposed Rule.

    The Exchange notes that it has proposed additional objective standards in the Proposed Rule as compared to the Current Rule. The Exchange also notes that the Proposed Rule will ensure that the Exchange will have the same standards as all other options exchanges. However, there are still areas under the Proposed Rule where subjective determinations need to be made by Exchange personnel with respect to the calculation of Theoretical Price. The Exchange notes that the Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. For instance, the Exchange and all other options exchanges may utilize an independent third party to calculate and disseminate or make available Theoretical Price. However, this initiative requires additional exchange and industry discussion as well as additional time for development and implementation. The Exchange will continue to work with other options exchanges and the options industry towards the goal of additional objectivity and uniformity with respect to the calculation of Theoretical Price.

    As additional background, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule supports an approach consistent with long-standing principles in the options industry under which the general policy is to adjust rather than nullify transactions. The Exchange acknowledges that adjustment of transactions is contrary to the operation of analogous rules applicable to the equities markets, where erroneous transactions are typically nullified rather than adjusted and where there is no distinction between the types of market participants involved in a transaction. For the reasons set forth below, the Exchange believes that the distinctions in market structure between equities and options markets continue to support these distinctions between the rules for handling obvious errors in the equities and options markets. The Exchange also believes that the Proposed Rule properly balances several competing concerns based on the structure of the options markets.

    Various general structural differences between the options and equities markets point toward the need for a different balancing of risks for options market participants and are reflected in the Proposed Rule. Option pricing is formulaic and is tied to the price of the underlying stock, the volatility of the underlying security and other factors. Because options market participants can generally create new open interest in response to trading demand, as new open interest is created, correlated trades in the underlying or related series are generally also executed to hedge a market participant's risk. This pairing of open interest with hedging interest differentiates the options market specifically (and the derivatives markets broadly) from the cash equities markets. In turn, the Exchange believes that the hedging transactions engaged in by market participants necessitates protection of transactions through adjustments rather than nullifications when possible and otherwise appropriate.

    The options markets are also quote driven markets dependent on liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities traded in the U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 500,000 unique, regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in options series the options markets are more dependent on liquidity providers than equities markets; such liquidity is provided most commonly by registered market makers but also by other professional traders. With the number of instruments in which registered market makers must quote and the risk attendant with quoting so many products simultaneously, the Exchange believes that those liquidity providers should be afforded a greater level of protection. In particular, the Exchange believes that liquidity providers should be allowed protection of their trades given the fact that they typically engage in hedging activity to protect them from significant financial risk to encourage continued liquidity provision and maintenance of the quote-driven options markets.

    In addition to the factors described above, there are other fundamental differences between options and equities markets which lend themselves to different treatment of different classes of participants that are reflected in the Proposed Rule. For example, there is no trade reporting facility in the options markets. Thus, all transactions must occur on an options exchange. This leads to significantly greater retail customer participation directly on exchanges than in the equities markets, where a significant amount of retail customer participation never reaches the Exchange but is instead executed in off-exchange venues such as alternative trading systems, broker-dealer market making desks and internalizers. In turn, because of such direct retail customer participation, the exchanges have taken steps to afford those retail customers—generally Priority Customers—more favorable treatment in some circumstances.

    Definitions

    The Exchange proposes to adopt various definitions that will be used in the Proposed Rule, as described below.

    First, the Exchange proposes to adopt a definition of “Customer,” to make clear that this term would not include any broker-dealer, Professional Customer, or Voluntary Professional Customer.5 Although other portions of the Exchange's rules address the capacity of market participants, including customers, the proposed definition is consistent with such rules and the Exchange believes it is important for all options exchanges to have the same definition of Customer in the context of nullifying and adjusting trades in order to have harmonized rules. As set forth in detail below, orders on behalf of a Customer are in many cases treated differently than non-Customer orders in light of the fact that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading accounts.

    5 A “Professional” is any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities; and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule 1.1 (ggg). A “Voluntary Professional” is any person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities that elects, in writing, to be treated in the same manner as a broker or dealer in securities for purposes of various CBOE rules. See Rule 1.1(fff).

    Second, the Exchange proposes to adopt definitions for both an “erroneous sell transaction” and an “erroneous buy transaction.” As proposed, an erroneous sell transaction is one in which the price received by the person selling the option is erroneously low, and an erroneous buy transaction is one in which the price paid by the person purchasing the option is erroneously high. This provision helps to reduce the possibility that a party can intentionally submit an order hoping for the market to move in their favor while knowing that the transaction will be nullified or adjusted if the market does not. For instance, when a market participant who is buying options in a particular series sees an aggressively priced sell order posted on the Exchange, and the buyer believes that the price of the options is such that it might qualify for obvious error, the option buyer can trade with the aggressively priced order, then wait to see which direction the market moves. If the market moves in their direction, the buyer keeps the trade and if it moves against them, the buyer calls the Exchange hoping to get the trade adjusted or busted.

    Third, the Exchange proposes to adopt a definition of “Official,” which would mean an Officer of the Exchange or such other employee designee of the Exchange that is trained in the application of the Proposed Rule.

    Fourth, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new term, a “Size Adjustment Modifier,” which would apply to individual transactions and would modify the applicable adjustment for orders under certain circumstances, as discussed in further detail below. As proposed, the Size Adjustment Modifier will be applied to individual transactions as follows:

    Number of contracts per execution Adjustment—TP Plus/Minus 1-50 N/A. 51-250 2 times adjustment amount. 251-1000 2.5 times adjustment amount. 1001 or more 3 times adjustment amount.

    The Size Adjustment Modifier attempts to account for the additional risk that the parties to the trade undertake for transactions that are larger in scope. The Exchange believes that the Size Adjustment Modifier creates additional incentives to prevent more impactful Obvious Errors and it lessens the impact on the contra-party to an adjusted trade. The Exchange notes that these contra-parties may have preferred to only trade the size involved in the transaction at the price at which such trade occurred, and in trading larger size has committed a greater level of capital and bears a larger hedge risk.

    When setting the proposed size adjustment modifier thresholds the Exchange has tried to correlate the size breakpoints with typical small and larger “block” execution sizes of underlying stock. For instance, SEC Rule 10b-18(a)(5)(ii) defines a “block” as a quantity of stock that is at least 5,000 shares and a purchase price of at least $50,000, among others.6 Similarly, NYSE Rule 72 defines a “block” as an order to buy or sell “at least 10,000 shares or a quantity of stock having a market value of $200,000 or more, whichever is less.” Thus, executions of 51 to 100 option contracts, which are generally equivalent to executions of 5,100 and 10,000 shares of underlying stock, respectively, are proposed to be subject to the lowest size adjustment modifier. An execution of over 1,000 contracts is roughly equivalent to a block transaction of more than 100,000 shares of underlying stock, and is proposed to be subject to the highest size adjustment modifier. The Exchange has correlated the proposed size adjustment modifier thresholds to smaller and larger scale blocks because the Exchange believes that the execution cost associated with transacting in block sizes scales according to the size of the block. In other words, in the same way that executing a 100,000 share stock order will have a proportionately larger market impact and will have a higher overall execution cost than executing a 500, 1,000 or 5,000 share order in the same stock, all other market factors being equal, executing a 1,000 option contract order will have a larger market impact and higher overall execution cost than executing a 5, 10 or 50 contract option order.

    6See 17 CFR 240.10b-18(a)(5)(ii).

    Calculation of Theoretical Price Theoretical Price in Normal Circumstances

    Under both the Current Rule and the Proposed Rule, when reviewing a transaction as potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the “Theoretical Price” of the option, i.e., the Exchange's estimate of the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to the Proposed Rule, if the applicable option series is traded on at least one other options exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last national best bid (“NBB”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best offer (“NBO”) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below exists. Thus, the Exchange proposes that whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange will use this NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price.

    The Exchange also proposes to specify in the Proposed Rule that when a single order received by the Exchange is executed at multiple price levels, the last NBB and last NBO just prior to the trade in question would be the last NBB and last NBO just prior to the Exchange's receipt of the order.

    The Exchange also proposes to set forth in the Proposed Rule various provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing additional detail specifying situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes (as defined below), when the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) is determined to be too wide to be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day.

    No Valid Quotes

    As is true under the Current Rule, pursuant to the Proposed Rule the Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes. As proposed, quotes that are not valid are all quotes in the applicable option series published at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such series (a “crossed market”), quotes published by the Exchange that were submitted by either party to the transaction in question, and quotes published by another options exchange against which the Exchange has declared self-help. Thus, in addition to scenarios where there are literally no quotes to be used as Theoretical Price, the Exchange will exclude quotes in certain circumstances if such quotes are not deemed valid. The Proposed Rule is consistent with the Exchange's application of the Current Rule but the descriptions of the various scenarios where the Exchange considers quotes to be invalid represent additional detail that is not included in the Current Rule.

    The Exchange notes that Exchange personnel currently are required to determine Theoretical Price in certain circumstances. While the Exchange continues to pursue alternative solutions that might further enhance the objectivity and consistency of determining Theoretical Price, the Exchange believes that the discretion currently afforded to Exchange Officials is appropriate in the absence of a reliable NBBO that can be used to set the Theoretical Price. Under the Current Rule, Exchange personnel will generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar options.

    Wide Quotes

    Similarly, pursuant to the Proposed Rule the Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if the bid/ask differential of the NBB and NBO for the affected series just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the Minimum Amount set forth below and there was a bid/ask differential less than the Minimum Amount during the 10 seconds prior to the transaction. If there was no bid/ask differential less than the Minimum Amount during the 10 seconds prior to the transaction then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last NBB or NBO just prior to the transaction in question. The Exchange proposes to use the following chart to determine whether a quote is too wide to be reliable:

    Bid price at time of trade Minimum amount Below $2.00 $0.75 $2.00 to $5.00 1.25 Above $5.00 to $10.00 1.50 Above $10.00 to $20.00 2.50 Above $20.00 to $50.00 3.00 Above $50.00 to $100.00 4.50 Above $100.00 6.00

    The Exchange notes that the values set forth above generally represent a multiple of 3 times the bid/ask differential requirements of other options exchanges, with certain rounding applied (e.g., $1.25 as proposed rather than $1.20).7 The Exchange believes that basing the Wide Quote table on a multiple of the permissible bid/ask differential rule provides a reasonable baseline for quotations that are indeed so wide that they cannot be considered reliable for purposes of determining Theoretical Price unless they have been consistently wide. As described above, while the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when the bid/ask differential equals or exceeds the amount set forth in the chart above and within the previous 10 seconds there was a bid/ask differential smaller than such amount, if a quote has been persistently wide for at least 10 seconds the Exchange will use such quote for purposes of Theoretical Price. The Exchange believes that there should be a greater level of protection afforded to market participants that enter the market when there are liquidity gaps and price fluctuations. The Exchange does not believe that a similar level of protection is warranted when market participants choose to enter a market that is wide and has been consistently wide for some time. Given the largely electronic nature of today's markets, the Exchange believes the designated time frame is appropriate and is long enough for market participants to receive, process, and account for and respond to new market information. The table above bases the wide quote provision off of bid price in order to provide a relatively straightforward beginning point for the analysis.

    7See, e.g., NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.37(b)(1).

    As an example, assume an option is quoted $3.00 by $6.00 with 50 contracts posted on each side of the market for an extended period of time. If a market participant were to enter a market order to buy 20 contracts the Exchange believes that the buyer should have a reasonable expectation of paying $6.00 for the contracts which they are buying. This should be the case even if immediately after the purchase of those options, the market conditions change and the same option is then quoted at $3.75 by $4.25. Although the quote was wide according to the table above at the time immediately prior to and the time of the execution of the market order, it was also well established and well known. The Exchange believes that an execution at the then prevailing market price should not in and of itself constitute an erroneous trade.

    Transactions at the Open

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new definition of Theoretical Price for transactions at the open while maintaining a portion of the Current Rule for opening transactions unique to the Exchange. Except as provided in (b)(1)(A) of the Proposed Rule, for a transaction occurring as part of the Opening Process 8 the Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price where there is no NBB or NBO for the affected series just prior to the erroneous transaction or if the bid/ask differential of the NBBO just prior to the erroneous transaction is equal to or greater than the Minimum Amount set forth in the chart proposed for the wide quote provision described above. The Exchange believes that this discretion is necessary because it is consistent with other scenarios in which the Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, including the wide quote provision proposed by the Exchange as described above. If, however, there are valid quotes and the bid/ask differential of the NBBO is less than the Minimum Amount set forth in the chart proposed for the wide quote provision described above, then the Exchange will use the NBB or NBO just prior to the transaction as it would in any other normal review scenario.

    8See Exchange Rules 6.2—Trading Rotations, 6.2A—Rapid Opening System (“ROS”), and 6.2B—Hybrid Opening System (“HOSS”) for a description of the Exchange's Opening Process.

    As an example of an erroneous transaction for which the NBBO is wide at the open, assume the NBBO at the time of the opening transaction is $1.00 x $5.00 and the opening transaction takes place at $1.25. The Exchange would be responsible for determining the Theoretical Price because the NBBO was wider than the applicable minimum amount set forth in the wide quote provision as described above. The Exchange believes that it is necessary to determine Theoretical Price at the open in the event of a wide quote at the open for the same reason that the Exchange has proposed to determine Theoretical Price during the remainder of the trading day pursuant to the proposed wide quote provision, namely that a wide quote cannot be reliably used to determine Theoretical Price because the Exchange does not know which of the two quotes, the NBB or the NBO, is closer to the real value of the option.

    Subparagraph (b)(1)(A) is a carryover from the Current Rule,9 and as noted above, if the elements of (b)(1)(A) are met, it supersedes paragraph (b)(1). With respect to HOSS rotations in index options series being used to calculate the final settlement price of a volatility index,10 the Exchange is proposing to carryover the conditions from the Current Rule that the first quote after the transaction(s) in question that does not reflect the erroneous transaction(s) will be the Theoretical Price as long as the quote is for at least the size of the HOSS opening transaction(s). If the size of the quote is less than the size of the opening transaction(s), then the Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error provisions shall not apply.11

    9See Current Rule 6.25(a)(1)(iii) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-59981 (May 27, 2009), 74 FR 26447 (June 2, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-024).

    10 CBOE's and the CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC's (a designated contract market approved by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBOE) rules provide for the listing and trading of options and futures, as applicable, on various volatility indexes. The Obvious Pricing Error provision would be utilized only for those index options series used to calculate the final settlement price of a volatility index and only on the final settlement date of the options and futures contracts on the applicable volatility index in each expiration month. Thus, for example, the proposed obvious price error provision would be used for the relevant Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index (“SPX”) options series on settlement days for CBOE Volatility Index (“VIX”) options and futures contracts.

    11 For example, if the opening trade in Series XYZ is for a total of 200 contracts and the bid or offer, as applicable, of the first quote after the transaction(s) in question that does not reflect the erroneous transaction(s) is for 500 contracts, then the quote would be used to determine Theoretical Price and whether an Obvious Pricing Error occurred. If the bid or offer, as applicable, of the quote is for only 100 contracts, then the trade would not be subject to nullification or adjustment under the Obvious Pricing Error provision.

    Obvious Errors

    The Exchange proposes to adopt numerical thresholds that would qualify transactions as “Obvious Errors.” These thresholds are similar to those in place under the Current Rule.12 As proposed, a transaction will qualify as an Obvious Error if the Exchange receives a properly submitted filing and the execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown below:

    12 The Exchange notes that similar to the Current Rule certain provisions of the Proposed Rule are not applicable to trades executed in open outcry. The preamble of the Proposed Rule states that that “[u]nless otherwise stated, the provisions contained within this Rule are applicable to electronic transactions only.” See Current Rule 6.25 Preamble and Proposed Rule 6.25 Preamble.

    Theoretical price Minimum amount Below $2.00 $0.25 $2.00 to $5.00 0.40 Above $5.00 to $10.00 0.50 Above $10.00 to $20.00 0.80 Above $20.00 to $50.00 1.00 Above $50.00 to $100.00 1.50 Above $100.00 2.00 Applying the Theoretical Price, as described above, to determine the applicable threshold and comparing the Theoretical Price to the actual execution price provides the Exchange with an objective methodology to determine whether an Obvious Error occurred. The Exchange believes that the proposed amounts are reasonable as they are generally consistent with the standards of the Current Rule and reflect a significant disparity from Theoretical Price. The Exchange notes that the Minimum Amounts in the Proposed Rule and as set forth above are identical to the Current Rule except for the last two categories, for options where the Theoretical Price is above $50.00 to $100.00 and above $100.00. The Exchange believes that this additional granularity is reasonable because given the proliferation of additional strikes that have been created in the past several years there are many more high-priced options that are trading with open interest for extended periods. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to account for these high-priced options with additional Minimum Amount levels for options with Theoretical Prices above $50.00.

    Under the Proposed Rule, a party that believes that it participated in a transaction that was the result of an Obvious Error must notify the Exchange's Help Desk in the manner specified from time to time by the Exchange in a circular distributed to TPHs.

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt notification timeframes that must be met in order for a transaction to qualify as an Obvious Error. Specifically, as proposed a filing must be received by the Exchange within thirty (30) minutes of the execution with respect to an execution of a Customer order and within fifteen (15) minutes of the execution for any other participant. The Exchange also proposes to provide additional time for trades that are routed through other options exchanges to the Exchange. Under the Proposed Rule, any other options exchange will have a total of forty-five (45) minutes for Customer orders and thirty (30) minutes for non-Customer orders, measured from the time of execution on the Exchange, to file with the Exchange for review of transactions routed to the Exchange from that options exchange and executed on the Exchange (“linkage trades”). This includes filings on behalf of another options exchange filed by a third-party routing broker if such third-party broker identifies the affected transactions as linkage trades. In order to facilitate timely reviews of linkage trades the Exchange will accept filings from either the other options exchange or, if applicable, the third-party routing broker that routed the applicable order(s). The additional fifteen (15) minutes provided with respect to linkage trades shall only apply to the extent the options exchange that originally received and routed the order to the Exchange itself received a timely filing from the entering participant (i.e., within 30 minutes if a Customer order or 15 minutes if a non-Customer order). The Exchange believes that additional time for filings related to Customer orders is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets and are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day. The Exchange believes that the additional time afforded to linkage trades is appropriate given the interconnected nature of the markets today and the practical difficulty that an end user may face in getting requests for review filed in a timely fashion when the transaction originated at a different exchange than where the error took place. Without this additional time the Exchange believes it would be common for a market participant to satisfy the filing deadline at the original exchange to which an order was routed but that requests for review of executions from orders routed to other options exchanges would not qualify for review as potential Obvious Errors by the time filings were received by such other options exchanges, in turn leading to potentially disparate results under the applicable rules of options exchanges to which the orders were routed.

    Pursuant to the Proposed Rule, an Official may review a transaction believed to be erroneous on his/her own motion in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the protection of investors. This proposed provision is designed to give an Official the ability to provide parties relief in those situations where they have failed to report an apparent error within the established notification period. A transaction reviewed pursuant to the proposed provision may be nullified or adjusted only if it is determined by the Official that the transaction is erroneous in accordance with the provisions of the Proposed Rule, provided that the time deadlines for filing a request for review described above shall not apply. The Proposed Rule would require the Official to act as soon as possible after becoming aware of the transaction; action by the Official would ordinarily be expected on the same day that the transaction occurred. However, because a transaction under review may have occurred near the close of trading or due to unusual circumstances, the Proposed Rule provides that the Official shall act no later than 7:30 a.m. Central Time on the next trading day following the date of the transaction in question.

    The Exchange also proposes to state that a party affected by a determination to nullify or adjust a transaction after an Official's review on his or her own motion may appeal such determination in accordance with paragraph (m), which is described below, but may not seek a review by an Obvious Error Panel under paragraph (k). The Proposed Rule would make clear that a determination by an Official not to review a transaction or determination not to nullify or adjust a transaction for which a review was conducted on an Official's own motion is not appealable and further that if a transaction is reviewed and a determination is rendered pursuant to another provision of the Proposed Rule, no additional relief may be granted by an Official.

    If it is determined that an Obvious Error has occurred based on the objective numeric criteria and time deadlines described above, the Exchange will adjust or nullify the transaction as described below and promptly notify both parties to the trade electronically or via telephone. The Exchange proposes different adjustment and nullification criteria for Customers and non-Customers.

    As proposed, where neither party to the transaction is a Customer, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted by the Official pursuant to the table below.

    Theoretical price
  • (TP)
  • Buy transaction adjustment—TP plus Sell transaction
  • adjustment—TP minus
  • Below $3.00 $0.15 $0.15 At or above $3.00 0.30 0.30
    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adjust to prices a specified amount away from Theoretical Price rather than to adjust to Theoretical Price because even though the Exchange has determined a given trade to be erroneous in nature, the parties in question should have had some expectation of execution at the price or prices submitted. Also, it is common that by the time it is determined that an obvious error has occurred additional hedging and trading activity has already occurred based on the executions that previously happened. The Exchange is concerned that an adjustment to Theoretical Price in all cases would not appropriately incentivize market participants to maintain appropriate controls to avoid potential errors.

    Further, as proposed any non-Customer Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size Adjustment Modifier described above. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to apply the Size Adjustment Modifier to non-Customer orders because the hedging cost associated with trading larger sized options orders and the market impact of larger blocks of underlying can be significant.

    As an example of the application of the Size Adjustment Modifier, assume Exchange A has a quoted bid to buy 50 contracts at $2.50, Exchange B has a quoted bid to buy 100 contracts at $2.05 and there is no other options exchange quoting a bid priced higher than $2.00. Assume that the NBBO is $2.50 by $3.00. Finally, assume that all orders quoted and submitted to Exchange B in connection with this example are non-Customer orders.

    • Assume Exchange A's quoted bid at $2.50 is either executed or cancelled.

    • Assume Exchange B immediately thereafter receives an incoming market order to sell 100 contracts.

    • The incoming order would be executed against Exchange B's resting bid at $2.05 for 100 contracts.

    • Because the 100 contract execution of the incoming sell order was priced at $2.05, which is $0.45 below the Theoretical Price of $2.50, the 100 contract execution would qualify for adjustment as an Obvious Error.

    • The normal adjustment process would adjust the execution of the 100 contracts to $2.35 per contract, which is the Theoretical Price minus $0.15.

    • However, because the execution would qualify for the Size Adjustment Modifier of 2 times the adjustment price, the adjusted transaction would instead be to $2.20 per contract, which is the Theoretical Price minus $0.30.

    By reference to the example above, the Exchange reiterates that it believes that a Size Adjustment Modifier is appropriate, as the buyer in this example was originally willing to buy 100 contracts at $2.05 and ended up paying $2.20 per contract for such execution. Without the Size Adjustment Modifier the buyer would have paid $2.35 per contract. Such buyer may be advantaged by the trade if the Theoretical Price is indeed closer to $2.50 per contract, however the buyer may not have wanted to buy so many contracts at a higher price and does incur increasing cost and risk due to the additional size of their quote. Thus, the proposed rule is attempting to strike a balance between various competing objectives, including recognition of cost and risk incurred in quoting larger size and incentivizing market participants to maintain appropriate controls to avoid errors.

    In contrast to non-Customer orders, where trades will be adjusted if they qualify as Obvious Errors, pursuant the Proposed Rule a trade that qualifies as an Obvious Error will be nullified where at least one party to the Obvious Error is a Customer. The Exchange also proposes, however, that if any TPH submits requests to the Exchange for review of transactions pursuant to the Proposed Rule, and in aggregate that TPH has 200 or more Customer transactions under review concurrently and the orders resulting in such transactions were submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less, where at least one party to the Obvious Error is a non-Customer, the Exchange will apply the non-Customer adjustment criteria described above to such transactions. The Exchange based its proposal of 200 transactions on the fact that the proposed level is reasonable as it is representative of an extremely large number of orders submitted to the Exchange that are, in turn, possibly erroneous. Similarly, the Exchange based its proposal of orders received in 2 minutes or less on the fact that this is a very short amount of time under which one TPH could generate multiple erroneous transactions. In order for a participant to have more than 200 transactions under review concurrently when the orders triggering such transactions were received in 2 minutes or less, the market participant will have far exceeded the normal behavior of customers deserving protected status.13 While the Exchange continues to believe that it is appropriate to nullify transactions in such a circumstance if both participants to a transaction are Customers, the Exchange does not believe it is appropriate to place the overall risk of a significant number of trade breaks on non-Customers that in the normal course of business may have engaged in additional hedging activity or trading activity based on such transactions. Thus, the Exchange believes it is necessary and appropriate to protect non-Customers in such a circumstance by applying the non-Customer adjustment criteria, and thus adjusting transactions as set forth above, in the event a TPH has more than 200 transactions under review concurrently.

    13 The Exchange notes that in the third quarter of this year across all options exchanges the average number of valid Customer orders received and executed was less than 38 valid orders every two minutes. The number of obvious errors resulting from valid orders is, of course, a very small fraction of such orders.

    Catastrophic Errors

    Consistent with the Current Rule, the Exchange proposes to adopt separate numerical thresholds for review of transactions for which the Exchange does not receive a filing requesting review within the Obvious Error timeframes set forth above. Based on this review these transactions may qualify as “Catastrophic Errors.” As proposed, a Catastrophic Error will be deemed to have occurred when the execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown below:

    Theoretical price Minimum amount Below $2.00 $0.50 $2.00 to $5.00 1.00 Above $5.00 to $10.00 1.50 Above $10.00 to $20.00 2.00 Above $20.00 to $50.00 2.50 Above $50.00 to $100.00 3.00 Above $100.00 4.00

    Based on industry feedback on the Catastrophic Error thresholds set forth under the Current Rule, the thresholds proposed as set forth above are more granular and lower (i.e., more likely to qualify) than the thresholds under the Current Rule. As noted above, under the Proposed Rule as well as the Current Rule, parties have additional time to submit transactions for review as Catastrophic Errors. As proposed, for transactions occurring during regular trading hours, notification requesting review must be received by the Exchange's Help Desk by 7:30 a.m. Central Time on the first trading day following the execution. For transactions occurring during extended trading hours, notification must be received within 2 hours of the close of the extended trading hours session. For transactions in an expiring options series that take place on an expiration day, a party must notify the Exchange's Help Desk within 45 minutes after the close of trading that same day. As is true for requests for review under the Obvious Error provision of the Proposed Rule, a party requesting review of a transaction as a Catastrophic Error must notify the Exchange's Help Desk in the manner specified from time to time by the Exchange in a circular distributed to TPHs. By definition, any execution that qualifies as a Catastrophic Error is also an Obvious Error. However, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to maintain these two types of errors because the Catastrophic Error provisions provide market participants with a longer notification period under which they may file a request for review with the Exchange of a potential Catastrophic Error than a potential Obvious Error. This provides an additional level of protection for transactions that are severely erroneous even in the event a participant does not submit a request for review in a timely fashion.

    The Proposed Rule would specify that relief under the catastrophic error provision would not be granted under paragraph (d) if an Obvious Error Panel has previously rendered a decision with respect to the transaction(s) in question. In addition, if it is determined by an Official that a Catastrophic Error has not occurred, the Trading Permit Holder will be subject to a charge of $5,000. The Proposed Rule also specifies the action to be taken by the Exchange if it is determined that a Catastrophic Error has occurred, as described below, and would require the Exchange to promptly notify both parties to the trade electronically or via telephone. In the event of a Catastrophic Error, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted by the Official pursuant to the table below.

    Theoretical price (TP) Buy transaction adjustment—TP plus Sell transaction adjustment—TP minus Below $2.00 $0.50 $0.50 $2.00 to $5.00 1.00 1.00 Above $5.00 to $10.00 1.50 1.50 Above $10.00 to $20.00 2.00 2.00 Above $20.00 to $50.00 2.50 2.50 Above $50.00 to $100.00 3.00 3.00 Above $100.00 4.00 4.00 Although Customer orders would be adjusted in the same manner as non-Customer orders, any Customer order that qualifies as a Catastrophic Error will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price. Based on industry feedback, the levels proposed above with respect to adjustment amounts are the same levels as the thresholds at which a transaction may be deemed a Catastrophic Error pursuant to the chart set forth above.

    As is true for Obvious Errors as described above, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adjust to prices a specified amount away from Theoretical Price rather than to adjust to Theoretical Price because even though the Exchange has determined a given trade to be erroneous in nature, the parties in question should have had some expectation of execution at the price or prices submitted. Also, it is common that by the time it is determined that a Catastrophic Error has occurred additional hedging and trading activity has already occurred based on the executions that previously happened. The Exchange is concerned that an adjustment to Theoretical Price in all cases would not appropriately incentivize market participants to maintain appropriate controls to avoid potential errors. Further, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to maintain a higher adjustment level for Catastrophic Errors than Obvious Errors given the significant additional time that can potentially pass before an adjustment is requested and applied and the amount of hedging and trading activity that can occur based on the executions at issue during such time. For the same reasons, other than honoring the limit prices established for Customer orders, the Exchange has proposed to treat all market participants the same in the context of the Catastrophic Error provision. Specifically, the Exchange believes that treating market participants the same in this context will provide additional certainty to market participants with respect to their potential exposure and hedging activities, including comfort that even if a transaction is later adjusted (i.e., past the standard time limit for filing under the Obvious Error provision), such transaction will not be fully nullified. However, as noted above, under the Proposed Rule where at least one party to the transaction is a Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price. The Exchange has retained the protection of a Customer's limit price in order to avoid a situation where the adjustment could be to a price that the Customer could not afford, which is less likely to be an issue for a market professional.

    Significant Market Events

    In order to improve consistency for market participants in the case of a widespread market event and in light of the interconnected nature of the options exchanges, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new provision that calls for coordination between the options exchanges in certain circumstances and provides limited flexibility in the application of other provisions of the Proposed Rule in order to promptly respond to a widespread market event.14 The Exchange proposes to describe such an event as a Significant Market Event, and to set forth certain objective criteria that will determine whether such an event has occurred. The Exchange developed these objective criteria in consultation with the other options exchanges by reference to historical patterns and events with a goal of setting thresholds that very rarely will be triggered so as to limit the application of the provision to truly significant market events. As proposed, a Significant Market Event will be deemed to have occurred when proposed criterion (A) below is met or exceeded or the sum of all applicable event statistics, where each is expressed as a percentage of the relevant threshold in criteria (A) through (D) below, is greater than or equal to 150% and 75% or more of at least one category is reached, provided that no single category can contribute more than 100% to the sum. All criteria set forth below will be measured in aggregate across all exchanges.

    14 Although the Exchange has proposed a specific provision related to coordination amongst options exchanges in the context of a widespread event, the Exchange does not believe that the Significant Market Event provision or any other provision of the proposed rule alters the Exchange's ability to coordinate with other options exchanges in the normal course of business with respect to market events or activity. The Exchange does already coordinate with other options exchanges to the extent possible if such coordination is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market and/or to fulfill the Exchange's duties as a self-regulatory organization.

    The proposed criteria for determining a Significant Market Event are as follows:

    (A) Transactions that are potentially erroneous would result in a total Worst-Case Adjustment Penalty of $30,000,000, where the Worst-Case Adjustment Penalty is computed as the sum, across all potentially erroneous trades, of: (i) $0.30 (i.e., the largest Transaction Adjustment value listed in sub-paragraph (e)(3)(A) below); times; (ii) the contract multiplier for each traded contract; times (iii) the number of contracts for each trade; times (iv) the appropriate Size Adjustment Modifier for each trade, if any, as defined in sub-paragraph (e)(3)(A) below;

    (B) Transactions involving 500,000 options contracts are potentially erroneous;

    (C) Transactions with a notional value (i.e., number of contracts traded multiplied by the option premium multiplied by the contract multiplier) of $100,000,000 are potentially erroneous;

    (D) 10,000 transactions are potentially erroneous.

    As described above, the Exchange proposes to adopt a the Worst Case Adjustment Penalty, proposed as criterion (A), which is the only criterion that can on its own result in an event being designated as a significant market event. The Worst Case Adjustment Penalty is intended to develop an objective criterion that can be quickly determined by the Exchange in consultation with other options exchanges that approximates the total overall exposure to market participants on the negatively impacted side of each transaction that occurs during an event. If the Worst Case Adjustment criterion is equal to or exceeds $30,000,000, then an event is a Significant Market Event. As an example of the Worst Case Adjustment Penalty, assume that a single potentially erroneous transaction in an event is as follows: sale of 100 contracts of a standard option (i.e., an option with a 100 share multiplier). The highest potential adjustment penalty for this single transaction would be $6,000, which would be calculated as $0.30 times 100 (contract multiplier) times 100 (number of contracts) times 2 (applicable Size Adjustment Modifier). The Exchange would calculate the highest potential adjustment penalty for each of the potentially erroneous transactions in the event and the Worst Case Adjustment Penalty would be the sum of such penalties on the Exchange and all other options exchanges with affected transactions.

    As described above, under the Proposed Rule if the Worst Case Adjustment Penalty does not equal or exceed $30,000,000, then a Significant Market Event has occurred if the sum of all applicable event statistics (expressed as a percentage of the relevant thresholds), is greater than or equal to 150% and 75% or more of at least one category is reached. The Proposed Rule further provides that no single category can contribute more than 100% to the sum. As an example of the application of this provision, assume that in a given event across all options exchanges that: (A) The Worst Case Adjustment Penalty is $12,000,000 (40% of $30,000,000), (B) 300,000 options contracts are potentially erroneous (60% of 500,000), (C) the notional value of potentially erroneous transactions is $30,000,000 (30% of $100,000,000), and (D) 12,000 transactions are potentially erroneous (120% of 10,000). This event would qualify as a Significant Market Event because the sum of all applicable event statistics would be 230%, far exceeding the 150% threshold. The 230% sum is reached by adding 40%, 60%, 30% and last, 100% (i.e., rounded down from 120%) for the number of transactions. The Exchange notes that no single category can contribute more than 100% to the sum and any category contributing more than 100% will be rounded down to 100%.

    As an alternative example, assume a large-scale event occurs involving low-priced options with a small number of contracts in each execution. Assume in this event across all options exchanges that: (A) The Worst Case Adjustment Penalty is $600,000 (2% of $30,000,000), (B) 20,000 options contracts are potentially erroneous (4% of 500,000), (C) the notional value of potentially erroneous transactions is $20,000,000 (20% of $100,000,000), and (D) 20,000 transactions are potentially erroneous (200% of 10,000, but rounded down to 100%). This event would not qualify as a Significant Market Event because the sum of all applicable event statistics would be 126%, below the 150% threshold. The Exchange reiterates that as proposed, even when a single category other than criterion (A) is fully met, that does not necessarily qualify an event as a Significant Market Event.

    The Exchange believes that the breadth and scope of the obvious error rules are appropriate and sufficient for handling of typical and common obvious errors. Coordination between and among the exchanges should generally not be necessary even when a TPH has an error that results in executions on more than one exchange. In setting the thresholds above the Exchange believes that the requirements will be met only when truly widespread and significant errors happen and the benefits of coordination and information sharing far outweigh the costs of the logistics of additional intra-exchange coordination. The Exchange notes that in addition to its belief that the proposed thresholds are sufficiently high, the Exchange has proposed the requirement that either criterion (A) is met or the sum of applicable event statistics for proposed (A) through (D) equals or exceeds 150% in order to ensure that an event is sufficiently large but also to avoid situations where an event is extremely large but just misses potential qualifying thresholds. For instance, the proposal is designed to help avoid a situation where the Worst Case Adjustment Penalty is $15,000,000, so the event does not qualify based on criterion (A) alone, but there are transactions in 490,000 options contracts that are potentially erroneous (missing criterion (B) by 10,000 contracts), there transactions with a notional value of $99,000,000 (missing criterion (C) by $1,000,000), and there are 9,000 potentially erroneous transactions overall (missing criterion (D) by 1,000 transactions). The Exchange believes that the proposed formula, while slightly more complicated than simply requiring a certain threshold to be met in each category, may help to avoid inapplicability of the proposed provisions in the context of an event that would be deemed significant by most subjective measures but that barely misses each of the objective criteria proposed by the Exchange.

    To ensure consistent application across options exchanges, in the event of a suspected Significant Market Event, the Exchange shall initiate a coordinated review of potentially erroneous transactions with all other affected options exchanges to determine the full scope of the event. Under the Proposed Rule, the Exchange will promptly coordinate with the other options exchanges to determine the appropriate review period as well as select one or more specific points in time prior to the transactions in question and use one or more specific points in time to determine Theoretical Price. Other than the selected points in time, if applicable, the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price as described above. For example, around the start of a SME that is triggered by a large and aggressively priced buy order, three exchanges have multiple orders on the offer side of the market: Exchange A has offers priced at $2.20, $2.25, $2.30 and several other price levels to $3.00, Exchange B has offers at $2.45, $2.30 and several other price levels to $3.00, Exchange C has offers at price levels between $2.50 and $3.00. Assume an event occurs starting at 9:05:25 a.m. CT and in this particular series the executions begin on Exchange A and subsequently begin to occur on Exchanges B and C. Without coordination and information sharing between the exchanges, Exchange B and Exchange C cannot know with certainty that whether or not the execution at Exchange A that happened at $2.20 immediately prior to their executions at $2.45 and $2.50 is part of the same erroneous event or not. With proper coordination, the exchanges can determine that in this series, the proper point in time from which the event should be analyzed is 9:05:25 a.m. CT, and thus, the NBO of $2.20 should be used as the Theoretical Price for purposes of all buy transactions in such options series that occurred during the event.

    If it is determined that a Significant Market Event has occurred then, using the parameters agreed with respect to the times from which Theoretical Price will be calculated, if applicable, an Official will determine whether any or all transactions under review qualify as Obvious Errors. The Proposed Rule would require the Exchange to use the criteria in Proposed Rule 6.25(c), as described above, to determine whether an Obvious Error has occurred for each transaction that was part of the Significant Market Event. Upon taking any final action, the Exchange would be required to promptly notify both parties to the trade electronically or via telephone.

    The execution price of each affected transaction will be adjusted by an Official to the price provided below, unless both parties agree to adjust the transaction to a different price or agree to bust the trade.

    Theoretical price (TP) Buy transaction adjustment—TP plus Sell transaction adjustment—TP minus Below $3.00 $0.15 $0.15 At or above $3.00 0.30 0.30 Thus, the proposed adjustment criteria for Significant Market Events are identical to the proposed adjustment levels for Obvious Errors generally. In addition, in the context of a Significant Market Event, any error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size Adjustment Modifier described above. Also, the adjustment criteria would apply equally to all market participants (i.e., Customers and non-Customers) in a Significant Market Event. However, as is true for the proposal with respect to Catastrophic Errors, under the Proposed Rule where at least one party to the transaction is a Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price. The Exchange has retained the protection of a Customer's limit price in order to avoid a situation where the adjustment could be to a price that the Customer could not afford, which is less likely to be an issue for a market professional. The Exchange has otherwise proposed to treat all market participants the same in the context of a Significant Market Event to provide additional certainty to market participants with respect to their potential exposure as soon as an event has occurred.

    Another significant distinction between the proposed Obvious Error provision and the proposed Significant Market Event provision is that if the Exchange, in consultation with other options exchanges, determines that timely adjustment is not feasible due to the extraordinary nature of the situation, then the Exchange will nullify some or all transactions arising out of the Significant Market Event during the review period selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges. To the extent the Exchange, in consultation with other options exchanges, determines to nullify less than all transactions arising out of the Significant Market Event, those transactions subject to nullification will be selected based upon objective criteria with a view toward maintaining a fair and orderly market and the protection of investors and the public interest. For example, assume a Significant Market Event causes 25,000 potentially erroneous transactions and impacts 51 options classes. Of the 25,000 transactions, 24,000 of them are concentrated in a single options class. The exchanges may decide the most appropriate solution because it will provide the most certainty to participants and allow for the prompt resumption of regular trading is to bust all trades in the most heavily affected class between two specific points in time, while the other 1,000 trades across the other 50 classes are reviewed and adjusted as appropriate. A similar situation might arise directionally where a Customer submits both erroneous buy and sell orders and the number of errors that happened that were erroneously low priced (i.e., erroneous sell orders) were 50,000 in number but the number of errors that were erroneously high (i.e., erroneous buy orders) were only 500 in number. The most effective and efficient approach that provides the most certainty to the marketplace in a reasonable amount of time while most closely following the generally prescribed obvious error rules could be to bust all of the erroneous sell transactions but to adjust the erroneous buy transactions.

    With respect to rulings made pursuant to the proposed Significant Market Event provision the Exchange believes that the number of affected transactions is such that immediate finality is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market and to protect investors and the public interest. Accordingly, rulings by the Exchange pursuant to the Significant Market Event provision would be non-appealable pursuant to the Proposed Rule.

    Additional Provisions Mutual Agreement

    In addition to the objective criteria described above, the Proposed Rule also proposes to make clear that the determination as to whether a trade was executed at an erroneous price may be made by mutual agreement of the affected parties to a particular transaction. The Proposed Rule would state that an electronic or open outcry trade may be nullified or adjusted on the terms that all parties to a particular transaction agree, provided, however, that such agreement to nullify or adjust must be conveyed to the Exchange in a manner prescribed by the Exchange prior to 7:30 a.m. Central Time on the first trading day following the execution.

    The Exchange also proposes to explicitly state that it is considered conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for any TPH to use the mutual adjustment process to circumvent any applicable Exchange rule, the Act or any of the rules and regulations thereunder. Thus, for instance, a TPH is precluded from seeking to avoid applicable trade-through rules by executing a transaction and then adjusting such transaction to a price at which the Exchange would not have allowed it to execute at the time of the execution because it traded through the quotation of another options exchange. The Exchange notes that in connection with its obligations as a self-regulatory organization, the Exchange's Regulatory Department reviews adjustments to transactions to detect potential violations of Exchange rules or the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.

    Trading Halts

    Exchange Rule 6.3 describes the Exchange's authority to declare trading halts in one or more options traded on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to make clear in the Proposed Rule that it will nullify any transaction that occurs during a trading halt in the affected option on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.3. If any trades occur notwithstanding a trading halt then the Exchange believes it appropriate to nullify such transactions. While the Exchange may halt options trading for various reasons, such a scenario almost certainly is due to extraordinary circumstances and is potentially the result of market-wide coordination to halt options trading or trading generally. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe it is appropriate to allow trades to stand if such trades should not have occurred in the first place.

    The Exchange proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 6.3. The interpretation and Policy will state that the Exchange shall nullify any transaction that occurs: (a) during a trading halt in the affected option on the Exchange; or (b) with respect to equity options (including options overlying ETFs), during a regulatory halt as declared by the primary listing market for the underlying security.

    Erroneous Print and Quotes in Underlying Security

    Market participants on the Exchange likely base the pricing of their orders submitted to the Exchange on the price of the underlying security for the option. Thus, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to adopt provisions that allow adjustment or nullification of transactions based on erroneous prints or erroneous quotes in the underlying security.

    The Exchange proposes to adopt language in the Proposed Rule stating that a trade resulting from an erroneous print(s) disseminated by the underlying market that is later nullified by that underlying market shall be adjusted or busted as set forth in the Obvious Error provisions of the Proposed Rule, provided a party notifies the Exchange's Help Desk in a timely manner, as further described below. The Exchange proposes to define a trade resulting from an erroneous print(s) as any options trade executed during a period of time for which one or more executions in the underlying security are nullified and for one second thereafter. The Exchange believes that one second is an appropriate amount of time in which an options trade would be directly based on executions in the underlying equity security. The Exchange also proposes to require that if a party believes that it participated in an erroneous transaction resulting from an erroneous print(s) pursuant to the proposed erroneous print provision it must notify the Exchange's Help Desk within the timeframes set forth in the Obvious Error provision described above. The Exchange has also proposed to state that the allowed notification timeframe commences at the time of notification by the underlying market(s) of nullification of transactions in the underlying security. Further, the Exchange proposes that if multiple underlying markets nullify trades in the underlying security, the allowed notification timeframe will commence at the time of the first market's notification.

    As an example of a situation in which a trade results from an erroneous print disseminated by the underlying market that is later nullified by the underlying market, assume that a given underlying is trading in the $49.00-$50.00 price range then has an erroneous print at $5.00. Given that there is the potential perception that the underlying has gone through a dramatic price revaluation, numerous options trades could promptly trigger based off of this new price. However, because the price that triggered them was not a valid price it would be appropriate to review said option trades when the underlying print that triggered them is removed.

    The Exchange also proposes to add a provision stating that a trade resulting from an erroneous quote(s) in the underlying security shall be adjusted or busted as set forth in the Obvious Error provisions of the Proposed Rule, provided a party notifies the Exchange's Help Desk in a timely manner, as further described below. Pursuant to the Proposed Rule, an erroneous quote occurs when the underlying security has a width of at least $1.00 and has a width at least five times greater than the average quote width for such underlying security during the time period encompassing two minutes before and after the dissemination of such quote. For purposes of the Proposed Rule, the average quote width will be determined by adding the quote widths of sample quotations at regular 15-second intervals during the four-minute time period referenced above (excluding the quote(s) in question) and dividing by the number of quotes during such time period (excluding the quote(s) in question).15 Similar to the proposal with respect to erroneous prints described above, if a party believes that it participated in an erroneous transaction resulting from an erroneous quote(s) it must notify the Exchange's Help Desk in accordance with the notification provisions of the Obvious Error provision described above. The Proposed Rule, therefore, puts the onus on each TPH to notify the Exchange if such TPH believes that a trade should be reviewed pursuant to either of the proposed provisions, as the Exchange is not in position to determine the impact of erroneous prints or quotes on individual TPHs. The Exchange notes that it does not believe that additional time is necessary with respect to a trade based on an erroneous quote because a TPH has all information necessary to detect the error at the time of an option transaction that was triggered by an erroneous quote, which is in contrast to the proposed erroneous print provision that includes a dependency on an action by the market where the underlying security traded.

    15 The Exchange has proposed the price and time parameters for quote width and average quote width used to determine whether an erroneous quote has occurred based on established rules of options exchanges that currently apply such parameters. See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.25(a)(5); NYSE Arca Rule 6.87(a)(5). Based on discussions with these exchanges, the Exchange believes that the parameters are a reasonable approach to determine whether an erroneous quote has occurred for purposes of the proposed rule.

    As an example of a situation in which a trade results from an erroneous quote in the underlying security, assume again that a given underlying is quoting and trading in the $49.00-$50.00 price range then a liquidity gap occurs, with bidders not representing quotes in the market place and an offer quoted at $5.00. Quoting may quickly return to normal, again in the $49.00-$50.00 price range, but due to the potential perception that the underlying has gone through a dramatic price revaluation, numerous options trades could trigger based off of this new quoted price in the interim. Because the price that triggered such trades was not a valid price it would be appropriate to review said option trades.

    Additionally, consistent with the Current Rule, the Exchange proposes to designate and announce the “underlying” and underlying markets for the purposes of paragraphs 6.25(g) and (h) via Regulatory Circular.16

    16 The Exchange notes that the Proposed Rule eliminates “related instruments” from the Current Rule. The Exchange believes the change is necessary to conform with the text of the Proposed Rule; however, the Exchange believes `related instruments' are included within the concept of an `underlying' in the Proposed Rule. See Current Rule 6.25(a)(4) and (5).

    Stop (and Stop-Limit) Order Trades Triggered by Erroneous Trades

    The Exchange notes that certain market participants and their customers enter stop or stop limit orders that are triggered based on executions in the marketplace. As proposed, transactions resulting from the triggering of a stop or stop-limit order by an erroneous trade in an option contract shall be nullified by the Exchange, provided a party notifies the Exchange's Help Desk in a timely manner as set forth below. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to nullify executions of stop or stop-limit orders that were wrongly triggered because such transactions should not have occurred. If a party believes that it participated in an erroneous transaction pursuant to the Proposed Rule it must notify the Exchange's Help Desk within the timeframes set forth in the Obvious Error Rule above, with the allowed notification timeframe commencing at the time of notification of the nullification of transaction(s) that triggered the stop or stop-limit order.

    Linkage Trades

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt language that clearly provides the Exchange with authority to take necessary actions when another options exchange nullifies or adjusts a transaction pursuant to its respective rules and the transaction resulted from an order that has passed through the Exchange and been routed on to another options exchange on behalf of the Exchange. Specifically, if the Exchange routes an order pursuant to the Intermarket Options Linkage Plan 17 that results in a transaction on another options exchange (a “Linkage Trade”) and such options exchange subsequently nullifies or adjusts the Linkage Trade pursuant to its rules, the Exchange will perform all actions necessary to complete the nullification or adjustment of the Linkage Trade. Although the Exchange is not utilizing its own authority to nullify or adjust a transaction related to an action taken on a Linkage Trade by another options exchange, the Exchange does have to assist in the processing of the adjustment or nullification of the order, such as notification to the TPH and the OCC of the adjustment or nullification. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed provision adds additional transparency to the Proposed Rule.

    17See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-54551 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59148 (October 6, 2006).

    Obvious Error Panel

    The Exchange proposes to maintain its current appeals process in connection with obvious errors. Specifically, if a party affected by a determination made under paragraph (c) so requests within the time permitted in paragraph (k)(3) below, an Obvious Error Panel will review decisions made under this Rule, including whether an obvious error occurred, whether the correct Theoretical Price was used, and whether the correct adjustment was made at the correct price. A party may also request that the Obvious Error Panel provide relief as required in this Rule in cases where the party failed to provide the notification required in paragraph (c)(2) and an extension was not granted, but unusual circumstances must merit special consideration. A party cannot request review by an Obvious Error Panel of determinations by a CBOE Official made pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this Rule.

    The Obvious Error Panel will be comprised of at least one (1) member of the Exchange's staff designated to perform Obvious Error Panel functions and four (4) Trading Permit Holders. Fifty percent of the number of Trading Permit Holders on the Obvious Error Panel must be directly engaged in market making activity and fifty percent of the number of Trading Permit Holders on the Obvious Error Panel must act in the capacity of a non-DPM floor broker.

    Under Proposed Rule (k)(3) a request for review must be made in writing within thirty (30) minutes after a party receives notification of the determination being appealed, except that if notification is made after 2:30 p.m. Central Time (“CT”), either party has until 8:30 a.m. CT the next trading day to request review. The Obvious Error Panel shall review the facts and render a decision on the day of the transaction, or the next trade day in the case where a request is properly made the next trade day.

    The Obvious Error Panel may overturn or modify an action taken under this Rule upon agreement by a majority of the Panel representatives. All determinations by the Obvious Error Panel may be appealed in accordance with paragraph (m) of this Rule.

    Catastrophic Error Panel

    The Exchange proposes to modify the procedure and function of the Catastrophic Error Panel in the Current Rule to conform the appeals process for catastrophic errors to the appeals process for obvious errors. Under the Current Rule, the Catastrophic Error Panel does not review initial determinations regarding catastrophic errors; rather, the Catastrophic Error Panel makes initial determinations with regards to whether a catastrophic error has occurred. In order to conform to the Proposed Rule, which provides that initial determinations regarding potential catastrophic errors are made by CBOE Officials, the Exchange is proposing to adopt procedures similar to the Obvious Error Panel for the proposed Catastrophic Error Panel. Specifically, if a party affected by a determination made under paragraph (d) so requests within the time permitted in paragraph (l)(3), a Catastrophic Error Panel will review decisions made under this Rule, including whether a catastrophic error occurred, whether the correct Theoretical Price was used, and whether the correct adjustment was made at the correct price. The composition of the Catastrophic Error Panel will be the same as the Obvious Error Panel.

    Additionally, under paragraph (l)(3), a request for review must be made in writing within thirty (30) minutes after a party receives notification of a determination under paragraph (d), except that if notification is made after 2:30 p.m. Central Time (“CT”), either party has until 8:30 a.m. CT the next trading day to request review. The Catastrophic Error Panel shall review the facts and render a decision on the day of the transaction, or the next trade day in the case where a request is properly made the next trade day.

    Finally, as with the Obvious Error Panel, the Catastrophic Error Panel may overturn or modify an action taken under this Rule upon agreement by a majority of the Panel representatives. All determinations by the Catastrophic Error Panel may be appealed in accordance with paragraph (m) of this Rule.

    Review

    Determinations made by an Obvious Error Panel or Catastrophic Error Panel can be appealed in accordance with paragraph (m) of the Proposed Rule. Paragraph (m) provides that, subject to the limitations contained in (c)(3),18 a Trading Permit Holder affected by a determination made under this Rule may appeal such determination, in accordance with Chapter XIX of the Exchange's rules. For purposes of this Rule, a Trading Permit Holder must be aggrieved as described in Rule 19.1. Notwithstanding any provision in Rule 19.2 to the contrary, a request for review must be made in writing (in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange) no later than the close of trading on the next trade date after the Trading Permit Holder receives notification of such determination from the Exchange.

    18 Consistent with the Current Rule, transactions adjusted or nullified under (c)(3) cannot be reviewed by an Obvious Error Panel under paragraph (k) but can be appealed in accordance with paragraph (m).

    Limit Up-Limit Down Plan

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01 to the Proposed Rule to provide for how the Exchange will treat Obvious and Catastrophic Errors in response to the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan” or the “Plan),19 which is applicable to all NMS stocks, as defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(47).20 Under the Proposed Rule, during a pilot period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan, including any extensions to the pilot period for the Plan, an execution will not be subject to review as an Obvious Error or Catastrophic Error pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of the Proposed Rule if it occurred while the underlying security was in a “Limit State” or “Straddle State,” as defined in the Plan. The Exchange, however, proposes to retain authority to review transactions on an Official's own motion pursuant to sub-paragraph (c)(3) of the Proposed Rule and to bust or adjust transactions pursuant to the proposed Significant Market Event provision, the proposed trading halts provision, the proposed provisions with respect to erroneous prints and quotes in the underlying security, the proposed provision related to stop and stop limit orders that have been triggered by an erroneous execution, or the proposed provision related to verifiable disruptions or malfunctions of Exchange systems. The Exchange believes that these safeguards will provide the Exchange with the flexibility to act when necessary and appropriate to nullify or adjust a transaction, while also providing market participants with certainty that, under normal circumstances, the trades they affect with quotes and/or orders having limit prices will stand irrespective of subsequent moves in the underlying security.

    19 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (order approving the Plan on a pilot basis).

    20 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).

    During a Limit or Straddle State, options prices may deviate substantially from those available immediately prior to or following such States. Thus, determining a Theoretical Price in such situations would often be very subjective, creating unnecessary uncertainty and confusion for investors. Because of this uncertainty, and consistent with the Current Rule, the Exchange proposes to provide that the Exchange will not review transactions as Obvious Errors or Catastrophic Errors when the underlying security is in a Limit or Straddle State.

    The Exchange represents that it will conduct its own analysis concerning the elimination of the Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error provisions during Limit and Straddle States and agrees to provide the Commission with relevant data to assess the impact of this proposed rule change. As part of its analysis, the Exchange will evaluate (1) the options market quality during Limit and Straddle States, (2) assess the character of incoming order flow and transactions during Limit and Straddle States, and (3) review any complaints from TPHs and their customers concerning executions during Limit and Straddle States. The Exchange also agrees to provide to the Commission data requested to evaluate the impact of the inapplicability of the Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error provisions, including data relevant to assessing the various analyses noted above.

    In connection with this proposal, the Exchange will provide to the Commission and the public a dataset containing the data for each Straddle State and Limit State in NMS Stocks underlying options traded on the Exchange beginning in the month during which the proposal is approved, limited to those option classes that have at least one (1) trade on the Exchange during a Straddle State or Limit State. For each of those option classes affected, each data record will contain the following information:

    • Stock symbol, option symbol, time at the start of the Straddle or Limit State, an indicator for whether it is a Straddle or Limit State.

    • For activity on the Exchange:

    ○ Executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time- weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average quoted depth at the offer;

    ○ high execution price, low execution price;

    ○ number of trades for which a request for review for error was received during Straddle and Limit States;

    ○ an indicator variable for whether those options outlined above have a price change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's Limit or Straddle State compared to the last available option price as reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle State (1 if observe 30% and 0 otherwise). Another indicator variable for whether the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving the Limit or Straddle state (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from the price before the start of the Limit or Straddle State.

    In addition, by May 29, 2015, the Exchange shall provide to the Commission and the public assessments relating to the impact of the operation of the Obvious Error rules during Limit and Straddle States as follows: (1) Evaluate the statistical and economic impact of Limit and Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in the options markets; and (2) Assess whether the lack of Obvious Error rules in effect during the Straddle and Limit States are problematic. The timing of this submission would coordinate with Participants' proposed time frame to submit to the Commission assessments as required under Appendix B of the Plan. The Exchange notes that the pilot program is intended to run concurrent with the pilot period of the Plan, which has been extended to October 23, 2015. The Exchange proposes to reflect this date in the Proposed Rule.

    No Adjustments to a Worse Price

    The Exchange also proposes to include Interpretation and Policy .02 to the Proposed Rule, which would make clear that to the extent the provisions of the proposed Rule would result in the Exchange applying an adjustment of an erroneous sell transaction to a price lower than the execution price or an erroneous buy transaction to a price higher than the execution price, the Exchange will not adjust or nullify the transaction, but rather, the execution price will stand.

    Opening Trades in Restricted Series

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .03 to the Proposed Rule, which will permit the nullification of opening transactions in “restricted series” that do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 5.4.21 Consistent with the Current Rule,22 when the Exchange makes a determination that trading in a series is restricted pursuant to Rule 5.4, the Exchange notifies the membership of that determination through issuance of a regulatory circular. In addition, the Exchange's systems are programmed to automatically restrict the entry of electronic opening transactions. However, opening market-maker activity is still permitted under certain scenarios. As a result, it is possible that an opening transaction that does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 5.4 may occur inadvertently. In order to address these scenarios, the Exchange is proposing to permit the nullification of opening transactions that do not satisfy Rule 5.4.

    21 In relevant part, Rule 5.4 provides that, whenever the Exchange determines that an underlying security previously approved for Exchange option transactions does not meet the then current requirements for continuance of such approval or for any other reason should no longer be approved, the Exchange will not open for trading any additional series of options of the class covering that underlying security and therefore two floor officials, in consultation with a designated senior executive officer of the Exchange, may prohibit any opening purchase transactions in series of options of that class previously opened (except that (i) opening transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate closing transactions of other market participants and (ii) opening transactions by CBOE member organizations to facilitate the closing transactions of public customers executed as crosses pursuant to and in accordance with paragraph (b) or (d) of Rule 6.74, Crossing Orders, may be permitted), to the extent it deems such action necessary or appropriate (such series are referred as “restricted series”); provided, however, that where exceptional circumstances have caused an underlying security not to comply with the Exchange's current approval maintenance requirements, regarding number of publicly held shares or publicly held principal amount, number of shareholders, trading volume or market price the Exchange, in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market or for the protection of investors, may determine to continue to open additional series of option contracts of the class covering that underlying security.

    22See Current Rule 6.25(a)(6).

    Binary Options

    Additionally, consistent with the Current Rule,23 the Exchange also proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .04 to the Proposed Rule, which provides that for purposes of the obvious error provisions in paragraph (c) of this Rule, the adjusted price (including any applicable adjustment under (c)(4)(A) for non-customer transactions) shall not exceed the applicable exercise settlement amount for the binary option. As defined in CBOE Rule 22.1(e), the term “exercise settlement amount” as when used in reference to a binary option means the amount of cash that a holder will receive upon exercise of the contract.24

    23See Current Rule 6.25.04.

    24 This proposed limitation on obvious pricing error adjustments for binary options is similar to an existing limitation on obvious pricing error adjustments for Credit Options. See Rule 29.15, Nullification and Adjustments for Credit Option Transactions.

    Verifiable Disruption or Malfunction of Exchange Systems

    Additionally, consistent with the Current Rule,25 the Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .05, which provides that electronic or open outcry transactions arising out of a “verifiable disruption or malfunction” in the use or operation of any Exchange automated quotation, dissemination, execution, or communication system will either be nullified or adjusted by an Official. Transactions that qualify for price adjustment will be adjusted to Theoretical Price, as defined in paragraph (b).

    25See Current Rule 6.25(a)(3) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-48827 (November 24, 2003), 68 FR 67498 (December 2, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2001-04).

    Arbitration

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .06, which provides that any determination made by an Official, an Obvious Error Panel, or a Catastrophic Error Panel under Proposed Rule shall be rendered without prejudice as to the rights of the parties to the transaction to submit a dispute to arbitration.

    Credit Options

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming changes to Current Rule 29.15, which governs the nullification and adjustment of credit options transactions.26 Current Rule 29.15 states that 6.25(a) has no applicability to Credit Options. Current Rule 6.25(a) has provisions related to an obvious error table, a catastrophic error table, a definition of theoretical price, whether a transaction is adjusted or nullified, no-bid series, verifiable disruption or malfunction of Exchange system, erroneous print or quote in an underlying, opening trades in restricted series. Current Rule 6.25(d), by implication, is also inapplicable to Current Rule 29.15 because (d)(1) applies to catastrophic errors pursuant to paragraph (a)(1), which is excluded from Rule 29.15.27 Therefore, paragraphs 6.25(b), (c), and (e) are the provisions of Current Rule 6.25 that apply to Current Rule 29.15. In addition, where Current Rule 29.15 only excludes paragraph (a) of Rule 6.25, the format of the harmonized rule requires a list of paragraphs from Proposed Rule 6.25 to be excluded from Proposed Rule 29.15 in order to make the conforming changes (i.e., paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e) (g), (h), (l), and Interpretation and Policy .05 are to be excluded and inapplicable to Proposed Rule 29.15).

    26 Although CBOE does not currently offer credit options, they are excluded from current Rule 6.25(a) because the value of a credit option is either $0 or $100. Therefore, provisions in the Current Rule 6.25 related to the obvious error table, catastrophic error tables, definition of theoretical price, etc., are not applicable to credit options. Rule 24.19 sets forth the theoretical price for a credit option as well as when there is an obvious error. The only provisions of Current Rule 6.25 that are applicable to credit options are the procedural requirements found in Rule 6.25(b). The conforming changes to Proposed Rule 29.15 will act in the same manner.

    27See Rule 6.25(d)(1).

    Implementation Date

    In order to ensure that other options exchanges are able to adopt rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate the effectiveness of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to May 8, 2015.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.28 Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 29 because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

    28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    29 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 30 in that the Proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    30 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes the various provisions allowing or dictating adjustment rather than nullification of a trade are necessary given the benefits of adjusting a trade price rather than nullifying the trade completely. Because options trades are used to hedge, or are hedged by, transactions in other markets, including securities and futures, many TPHs, and their customers, would rather adjust prices of executions rather than nullify the transactions and, thus, lose a hedge altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest of investors to allow for price adjustments as well as nullifications. The Exchange further discusses specific aspects of the Proposed Rule below.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly discriminatory, even though it differentiates in many places between Customers and non-Customers. The rules of the options exchanges, including the Exchange's existing Obvious Error provision, often treat Customers differently, often affording them preferential treatment. This treatment is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading accounts. At the same time, the Exchange reiterates that in the U.S. options markets generally there is significant retail customer participation that occurs directly on (and only on) options exchanges such as the Exchange. Accordingly, differentiating among market participants with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonable and fair to provide Customers with additional protections as compared to non-Customers.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal with respect to the allowance of mutual agreed upon adjustments or nullifications is appropriate and consistent with the Act, as such proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, allowing participants to mutually agree to correct an erroneous transactions without the Exchange mandating the outcome. The Exchange also believes that its proposal with respect to mutual adjustments is consistent with the Act because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by explicitly stating that it is considered conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for any TPH to use the mutual adjustment process to circumvent any applicable Exchange rule, the Act or any of the rules and regulations thereunder.

    The Exchange believes its proposal to provide within the Proposed Rule definitions of Customer, erroneous sell transaction and erroneous buy transaction, and Official is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because such terms will provide more certainty to market participants as to the meaning of the Proposed Rule and reduce the possibility that a party can intentionally submit an order hoping for the market to move in their favor in reliance on the Rule as a safety mechanism, thereby promoting just and fair principles of trade. Similarly, the Exchange believes that proposed Interpretation and Policy .02 is consistent with the Act as it would make clear that the Exchange will not adjust or nullify a transaction, but rather, the execution price will stand when the applicable adjustment criteria would actually adjust the price of the transaction to a worse price (i.e., higher for an erroneous buy or lower for an erroneous sell order).

    As set forth below, the Exchange believes it is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act for the Exchange to determine Theoretical Price when the NBBO cannot reasonably be relied upon because the alternative could result in transactions that cannot be adjusted or nullified even when they are otherwise clearly at a price that is significantly away from the appropriate market for the option. Similarly, reliance on an NBBO that is not reliable could result in adjustment to prices that are still significantly away from the appropriate market for the option.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal with respect to determining Theoretical Price is consistent with the Act in that it has retained the standard of the current rule, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. Because, however, there is not always an NBBO that can or should be used in order to administer the rule, the Exchange has proposed various provisions that provide the Exchange with the authority to determine a Theoretical Price. The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule is transparent with respect to the circumstances under which the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price, and has sought to limit such circumstances as much as possible. The Exchange notes that Exchange personnel currently are required to determine Theoretical Price in certain circumstances. While the Exchange continues to pursue alternative solutions that might further enhance the objectivity and consistency of determining Theoretical Price, the Exchange believes that the discretion currently afforded to Exchange Officials is appropriate in the absence of a reliable NBBO that can be used to set the Theoretical Price.

    With respect to the specific proposed provisions for determining Theoretical Price for transactions that occur as part of the Exchange's Opening Process and in situations where there is a wide quote, the Exchange believes both provisions are consistent with the Act because they provide objective criteria that will determine Theoretical Price with limited exceptions for situations where the Exchange does not believe the NBBO is a reasonable benchmark or there is no NBBO. The Exchange notes in particular with respect to the wide quote provision that the Proposed Rule will result in the Exchange determining Theoretical Price less frequently than it would pursuant to wide quote provisions that have previously been approved. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and consistent with the Act to afford protections to market participants by not relying on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price when the quote is extremely wide but had been, in the prior 10 seconds, at much more reasonable width. The Exchange also believes it is appropriate and consistent with the Act to use the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price when the quote has been wider than the applicable amount for more than 10 seconds, as the Exchange does not believe it is necessary to apply any other criteria in such a circumstance. The Exchange believes that market participants can easily use or adopt safeguards to prevent errors when such market conditions exist. When entering an order into a market with a persistently wide quote, the Exchange does not believe that the entering party should reasonably expect anything other than the quoted price of an option.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt clear but disparate standards with respect to the deadline for submitting a request for review of Customer and non-Customer transactions is consistent with the Act, particularly in that it creates a greater level of protection for Customers. As noted above, the Exchange believes that this is appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory in light of the fact that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets and are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day. Thus, TPHs representing Customer orders reasonably may need additional time to submit a request for review. The Exchange also believes that its proposal to provide additional time for submission of requests for review of linkage trades is reasonable and consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest due to the time that it might take an options exchange or third-party routing broker to file a request for review with the Exchange if the initial notification of an error is received by the originating options exchange near the end of such options exchange's filing deadline. Without this additional time, there could be disparate results based purely on the existence of intermediaries and an interconnected market structure.

    In relation to the aspect of the proposal giving Officials the ability to review transactions for obvious errors on their own motion, the Exchange notes that an Official can adjust or nullify a transaction under the authority granted by this provision only if the transaction meets the specific and objective criteria for an Obvious Error under the Proposed Rule. As noted above, this is designed to give an Official the ability to provide parties relief in those situations where they have failed to report an apparent error within the established notification period. However, the Exchange will only grant relief if the transaction meets the requirements for an Obvious Error as described in the Proposed Rule.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adjust non-Customer transactions and to nullify Customer transactions that qualify as Obvious Errors is appropriate for reasons consistent with those described above. In particular, Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading accounts.

    The Exchange acknowledges that the proposal contains some uncertainty regarding whether a trade will be adjusted or nullified, depending on whether one of the parties is a Customer, because a party may not know whether the other party to a transaction was a Customer at the time of entering into the transaction. However, the Exchange believes that the proposal nevertheless promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors as well as the public interest because it eliminates the possibility that a Customer's order will be adjusted to a significantly different price. As noted above, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to afford Customers greater protections under the Proposed Rule than are afforded to non-Customers. Thus, the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the Act in that it protects investors and the public interest by providing additional protections to those that are less informed and potentially less able to afford an adjustment of a transaction that was executed in error. Customers are also less likely to have engaged in significant hedging or other trading activity based on earlier transactions, and thus, are less in need of maintaining a position at an adjusted price than non-Customers.

    If any TPH submits requests to the Exchange for review of transactions pursuant to the Proposed Rule, and in aggregate that TPH has 200 or more Customer transactions under review concurrently and the orders resulting in such transactions were submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less, the Exchange believes it is appropriate for the Exchange apply the non-Customer adjustment criteria described above to such transactions. The Exchange believes that the proposed aggregation is reasonable as it is representative of an extremely large number of orders submitted to the Exchange over a relatively short period of time that are, in turn, possibly erroneous (and within a time frame significantly less than an entire day), and thus is most likely to occur because of a systems issue experienced by a TPH representing Customer orders or a systems issue coupled with the erroneous marking of orders. The Exchange does not believe it is possible at a level of 200 Customer orders over a 2 minute period that are under review at one time that multiple, separate Customers were responsible for the errors in the ordinary course of trading. In the event of a large-scale issue caused by a TPH that has submitted orders over a 2 minute period marked as Customer that resulted in more than 200 transactions under review, the Exchange does not believe it is appropriate to nullify all such transactions because of the negative impact that nullification could have on the market participants on the contra-side of such transactions, who might have engaged in hedging and trading activity following such transactions. In order for a participant to have more than 200 transactions under review concurrently when the orders triggering such transactions were received in 2 minutes or less, the Exchange believes that a market participant will have far exceeded the normal behavior of customers deserving protected status. While the Exchange continues to believe that it is appropriate to nullify transactions in such a circumstance if both participants to a transaction are Customers, the Exchange does not believe it is appropriate to place the overall risk of a significant number of trade breaks on non-Customers that in the normal course of business may have engaged in additional hedging activity or trading activity based on such transactions. Thus, the Exchange believes it is necessary and appropriate to protect non-Customers in such a circumstance by applying the non-Customer adjustment criteria, and thus adjusting transactions as set forth above, in the event a TPH has more than 200 transactions under review concurrently. In summary, due to the extreme level at which the proposal is set, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it promotes just and equitable principles of trade by encouraging market participants to retain appropriate controls over their systems to avoid submitting a large number of erroneous orders in a short period of time.

    Similarly, the Exchange believes that the proposed Size Adjustment Modifier, which would increase the adjustment amount for non-Customer transactions, is appropriate because it attempts to account for the additional risk that the parties to the trade undertake for transactions that are larger in scope. The Exchange believes that the Size Adjustment Modifier creates additional incentives to prevent more impactful Obvious Errors and it lessens the impact on the contra-party to an adjusted trade. The Exchange notes that these contra-parties may have preferred to only trade the size involved in the transaction at the price at which such trade occurred, and in trading larger size has committed a greater level of capital and bears a larger hedge risk.

    The Exchange similarly believes that its Proposed Rule with respect to Catastrophic Errors is consistent with the Act as it affords additional time for market participants to file for review of erroneous transactions that were further away from the Theoretical Price. At the same time, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule is consistent with the Act in that it generally would adjust transactions, including Customer transactions, because this will protect against hedge risk, particularly for transactions that may have occurred several hours earlier and thus, which all parties to the transaction might presume are protected from further modification. Similarly, by providing larger adjustment amounts away from Theoretical Price than are set forth under the Obvious Error provision, the Catastrophic Error provision also takes into account the possibility that the party that was advantaged by the erroneous transaction has already taken actions based on the assumption that the transaction would stand. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to specifically protect Customers from adjustments through their limit prices for the reasons stated above, including that Customers are less likely to be watching trading throughout the day and that they may have less capital to afford an adjustment price. The Exchange believes that the proposal provides a fair process that will ensure that Customers are not forced to accept a trade that was executed in violation of their limit order price. In contrast, market professionals are more likely to have engaged in hedging or other trading activity based on earlier trading activity, and thus, are more likely to be willing to accept an adjustment rather than a nullification to preserve their positions even if such adjustment is to a price through their limit price.

    The Exchange believes that proposed rule change to adopt the Significant Market Event provision is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating the options markets. In particular, the Exchange believes it is important for options exchanges to coordinate when there is a widespread and significant event, as commonly, multiple options exchanges are impacted in such an event. Further, while the Exchange recognizes that the Proposed Rule will not guarantee a consistent result for all market participants on every market, the Exchange does believe that it will assist in that outcome. For instance, if options exchanges are able to agree as to the time from which Theoretical Price should be determined and the period of time that should be reviewed, the likely disparity between the Theoretical Prices used by such exchanges should be very slight and, in turn, with otherwise consistent rules, the results should be similar. The Exchange also believes that the Proposed Rule is consistent with the Act in that it generally would adjust transactions, including Customer transactions, because this will protect against hedge risk, particularly for liquidity providers that might have been quoting in thousands or tens of thousands of different series and might have affected executions throughout such quoted series. The Exchange believes that when weighing the competing interests between preferring a nullification for a Customer transaction and an adjustment for a transaction of a market professional, while nullification is appropriate in a typical one-off situation that it is necessary to protect liquidity providers in a widespread market event because, presumably, they will be the most affected by such an event (in contrast to a Customer who, by virtue of their status as such, likely would not have more than a small number of affected transactions). The Exchange believes that the protection of liquidity providers by favoring adjustments in the context of Significant Market Events can also benefit Customers indirectly by better enabling liquidity providers, which provides a cumulative benefit to the market. Also, as stated above with respect to Catastrophic Errors, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to specifically protect Customers from adjustments through their limit prices for the reasons stated above, including that Customers are less likely to be watching trading throughout the day and that they may have less capital to afford an adjustment price. The Exchange believes that the proposal provides a fair process that will ensure that Customers are not forced to accept a trade that was executed in violation of their limit order price. In contrast, market professionals are more likely to have engaged in hedging or other trading activity based on earlier trading activity, and thus, are more likely to be willing to accept an adjustment rather than a nullification to preserve their positions even if such adjustment is to a price through their limit price. In addition, the Exchange believes it is important to have the ability to nullify some or all transactions arising out of a Significant Market Event in the event timely adjustment is not feasible due to the extraordinary nature of the situation. In particular, although the Exchange has worked to limit the circumstances in which it has to determine Theoretical Price, in a widespread event it is possible that hundreds if not thousands of series would require an Exchange determination of Theoretical Price. In turn, if there are hundreds or thousands of trades in such series, it may not be practicable for the Exchange to determine the adjustment levels for all non-Customer transactions in a timely fashion, and in turn, it would be in the public interest to instead more promptly deliver a simple, consistent result of nullification.

    The Exchange believes that proposed rule change related to review, nullification and/or adjustment of erroneous transactions during a trading halt, an erroneous print in the underlying security, an erroneous quote in the underlying security, or an erroneous transaction in the option with respect to stop and stop limit orders is likewise consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the proposal provides for the adjustment or nullification of trades executed at erroneous prices through no fault on the part of the trading participants. Allowing for Exchange review in such situations will promote just and fair principles of trade by protecting investors from harm that is not of their own making. Specifically with respect to the proposed provisions governing erroneous prints and quotes in the underlying security, the Exchange notes that market participants on the Exchange base the value of their quotes and orders on the price of the underlying security. The provisions regarding errors in prints and quotes in the underlying security cover instances where the information market participants use to price options is erroneous through no fault of their own. In these instances, market participants have little, if any, chance of pricing options accurately. Thus, these provisions are designed to provide relief to market participants harmed by such errors in the prints or quotes of the underlying security.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed provision related to Linkage Trades is consistent with the Act because it adds additional transparency to the Proposed Rule and makes clear that when a Linkage Trade is adjusted or nullified by another options exchange, the Exchange will take necessary actions to complete the nullification or adjustment of the Linkage Trade.

    The Exchange believes that retaining the same appeals process for obvious errors as the Exchange maintains under the Current Rule is consistent with the Act because such process provides TPHs with due process in connection with decisions made by Exchange Officials under the Proposed Rule. The Exchange believes that this process provides fair representation of TPHs by ensuring multiple TPHs are members of any Obvious Error Review Panel, which is consistent with Sections 6(b)(3) and 6(b)(7) of the Act. The Exchange believes adopting a similar appeals process for catastrophic errors is consistent with the Act for the same reasons noted above.

    With regard to the portion of the Exchange's proposal related to the applicability of the Obvious Error Rule when the underlying security is in a Limit or Straddle State, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it will provide certainty about how errors involving options orders and trades will be handled during periods of extraordinary volatility in the underlying security. Further, the Exchange believes that it is necessary and appropriate in the interest of promoting fair and orderly markets to exclude from Rule 6.25 those transactions executed during a Limit or Straddle State.

    The Exchange believes the application of the Proposed Rule without the proposed provision would be impracticable given the lack of reliable NBBO in the options market during Limit and Straddle States, and that the resulting actions (i.e., nullified trades or adjusted prices) may not be appropriate given market conditions. The Proposed Rule change would ensure that limit orders that are filled during a Limit State or Straddle State would have certainty of execution in a manner that promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.

    Moreover, given the fact that options prices during brief Limit or Straddle States may deviate substantially from those available shortly following the Limit or Straddle State, the Exchange believes giving market participants time to re-evaluate a transaction would create an unreasonable adverse selection opportunity that would discourage participants from providing liquidity during Limit or Straddle States. In this respect, the Exchange notes that only those orders with a limit price will be executed during a Limit or Straddle State. Therefore, on balance, the Exchange believes that removing the potential inequity of nullifying or adjusting executions occurring during Limit or Straddle States outweighs any potential benefits from applying certain provisions during such unusual market conditions. Additionally, as discussed above, there are additional pre-trade protections in place outside of the Obvious and Catastrophic Error Rule that will continue to safeguard customers.

    The Exchange notes that under certain limited circumstances the Proposed Rule will permit the Exchange to review transactions in options that overlay a security that is in a Limit or Straddle State. Specifically, an Official will have authority to review a transaction on his or her own motion in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the protection of investors. Furthermore, the Exchange will have the authority to adjust or nullify transactions in the event of a Significant Market Event, a trading halt in the affected option, an erroneous print or quote in the underlying security, or with respect to stop and stop limit orders that have been triggered based on erroneous trades. The Exchange believes that the safeguards described above will protect market participants and will provide the Exchange with the flexibility to act when necessary and appropriate to nullify or adjust a transaction, while also providing market participants with certainty that, under normal circumstances, the trades they effect with quotes and/or orders having limit prices will stand irrespective of subsequent moves in the underlying security. The right to review those transactions that occur during a Limit or Straddle State would allow the Exchange to account for unforeseen circumstances that result in Obvious or Catastrophic Errors for which a nullification or adjustment may be necessary in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the protection of investors. Similarly, the ability to nullify or adjust transactions that occur during a Significant Market Event or trading halt, erroneous print or quote in the underlying security, or erroneous trade in the option (i.e., stop and stop limit orders) may also be necessary in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the protection of investors. Furthermore, the Exchange will administer this provision in a manner that is consistent with the principles of the Act and will create and maintain records relating to the use of the authority to act on its own motion during a Limit or Straddle State or any adjustments or trade breaks based on other proposed provisions under the Rule.

    Similarly, the portion of the Exchange's proposal related to allowing opening transactions to be nullified if the transactions do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 5.4 is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the provision allows the Exchange to more efficiently address scenarios where an opening transaction that does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 5.4 may have occurred inadvertently.

    Finally, the portions of the Exchange's proposal related to Binary Options and Credit options are also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the provisions help protect investors and the public interest by applying the Obvious Error rule in a manner that is appropriate for the unique nature of Binary and Credit Options.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Importantly, the Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on intermarket competition but will rather alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the provisions apply to all market participants equally within each participant category (i.e., Customers and non-Customers). With respect to competition between Customer and non-Customer market participants, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule acknowledges competing concerns and tries to strike the appropriate balance between such concerns. For instance, as noted above, the Exchange believes that protection of Customers is important due to their direct participation in the options markets as well as the fact that they are not, by definition, market professionals. At the same time, the Exchange believes due to the quote-driven nature of the options markets, the importance of liquidity provision in such markets and the risk that liquidity providers bear when quoting a large breadth of products that are derivative of underlying securities, that the protection of liquidity providers and the practice of adjusting transactions rather than nullifying them is of critical importance. As described above, the Exchange will apply specific and objective criteria to determine whether an erroneous transaction has occurred and, if so, how to adjust or nullify a transaction.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 31 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.32

    31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    32 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will enable the Exchange to meet its proposed implementation date of May 8, 2015, which will help facilitate the implementation of harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions across the options exchanges. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.33

    33 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2015-039 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-039. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-039 and should be submitted on or before June 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.34

    34 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11484 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74901; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-36] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades To Add a Late Fee in Connection With Failure To Submit the Non-Display Use Declaration May 7, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on April 30, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades to add a late fee in connection with failure to submit the non-display use declaration, operative on May 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades, as set forth on the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”), to add a late fee in connection with failure to submit an updated non-display use declaration. The proposed change to the Fee Schedule would be operative on May 1, 2015.

    The Exchange established the current fees for non-display services for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades in April 2013 and amended those fees in September 2014.4 The 2013 Non-Display Filing established a requirement that data recipients that receive real-time NYSE Arca market data subject to Non-Display Use fees submit a declaration with respect to their use of non-display data.5 In connection with the fee changes in the 2014 Non-Display Filing, the Exchange required data recipients that receive real-time NYSE Arca market data subject to Non-Display Use fees to complete and submit an updated Non-Display Use Declaration by September 1, 2014.6 The 2014 Non-Display Filing also established that data recipients are required to submit an updated annual Non-Display Use Declaration by January 31st of each year beginning in 2016. In addition, if a data recipient's use of real-time NYSE Arca market data changes at any time after the data re