Federal Register Vol. 80, No.95,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 95 (May 18, 2015)

Page Range28153-28536
FR Document

80_FR_95
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 28306 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency MeetingPDF
80 FR 28325 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 28272 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 28306 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 28305 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Revision to a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
80 FR 28338 - List of September 20, 2005, of Participating Countries and Entities in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, Known as “Participants” for the Purposes of the Clean Diamond Trade Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-19) and Section 2 of Executive Order 13312 of July 29, 2003.PDF
80 FR 28219 - Notice of Request To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection: (Requirements for Official Establishments To Notify FSIS of Adulterated or Misbranded Product, Prepare and Maintain Written Recall Procedures, and Document Certain HACCP Plan Reassessments)PDF
80 FR 28220 - Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Certificates of Medical ExaminationPDF
80 FR 28294 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Consolidated Plan and Annual Performance ReportPDF
80 FR 28297 - Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagrams and Supplemental Official Outer Continental Shelf Block DiagramsPDF
80 FR 28295 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Loan/Application RegisterPDF
80 FR 28294 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Production of Material or Provision of Testimony by HUD in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private LitigantsPDF
80 FR 28248 - Applications for New Awards; Predominantly Black Institutions Competitive Grant ProgramPDF
80 FR 28244 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28224 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 28299 - Notice on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease SalesPDF
80 FR 28247 - Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 28290 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 28284 - Maine; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 28285 - Kentucky; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 28288 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 28246 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28303 - Government-Owned Inventions, Available for LicensingPDF
80 FR 28302 - Government-Owned Inventions, Available for LicensingPDF
80 FR 28285 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 28291 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 28273 - Notice of Intent To Award a Single Source Non-Competing Continuation Cooperative Agreement for Two National Activities Grant Projects Under Section 6 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998,PDF
80 FR 28201 - Trichoderma asperelloidesPDF
80 FR 28215 - Reconsideration Petition From Dyno Nobel Inc. on the New Source Performance Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants; Final ActionPDF
80 FR 28226 - FY 2015 Regional Coastal Resilience Grants ProgramPDF
80 FR 28239 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 28236 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 28226 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 28239 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 28237 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 28238 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 28219 - National Organic Standards Board: Call for Nominations; Extension of Nomination PeriodPDF
80 FR 28239 - Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric OptionalityPDF
80 FR 28271 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 28246 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 28175 - Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Marine Event; Mayor's Hike, Bike and Paddle; Ohio River 602.0-603.5; Louisville, KYPDF
80 FR 28255 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge: Descriptive Study of Tiered Quality Ratings and Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 StatesPDF
80 FR 28207 - Safety Zones; San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration, Friday Harbor, WAPDF
80 FR 28205 - Safety Zones; Seattle Seafair 4th of July Fireworks Display, Lake Union, WAPDF
80 FR 28186 - Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays Within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound ZonePDF
80 FR 28269 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Pesticide Program Public Sector Collections (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 28268 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; TSCA Section 402 and Section 404 Training and Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and PaintingPDF
80 FR 28267 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Continuous Release Reporting Regulations (CRRR) Under CERCLA 1980 (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 28266 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 28184 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New River, Fort Lauderdale, FLPDF
80 FR 28176 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port ZonePDF
80 FR 28175 - Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Special Local Regulation; REV3 Triathlon; Tennessee River 646.0-649.0; Knoxville, TNPDF
80 FR 28224 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28304 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 28256 - Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement CountriesPDF
80 FR 28263 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
80 FR 28262 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 28259 - Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Summerlin Pipe Replacement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 28265 - Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 28262 - Safe Harbor Water Power Corp.; Notice of Technical Conference for Safe Harbor ProjectPDF
80 FR 28264 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-915); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
80 FR 28261 - Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 28483 - Program Integrity and ImprovementPDF
80 FR 28153 - Descriptive Designation for Needle- or Blade-Tenderized (Mechanically Tenderized) Beef ProductsPDF
80 FR 28223 - Final Record of Decision for Shoshone National Forest Land Management PlanPDF
80 FR 28339 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
80 FR 28341 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
80 FR 28222 - Assessment of Ecological/Social/Cultural/Economic Sustainability, Conditions, and Trends for the Gila National ForestPDF
80 FR 28300 - Polyvinyl Alcohol From China, Japan, and KoreaPDF
80 FR 28342 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 28187 - Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska-2015-16 and 2016-17 Subsistence Taking of Fish RegulationsPDF
80 FR 28222 - South Central Idaho Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 28341 - Buy America Waiver NotificationPDF
80 FR 28342 - Buy America Waiver NotificationPDF
80 FR 28229 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seabird Monitoring and Research in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 2015PDF
80 FR 28217 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Amendment To Simplify Vessel BaselinesPDF
80 FR 28236 - Endangered Species; File No. 19281PDF
80 FR 28293 - Agency Information Collection Activities: USCIS Electronic Payment Processing, Form G-1450; New CollectionPDF
80 FR 28343 - Enhanced-Use Lease of Department of Veterans Affairs Real Property for the Development of Housing Facilities in Chillicothe, OhioPDF
80 FR 28300 - 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
80 FR 28337 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Office of Personnel Management (OPM)-Match Number 1307PDF
80 FR 28282 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28283 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28281 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28283 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 28273 - Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHRAC, NIOSH)PDF
80 FR 28273 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 28336 - Revocation of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
80 FR 28336 - MARYLAND Disaster # MD-00028PDF
80 FR 28302 - Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation; Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28337 - Connecticut Disaster Number CT-00034PDF
80 FR 28337 - West Virginia Disaster #WV-00035PDF
80 FR 28340 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American Airlines, Inc.PDF
80 FR 28340 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Transport Airplane and Engine IssuesPDF
80 FR 28300 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
80 FR 28328 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 28322 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 28319 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to The Customized Option Pricing ServicePDF
80 FR 28335 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Change the Name of “ConnectEdge” Product Offering Under Rule 13.9 to “BATS Connect”PDF
80 FR 28325 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend and Restate Certain Rules That Govern the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities MarketPDF
80 FR 28272 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 28308 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to NASDAQ Options Market Fees and RebatesPDF
80 FR 28315 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Constituent Documents of Its Intermediate Parent Companies NYSE Holdings, LLC., Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., To Eliminate Certain Provisions That by Their Terms Have Become Void and Are of No Further Force and Effect as a Result of the Sale by ICE of Euronext N.V. in June 2014 and Make Conforming Changes to the Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of ICEPDF
80 FR 28311 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Constituent Documents of Its Intermediate Parent Companies NYSE Holdings LLC., Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Eliminate Certain Provisions That by Their Terms Have Become Void and Are of No Further Force and Effect as a Result of the Sale by ICE of Euronext N.V. in June 2014 and Make Conforming Changes to the Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of ICEPDF
80 FR 28331 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Constituent Documents of Its Intermediate Parent Companies NYSE Holdings LLC., Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., To Eliminate Certain Provisions That by Their Terms Have Become Void and Are of No Further Force and Effect as a Result of the Sale by ICE of Euronext N.V. in June 2014 and Make Conforming Changes to the Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of ICEPDF
80 FR 28327 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Tier Size Pilot of FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size Requirements for OTC Equity Securities)PDF
80 FR 28325 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Technical Revisions to the DTC Custody Service Guide and the DTC Deposits Service GuidePDF
80 FR 28270 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 28238 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 28237 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 28296 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
80 FR 28297 - Endangered Species; Issuance of PermitsPDF
80 FR 28307 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 28248 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28279 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 28278 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings.PDF
80 FR 28280 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of MeetingsPDF
80 FR 28274 - Cooperative Agreement to International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human UsePDF
80 FR 28275 - Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Study Data Standardization Plan RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 28224 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 175 Under Alternative Site Framework, Cedar Rapids, IowaPDF
80 FR 28185 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, ORPDF
80 FR 28343 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Financial Research FundPDF
80 FR 28245 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 28279 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 28279 - National Cancer Institute Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 28280 - Office of the Director; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 28278 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Infant Formula RequirementsPDF
80 FR 28276 - Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 28277 - Patient Preference Information-Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling; Draft Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 28259 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 28203 - Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting PoliciesPDF
80 FR 28193 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Utah County-Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10PDF
80 FR 28215 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Utah County-Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10PDF
80 FR 28209 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5PDF
80 FR 28172 - Airworthiness Directives; The Enstrom Helicopter CorporationPDF
80 FR 28345 - Integration of National Bank and Federal Savings Association Regulations: Licensing RulesPDF

Issue

80 95 Monday, May 18, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Organic Standards Board, 28219 2015-11947
Army Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, 28246 2015-11942 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28244-28245 2015-11985 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control, 28273 2015-11888 Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 28273 2015-11889 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: New River, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 28184-28185 2015-11931 Willamette River, Portland, OR, 28185-28186 2015-11831 Safety Zones: Annual Firework Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Zone, 28186-28187 2015-11937 Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones: Marine Events held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone, 28176-28184 2015-11930 Special Local Regulations: Annual Marine Event; Mayor's Hike, Bike and Paddle, Ohio River, Louisville, KY, 28175 2015-11941 REV3 Triathlon; Tennessee River 646.0-649.0; Knoxville, TN, 28175-28176 2015-11929 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration, Friday Harbor, WA, 28207-28209 2015-11939 Seattle Seafair 4th of July Fireworks Display, Lake Union, WA, 28205-28207 2015-11938 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28224 2015-11928
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Forward Contracts with Embedded Volumetric Optionality, 28239-28244 2015-11946 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Single-Source Non-Competitive Awards: National Activities Grant Projects under the Assistive Technology Act, 28273-28274 2015-11961 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency RULES Integration of National Bank and Federal Savings Association Regulations: Licensing Rules, 28346-28481 2015-11229 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28245-28246 2015-11828 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28246-28248 2015-11857 2015-11971 Meetings: Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 28247-28248 2015-11977
Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Program Integrity and Improvement, 28484-28536 2015-11917 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge—Descriptive Study of Tiered Quality Ratings and Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 States, 28255-28256 2015-11940 Applications for New Awards: Predominantly Black Institutions Competitive Grant Program, 28248-28255 2015-11986 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Records of Decisions: Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC Application to Export Liquefied Natural Gas, 28256-28258 2015-11926
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah; Utah County - Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10 Transportation Conformity, 28193-28201 2015-11784 Tolerance Requirements; Exemptions: Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R, 28201-28203 2015-11960 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah; Utah County - Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10 Transportation Conformity, 28215 2015-11783 Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 28209-28215 2015-11782 Denial of Petition for Reconsideration: Dyno Nobel Inc. on the New Source Performance Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants, 28215-28217 2015-11958 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Continuous Release Reporting Regulations under CERCLA, 28267 2015-11933 Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements, 28266-28267 2015-11932 Pesticide Program Public Sector Collections, 28269 2015-11935 Toxic Substances Control Act Training and Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting, 28268 2015-11934 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation, 28172-28175 2015-11732 NOTICES Meetings: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 28340 2015-11881 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries, 28339-28341 2015-11912 2015-11913 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: American Airlines, Inc., 28340-28341 2015-11882 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, 28203-28204 2015-11810 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28270-28272 2015-11867 2015-11874 2015-11944 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 28272-28273 2015-12064 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 28290-28291 2015-11976 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 28285-28293 2015-11963 2015-11964 2015-11973 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Kentucky, 28285 2015-11974 Major Disaster Declarations: Maine; Amendment No. 1, 28284-28285 2015-11975 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28264-28265 2015-11919 Combined Filings, 28259, 28262-28263 2015-11811 2015-11924 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Kern River Gas Transmission Co.; Summerlin Pipe Replacement Project, 28259-28261 2015-11922 Filings: Equitrans, LP, 28265-28266 2015-11921 Meetings: Safe Harbor Water Power Corp.; Technical Conference for Safe Harbor Project, 28262 2015-11920 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 28263-28264 2015-11925 Requests under Blanket Authorization: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 28261-28262 2015-11918 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers, 28341-28342 2015-11904 2015-11905 Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California, 28342-28343 2015-11909 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Subsistence Management for Public Lands in Alaska: 2015-16 and 2016-17 Subsistence Taking of Fish, 28187-28193 2015-11907 NOTICES Permits: Endangered Species; Marine Mammals, 28296-28297 2015-11864 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Infant Formula Requirements, 28278 2015-11821 Cooperative Agreements: International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 28274-28275 2015-11847 Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards: Study Data Standardization Plan Recommendations, 28275-28276 2015-11846 Guidance: Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies, 28276-28277 2015-11820 Patient Preference Information; Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling, 28277-28278 2015-11819 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service RULES Descriptive Designation for Needle- or Blade-Tenderized (Mechanically Tenderized) Beef Products, 28153-28172 2015-11916 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certificates of Medical Examination, 28220-28222 2015-11997 Requirements for Official Establishments to Notify FSIS of Adulterated or Misbranded Product, Prepare and Maintain Written Recall Procedures, etc., 28219-28220 2015-11999 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Reorganizations under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 175, Cedar Rapids, IA, 28224 2015-11842 Forest Forest Service RULES Subsistence Management for Public Lands in Alaska: 2015-16 and 2016-17 Subsistence Taking of Fish, 28187-28193 2015-11907 NOTICES Approval of Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan, 28223 2015-11914 Assessment of Ecological/Social/Cultural/Economic Sustainability, Conditions, and Trends for the Gila National Forest, 28222-28223 2015-11911 Meetings: South Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee, 28222 2015-11906 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consolidated Plan and Annual Performance Report, 28294 2015-11995 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Loan/Application Register, 28295-28296 2015-11992 Production of Material or Provision of Testimony by HUD in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private Litigants, 28294-28295 2015-11989 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

NOTICES Permits: Endangered Species, 28297 2015-11863
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China, 28224-28225 2015-11981 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea, 28300 2015-11910 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under The Clean Air Act, 28300 2015-11880 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing, 28302-28304 2015-11965 2015-11966 2015-11967 2015-11968 2015-11969 2015-11970 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules; Availability, 28304-28305 2015-11927 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 28305-28306 2015-12003 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 28306 2015-12071 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 28279 2015-11823 2015-11824 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 28278-28280 2015-11852 2015-11853 2015-11854 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 28280-28281 2015-11851 Office of the Director, 28280 2015-11822 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Vessel Baselines; Omnibus Amendment, 28217-28218 2015-11902 NOTICES Funding Availability: Regional Coastal Resilience Grants Program, 28226-28229 2015-11956 Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 28226 2015-11952 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 28236 2015-11953 New England Fishery Management Council, 28237-28239 2015-11949 2015-11950 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 28237-28238 2015-11865 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 28239 2015-11951 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 28238-28239 2015-11866 2015-11954 Permits: Endangered Species; File No. 19281, 28236 2015-11901 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Seabird Monitoring and Research in Glacier Bay National Park, AK, 28229-28236 2015-11903 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 28306-28307 2015-12044 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane Standard, 28300-28302 2015-11896 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES List of Restricted Joint Bidders: Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales, 28299 2015-11980 Outer Continental Shelf Official and Supplemental Official Protraction Diagrams, 28297-28299 2015-11993 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 28307-28308 2015-11860 2015-11861 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Forward Contracts with Embedded Volumetric Optionality, 28239-28244 2015-11946 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 28325 2015-12067 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 28322-28325 2015-11878 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 28328-28331 2015-11879 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 28319-28322 2015-11877 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 28335-28336 2015-11876 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 28327-28328 2015-11869 NASDAQ OMX BX Inc., 28325 2015-11875 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 28331-28335 2015-11870 NYSE Arca, Inc., 28311-28315 2015-11871 NYSE MKT, LLC, 28315-28319 2015-11872 The Depository Trust Co., 28325-28327 2015-11868 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 28308-28311 2015-11873 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Connecticut; Amendment 1, 28337 2015-11884 Maryland, 28336-28337 2015-11886 West Virginia; Amendment 2, 28337 2015-11883 Small Business Investment Company License Revocations: Smart Forest Ventures I. L.P., 28336 2015-11887 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Computer Matching Program, 28337-28338 2015-11895 State Department State Department NOTICES List of Participating Countries and Entities in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, 28338-28339 2015-12001 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 28282-28284 2015-11892 2015-11893 2015-11894 Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 28283 2015-11891 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Financial Research Fund, 28343 2015-11830
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Electronic Payment Processing, 28293-28294 2015-11900 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Enhanced-Use Leases: Housing Facilities in Chillicothe, OH, 28343-28344 2015-11898 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, 28302 2015-11885 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Treasury Department, Comptroller of the Currency, 28346-28481 2015-11229 Part III Education Department, 28484-28536 2015-11917 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 95 Monday, May 18, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 317 [Docket No. FSIS-2008-0017] RIN [0583-AD45] Descriptive Designation for Needle- or Blade-Tenderized (Mechanically Tenderized) Beef Products AGENCY:

Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the Federal meat inspection regulations to require the use of the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized,” “blade tenderized,” or “needle tenderized” on the labels of raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products, including beef products injected with a marinade or solution, unless the products are to be fully cooked or to receive another full lethality treatment at an official establishment. Under these final regulations, the product names of the affected products will have to include the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized,” “blade tenderized,” or “needle tenderized” and an accurate description of the beef component. The print for all words in the descriptive designation and the product name will have to be in a single easy-to-read type style and color and must appear on a single-color contrasting background. The print may appear in upper and lower case letters, with the lower case letters not smaller than one-third (1/3) the size of the largest letter. In addition, the labels of raw and partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions will have to bear validated cooking instructions. The instructions will have to specify the minimum internal temperatures and any hold or “dwell” times for the products to ensure that they are fully cooked.

FSIS is amending the regulations because of scientific evidence that mechanically tenderized beef products need to be fully cooked in order to reduce the risk of pathogenic bacteria that may be transferred to the interior of the meat during mechanical tenderization.

FSIS is also announcing the availability of updated guidance for the use of federally inspected establishments in developing validated cooking instructions for mechanically tenderized product.

DATES:

The effective date is May 17, 2016. As discussed below in the preamble, FSIS has established this effective date based on the potential public health benefits.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel L. Engeljohn, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700; Telephone (202) 205-0495; Fax (202) 720-2025.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary

Mechanically tenderizing beef with a needle or blade has the potential to transfer pathogens that may occur on the exterior of the product into its interior. In such circumstances, it is important that the interior of the beef product be fully cooked. Not all mechanically tenderized products are readily distinguishable from non-tenderized products. Recent outbreak data indicate that consumers and food service facilities sometimes do not cook mechanically tenderized raw beef products to a temperature and for a time sufficient to destroy harmful bacteria that may have been transferred to the tenderized interior of the product. FSIS has, therefore, determined that labeling to state that the beef product is tenderized, along with validated cooking instructions, are necessary to provide consumers and food service workers the essential information to safely prepare the product.

On June 10, 2013, FSIS proposed new labeling requirements for raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products, including beef products injected with a marinade or solution (78 FR 34589). Having reviewed and considered all comments received on the proposal, FSIS is finalizing all the proposed regulatory requirements with minor changes.

FSIS is requiring the labels of raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products, including beef products injected with marinade or solution, to bear a descriptive designation that clearly indicates that the product has been mechanically tenderized, unless such product is destined to be fully cooked or to receive another full lethality treatment 1 that renders the product ready-to-eat, as defined in 9 CFR 430.1, in an official establishment.2 To provide flexibility and respond to comments, FSIS is requiring in the final rule that the terms “needle tenderized” or “mechanically tenderized” be used as the descriptive designation for needle tenderized beef products and the terms “mechanically tenderized” or “blade tenderized” be used as the descriptive designation for blade tenderized beef products.

1 Examples of full lethality treatments other than cooking that render a product ready-to-eat can include high pressure processing and irradiation, provided the establishment has supporting documentation that shows the treatment achieves at least a 5-log reduction for Salmonella and Shiga Toxin-producing E.coli organisms (including E.coli O157:H7), and applies the treatment consistent with its critical operational parameters.

2 Any slaughtering, cutting, boning, meat canning, curing, smoking, salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishment at which inspection is maintained under (FSIS) regulations (9 CFR 301.2).

In addition, to ensure that the descriptive designation is readily apparent on the label, FSIS is requiring the print for all words in the descriptive designation must appear in a single easy-to-read type style and color and on a single-color contrasting background. The print may appear in upper and lower case letters, with the lower case letters not smaller than 1/3 the size of the largest letter.

FSIS also is requiring that labels of raw and partially cooked needle- and blade-tenderized beef products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions include cooking instructions that have been validated to ensure that any pathogens that may be on or in the product are destroyed. To clarify requirements and respond to comments, FSIS is providing in the final rule that these validated cooking instructions may appear anywhere on the product label.

FSIS proposed to use the January 1, 2016, uniform compliance date as the effective date of this final rule (79 FR 34597). However, according to the uniform compliance date final rule,3 if any food labeling regulation involves special circumstances that justify a compliance date other than the uniform compliance date, FSIS will determine an appropriate compliance date and will publish that compliance date in the rulemaking (79 FR 71008). Because of the potential public health benefits of this rule, the effective date of this rule will be May 17, 2016. Had the final rule published on December 31, 2014, the effective date would have been January 1, 2016, according to the uniform compliance date for food labeling regulations final rule. By establishing a compliance date of May 17, 2016 FSIS is providing establishments with the same 365-day compliance period that they would have had if the final rule had published on December 31, 2014. Therefore, this rule will not be subject to the 2018 uniform compliance date for new meat and poultry product labeling regulations. In addition, FSIS will delay enforcing the labeling requirements for beef products with added solutions 4 until the effective date of this final rule.

3 On December 1, 2014, FSIS issued a final rule that established January 1, 2018, as the uniform compliance date for new meat and poultry product labeling regulations that are issued between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 (79 FR 71007).

4 79 FR 79044; Dec. 31, 2014.

Finally, after consideration of the difference between branded (sold in multiple stores) and private labels (sold in only stores with the label name), FSIS reevaluated the label design costs to industry. Based on this analysis, FSIS increased estimated costs associated with the final rule. Even so, FSIS predicts the final rule to have a positive net benefit. In Table 1 (below), FSIS estimates the quantifiable benefits, costs, and net benefits of the final rule.

Table 1—Summary of Estimated Costs and Benefits  Estimated Quantified Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefitsa Benefits b $688,286.
  • ($430,178 to $1,606,000).
  • Costs c $476,932 to $784,053. Net Benefits −$95,768 to $211,353.
  • (−$357,163 to $3,022,369).
  • Non-Quantified Benefits and Costs Benefits • Avoided pain and suffering associated with prevented non-fatal foodborne illnesses. • Increased producer surplus to producers who sell intact beef or other meats consumers may substitute for mechanically-tenderized beef. • Cost savings accruing to food service establishments that will more readily obtain the information on whether beef product has been mechanically tenderized, which will better enable them to comply with State law. Costs • Cost to validate cooking instructions. • Loss in producer surplus to producers who sell mechanically tenderized beef. • Loss in consumer surplus to consumers who start cooking their beef to a higher temperature, which they prefer less than cooking rare. • Loss in consumer surplus to consumers who either spend more time cooking or wait longer to eat in food service settings. • Loss in consumer surplus to consumers who might substitute other meats or other cuts of meat, which they prefer less. • Time cost associated with revised cooking procedures and training on thoroughly cooking mechanically tenderized beef products in the food service industry. a Annualized over 10 years at a 7 percent discount rate. b Assumes that on the low end, 15% of consumers and food service providers will use validated cooking instructions and using the lower bound of the credibility interval from Scallan while on the high end, 56% of consumers and food service providers and using the upper bound of the credibility interval from Scallan will use validated cooking instructions, with an average estimate of 24% for consumers and 24% for food service providers. c The upper and lower bound estimated costs fall to $407,946 and $670,643 when annualized with a 3 percent discount rate. Source: FSIS Policy Analysis Staff.
    Background

    As explained in the proposed rule, consumers consider product tenderness to be a key factor when purchasing meat products. Thus, the tenderness of a roast or steak is a key selling point for the meat industry (78 FR at 34591). Mechanically tenderized product is product that has been pierced with a set of needles or blades, which breaks up muscle fiber and tough connective tissue, resulting in increased tenderness. As was also explained in the proposed rule, such product may also be injected with a solution or marinade.

    In 2009, the Safe Food Coalition sent a petition to the Secretary of Agriculture to request, among other issues, regulatory action to require that the labels of mechanically tenderized beef products disclose the fact that the products have been mechanically tenderized. The petition stated that, (1) consumers and restaurants do not have sufficient information to ensure that these products are cooked safely because FSIS does not provide recommended cooking temperatures for mechanically tenderized products, (2) the recommended cooking temperatures for intact products are not appropriate for non-intact, mechanically tenderized products, and (3) a labeling requirement for mechanically tenderized products is critical for consumers and retail outlets, so that they have the information necessary to safely prepare these products.

    In June 2010, the Conference for Food Protection (CFP) petitioned 5 FSIS to issue a mandatory labeling provision for mechanically tenderized beef that would require labels to specify that a cut has been mechanically tenderized. The petition stated that mechanically tenderized beef, especially when frozen, could be mistakenly perceived by consumers to be a whole, intact muscle cut. The petition asserted that without clear labeling, food retailers and consumers do not have the information necessary to prepare these products safely. According to the petition, if labeling does not indicate that the product is mechanically tenderized, consumers are not aware of the potential risk created when these products are less than fully cooked. The petition stated that mandatory labeling of these products would reduce the number of foodborne illnesses in the United States. In April 2014, CFP expressed their support of FSIS moving forward with final rulemaking at a meeting for the Conference of Food Protection.

    5 The incoming petition is available on FSIS's Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/7da02e44-712f-4779-aa10-fb1760493261/Petition_CFP_071710.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    Published research suggests that pathogens can be translocated from the surface of mechanically tenderized beef products to the interior of the products during processing because of the piercing of the beef by the needle or blade.6 The potential for this translocation of pathogens suggests that the interior of mechanically tenderized beef would have to be more fully cooked than a piece of intact beef with a similar amount of pathogens on the surface.7 Mechanically tenderized meat products are widely available to consumers in the marketplace (78 FR at 34591).

    6 Luchansky, JB, Phebus RK, Thippareddi H, Call JE 2008. Translocation of surface-inoculated Escherichia coli O157:H7 into beef subprimals following blade tenderization. J. Food Prot. 2008 Nov.; 71(11): 2190-7.

    7 Sporing, Sarah B. 1999. Escherichia coli O157:H7 Risk Assessment for Production and Cooking of Blade Tenderized Beef Steak. Thesis. Kansas State University.

    Since 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has received reports of six outbreaks determined to be attributable to needle- or blade-tenderized beef products prepared in restaurants and consumers' homes. These outbreaks included a total of 176 Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7 cases that resulted in 32 hospitalizations and 4 cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).8

    8 Compilation of USDA-FSIS Data, 2010.

    In addition, in 2012, 18 cases of food-borne illness caused by E. coli O157:H7 were reported as part of a Canadian outbreak. During the food safety investigation associated with the outbreak, it was determined that a few cases were likely associated with the consumption of mechanically tenderized beef which had been tenderized at the retail level.9 On May 21, 2014, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced that it was amending its regulations to mandate Canadian establishments that produce mechanically tenderized beef to label those products as “mechanically tenderized” and provide cooking instructions. The Canadian regulations were effective on August 21, 2014, and are consistent with this final rule.

    9 Catford, A., Lavoie, M., Smith, B., Buenaventura, E., Couture, H., Fazil, A., and J.M. Farber.2013. “Findings of the Health Risk Assessment of Escherichia coli O157 in Mechanically Tenderized Beef Products in Canada.” Int. Food Risk Anal. J. 3:2013.

    Proposed Regulatory Requirements

    The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) gives FSIS broad authority to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out its provisions (21 U.S.C. 621). To prevent meat or meat food products from being misbranded, the meat inspection regulations require that the labels of meat products contain specific information and that such information be displayed as prescribed in the regulations (9 CFR part 317). Under the regulations, the principal display panel on the label of a meat product must include, among other information, the name of the product.

    In proposed 9 CFR 317.2(e)(i), FSIS proposed new requirements for raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products, including beef products injected with a marinade or solution. FSIS proposed that the product name for these beef products include the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized” and an accurate description of the beef component.

    In proposed 9 CFR 317.2(e)(3)(ii), FSIS proposed that the print for all words in the product name be in the same style, color, and size and on a single-color contrasting background.

    In proposed 9 CFR 317.2(e)(3)(iii)), FSIS proposed that the labels of raw and partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions include validated cooking instructions. FSIS also proposed that the validated cooking instructions include the cooking method, inform consumers that these products need to be cooked to a specified minimum internal temperature, state whether the product needs to be held for a specified time at that temperature or higher before consumption to ensure destruction of potential pathogens throughout the product, and contain a statement that the internal temperature should be measured by a thermometer.

    FSIS explained in the proposed rule that should the rule be implemented, raw or partially cooked beef products subject to this rule whose labels do not include the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized,” and such products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions whose labels do not include validated cooking instructions, would be misbranded because the product labels would be false or misleading, because the products would be offered for sale under the name of another food, and because the product labels would fail to bear the required handling information necessary to maintain the products' wholesome condition (21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1), 601(n)(2), and 601(n)(12)) (78 FR 34595).

    FSIS also announced in the proposal that it had posted on its Web site draft guidance on developing validated cooking instructions for mechanically tenderized product.

    Final Rule

    FSIS is finalizing the proposed regulations with minor changes to provide additional clarification and flexibility. In response to comments, this final rule requires the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized” or “needle tenderized” be used on raw or partially cooked needle tenderized beef products and the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized” or “blade tenderized” be used on raw or partially cooked blade tenderized beef products. By permitting the terms “needle tenderized” and “blade tenderized” to be used as the descriptive designation, FSIS is providing additional flexibility to establishments to use more specific terms regarding the method of mechanical tenderization as part of the product name.

    This final rule requires a descriptive designation as part of the product name, not as part of the common or usual name of the product. Thus, for a steak that has been tenderized, the common or usual name would be “steak.” It would not be “mechanically tenderized steak.” However, the descriptive designation needs to be in close proximity to the common or usual name. The descriptive designation may be above, below, or next to the rest of the product name (without intervening text or graphics) on the principal display panel. In response to comments on the proposed rule on mechanically tenderized beef products and on the proposed rule for raw meat and poultry products containing added solutions (76 FR 44855), this final rule provides that the print for all words in the product name and descriptive designation on raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized products must appear in a single easy-to-read type style and color and on a single-color contrasting background. In addition, the final rule allows additional flexibility by providing that the print may appear in upper and lower case letters, with the lower case letters not smaller than 1/3 the size of the largest. These requirements are consistent with those in the final rule for raw meat and poultry products containing added solutions.10

    10 Except that the applicability date for raw meat and products containing added solutions that prescribes that the descriptive designation appear with the lower case letters not smaller than 1/3 the size of the largest letter will be delayed until January 1, 2018.

    In response to comments, the final rule also clarifies that validated cooking instructions may appear anywhere on the product label and that a descriptive designation will not be required for mechanically tenderized beef products destined for a full lethality treatment at an official establishment.

    FSIS has carefully considered the available information on mechanically tenderized beef and has concluded that, without specific labeling, consumers and industry may be purchasing and preparing raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products without knowing that these products have been needle- or blade-tenderized. Because illnesses could be reduced if the Agency required more specific labeling, the final rule requires the product name of raw or partially cooked, mechanically tenderized beef products include the name of the beef component and a descriptive designation that the product has been “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized,” unless the product is destined to be fully cooked or to receive another full lethality treatment in an official establishment. The descriptive designation will provide household consumers, official establishments, restaurants, and retail stores with the information they need to distinguish a cut of beef that is an intact, non-tenderized product, from a non-intact, mechanically tenderized product.

    Based on the requirements in 9 CFR 317.2(c)(1), all of this information will need to appear on the principal display panel of the immediate container. FSIS is requiring that the descriptive designation be a part of the product name so that the statement is prominently placed on the label and with such conspicuousness as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use (see 21 U.S.C. 601(n)(6)).

    BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P ER18MY15.006 BILLING CODE 3410-DM-C Note:

    Validated cooking instructions may appear anywhere on the label.

    The descriptive designation will only apply to raw or partially cooked beef products that have been needle- tenderized or blade-tenderized, including beef products injected with marinade or solution. Other tenderization methods, such as pounding and cubing, change the appearance of the product, putting consumers on notice that the product is not intact. Moreover, most establishments already label cubed products as such.

    FSIS is requiring the terms “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized” because they accurately and truthfully describe the nature of the product. These terms also clearly differentiate needle- or blade-tenderized beef products from non-tenderized, intact beef products.

    As explained in the proposed rule, under current regulations, to prevent raw and partially cooked meat products from being misbranded, the labels of all meat products, including those that have been mechanically tenderized, must bear safe handling instructions as prescribed in 9 CFR 317.2(l). Although the safe handling instructions in the regulations include “cook thoroughly,” the regulations do not require that these instructions specify a dwell time or internal temperature parameters necessary to ensure that the product is fully cooked.

    The safe preparation of this product requires that consumers know to handle the mechanically tenderized product differently than product in which there is potential for transfer of any exterior contamination into the interior of the beef product.

    Some consumers of beef products consider a product to be thoroughly cooked product even if it has been prepared to a degree of doneness that is not sufficient for safety.11 12 13 Moreover, because mechanically tenderized beef products have the same appearance as intact beef products, household consumers, hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions may incorrectly assume that products that in fact have been mechanically tenderized products can be prepared similarly to intact products (i.e., that it is okay to cook them to be “rare” or “medium-rare”). Thus, in addition to a descriptive designation that identifies that needle- or blade-tenderized beef products have been mechanically tenderized, under this final rule, FSIS is requiring that labels of raw and partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions include cooking instructions that have been validated to support claims that potential pathogens throughout the product would be destroyed.

    11 Lorenzen, C.L., T.R. Neely, R.K. Miller, J.D.Tatum, J.W. Wise, J.F. Taylor, M.J. Buyck, J.O. Reagan, and J.W. Savell. 1999. “Beef Customer Satisfaction: Cooking Methods and Degree of Doneness Effects on the Top Loin Steaks.” J. Animal Science 77:637-644.

    12 Savell, J.W., Lorenzen, C.L., Neely, T.R., Miller, R.K., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J.W., Taylor, J.F., Buyck, M.J., Reagan, J.O. 1999. “Beef Customer Satisfaction: Cooking Methods and Degree of Doneness Effects on the Top Sirloin Steaks.” J. Animal Science 77:645-652.

    13 Neely, T.E., Lorenzen, C.L., Miller, R.K., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J.W., Taylor, J.F., Buyck, M.J., and Savell, J.W. 1999. “Beef Customer Satisfaction: Cooking Method and Degree of Doneness Effects on the Top Round Steak”. J. Animal Science 77:653-660.

    .

    FSIS is requiring that the validated cooking instructions include, at a minimum: (1) The method of cooking; (2) a validated minimum internal temperature that would destroy pathogens throughout the product; (3) a statement as to whether the product cooked in the manner described also needs to be held for a specified time at the specified temperature or higher before consumption; and (4) instruction that the internal temperature should be measured by use of a thermometer. The cooking instructions included on the label should be practical and easily followed by consumers. In response to comments discussed below, the final rule provides that validated cooking instructions may appear anywhere on the product label.

    Consistent with the regulation on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) validation (9 CFR 417.4), to validate the cooking instructions, the establishment will be required to obtain scientific or technical support for the judgments made in designing the cooking instructions, and in-plant data to demonstrate that it is, in fact, achieving the critical operational parameters documented in the scientific or technical support. Just as establishments have to validate their HACCP plans' adequacy in controlling food safety hazards identified during the hazard analysis, so too, under this final rule, establishments that produce raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products will have to validate their recommended cooking instructions. The scientific support would need to demonstrate that the cooking instructions provided can repeatedly achieve the desired minimum internal temperature and time at that temperature and would need to support that the product is fully cooked to destroy pathogens present in the product. The in-plant data would need to demonstrate that the establishment is, in fact, achieving the critical operational parameters documented in the scientific or technical support. For additional information on validation see the Federal Register notice on HACCP Systems Validation (77 FR 27135; May 9, 2012).14

    14 Available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/d000cb67-23bc-4303-8f7b-71dcba5e7cd7/2009-0019.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    In response to comments, FSIS has revised its guidance for developing validated cooking instructions for mechanically tenderized products. The Agency has posted the revised guidance on its Significant Guidance Documents Web page. This guidance represents current FSIS thinking. Establishments could collect their own scientific data to support the cooking instruction, use a study from an outside source, or use the revised guidance provided by FSIS. An establishment could use the recommended cooking instructions from the revised guidance on its product labels, without having to conduct additional experiments or provide any further scientific support, if the products it is producing are similar to those in the guidance.

    If establishments are unable to use the specific examples in the revised guidance (e.g., because the product is a different thickness or is to be cooked using a method different from one previously studied), the revised guidance also contains instructions on how to develop such support.

    Summary of and Response to Comments

    In the proposal, FSIS requested comment on specific issues: How it defined “mechanically tenderized,” whether the definition should be incorporated into the regulations, whether the term should include products that have been vacuum tumbled or formed, whether the term would be understood by consumers, on how the proposed labeling changes would impact restaurants and other food service operations, and on the cost estimates outlined in the proposal. FSIS received 122 comments in response to these and other issues in the proposed rule. A majority of the comments (approximately 75) were form letters submitted by individuals. The remaining comments were from individuals, consumer advocacy groups, organizations representing the meat industry, meat processors, retail trade associations, and an organization representing food and drug officials.

    FSIS did not receive any comments on whether it should require fully cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products to have the descriptive designation on their labels, on how food service workers will likely respond to the proposed labeling changes, on the number of cuts per establishment that would require validated cooking instructions, or on estimated costs for developing validated cooking instructions.

    FSIS has summarized and responded to the relevant issues raised by commenters below.

    A. Broadly Opposed to the Proposal

    Comment: An individual stated that all of the proposed changes are unnecessary because the safe handling instructions required in 9 CFR 317.2(l) clearly state that raw beef products, including those that are tenderized, must be cooked thoroughly before being consumed. As an alternative to the proposed labeling changes, several organizations representing the meat industry suggested that FSIS focus its resources on improving the safe-handling instructions.

    Response: FSIS disagrees that the changes are unnecessary. As FSIS stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the literature suggests that many consumers are aware of the safe handling instruction labels (see 78 FR at 34592). However, the same literature also suggests that only a portion of consumers reported reading these instructions on raw meat product labels and changing their meat preparation methods because of the labels.15 Furthermore, although the required safe-handling instructions include “cook thoroughly” in raw and partially cooked beef products, the regulations do not require that these instructions specify the dwell time or internal temperature parameters required to support that the product is fully cooked. In addition, despite the safe handling instructions to “cook thoroughly,” consumers, restaurants, and retail stores do not always cook these products fully by using a temperature-and-time combination sufficient to destroy harmful bacteria that may be in the product. They may incorrectly assume that it is safe to cook these products “rare” or “medium-rare.” CDC and other governmental investigators reported that failure to fully cook a mechanically tenderized raw or partially cooked beef product was likely a significant contributing factor in several of the outbreaks.16 17 18 In addition, consumer preference for steaks that are not thoroughly cooked 19 along with the time span of the illness reports suggests undercooking was likely a significant contributing factor in the other investigations as opposed to post-cooking cross-contamination in which illnesses would be more likely to occur at the same time. FSIS has, therefore, determined that labeling to indicate that the beef product is mechanically tenderized, along with validated cooking instructions, is necessary to help inform consumers and industry of a key feature of the product and to instruct them that such products need to be thoroughly cooked.

    15 Yang, et al (1999) show that 15% of consumers changed their behavior based on reading safe handling instruction labels. (“Evaluation of Safe Food-Handling Instructions on Raw Meat and Poultry Products.” J of Food Protect. 63: (1321-1325.)

    16 Swanson, L.E., Scheftel, J.M., Boxrud, D.J., Vought, K.J., Danila, R.N., Elfering, K.M., and Smith, K.E. 2005. “Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections associated with nonintact blade-tenderized frozen steaks sold by door-to-door vendors.” J. Food Prot 68: (1198-1202).

    17 Haubert, N., Cronquist, A., Parachini, S., Lawrence, J., Woo-Ming, A., Volkman, T., Moyer, S., Watkins, A. 2006. Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 Associated with Consuming Needle Tenderized Undercooked Steak from a Restaurant Chain. Presented at the International Conference on Emerging and Infectious Diseases. March 19-22, 2006. Atlanta, GA.

    18 Culpepper W, Ihry T, Medus C, Ingram A, Von Stein D, Stroika S, Hyytia-Trees E, Seys S, Sotir MJ. 2010. Multi-state outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections associated with consumption of mechanically-tenderized steaks in restaurants—United States, 2009. Presented at International Association for Food Protection; August 1-4, 2010; Anaheim, CA.

    19 Reicks, A.L., Brooks, J.C., Garmyn, A.J., Thompson, L.D., Lyford, C.L., Miller, M.F. 2011. “Demographics and beef preferences affect consumer motivation for purchasing fresh beef steaks and roasts.” Meat Science. 87: 403-411.

    In addition, in January, 2014, FSIS sought input from the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection 20 to fully explore whether there is a need for enhancing the safe food handling label on meat and poultry packages (78 FR 77643; Dec. 24, 2013). The Committee recommended that FSIS pursue changes to the existing safe handling instructions. FSIS has initiated a project to research how we might modify the current safe-handling instruction requirements to improve consumer food safety behaviors.

    20 For more information on the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, visit http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/advisory-committees/nacmpi.

    Comment: Several comments stated that the proposed labeling changes will be ineffective in influencing consumer behavior to reduce relative risk. Moreover, an organization representing meat and poultry processors and a trade association stated that the Agency failed to provide any data to support that the proposed labeling changes can or will positively impact public health; thus, creating an unnecessary burden on industry.

    Response: FSIS recognizes that not all consumers will change their behavior in response to the presence of the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized,” and validated cooking instructions on the product label. However, FSIS disagrees that the labeling changes will not positively impact public health. Public health is characterized on a population level. As discussed below, on the basis of available studies on the impacts of food product labels on consumer behavior, FSIS used 24 percent as the primary estimate for the impact of labels on consumer behavior. Therefore, FSIS estimates that 24 percent of consumers that previously cooked mechanically tenderized beef to a lower temperature will change their behavior and cook that product to the endpoint temperature that appears in the cooking instructions, which is equivalent to 210 illnesses averted or prevented per year, with a range of 131 to 489 (See Table 5).

    B. Defining “Mechanically Tenderized”

    Comment: An organization representing the meat industry and a retail trade association characterized the Agency's proposed use of the term “mechanically tenderized” as overly broad and inaccurate. Both commenters stated that adding solutions by needle injection does not “mechanically tenderize” the product. A trade association requested that vacuum-tumbled products not be considered “mechanically tenderized.”

    Consumer organizations requested that “mechanically tenderized” product include vacuum-tumbled, vacuum-marinated, marinade-injected, and enzyme-formed beef products. An individual and a meat processor requested that mechanically tenderized product include products that are vacuum-tumbled because they stated the potential health risk to consumers is similar to that for needle- or blade-tenderized beef products. One consumer advocacy group remarked that, although enzyme-formed beef is now required to be labeled “formed,” the designation does not inform the consumer on how the meat should be prepared or on the higher risk of exposure to pathogens that these products present.

    Several meat processors and trade associations stated that use of the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized” on the label will be misunderstood by consumers as a negative term and, therefore, may discourage customers from purchasing such beef products, resulting in a negative economic impact to small businesses. In addition, several organizations representing the meat industry requested that FSIS conduct targeted consumer research to determine whether the public perceives the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized” as negative before finalizing the proposed changes.

    As alternatives to “mechanically tenderized,” commenters suggested “tenderized and packaged,” “tenderized,” “marinated,” “injection marinated,” “solution enhanced,” “cubed,” and “blade tenderized.”

    Response: After review and consideration of the alternative descriptive designations provided by commenters, FSIS is finalizing the proposed regulations with minor changes. FSIS has concluded the descriptive designations “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” and “blade tenderized” accurately and truthfully describe the nature of the product. Additionally, these term clearly and completely identify the preparation process that the product underwent, as required by 9 CFR 317.2(e). FSIS has previously described mechanically tenderized beef products in a similar manner, notably in its Federal Register notice, HACCP Plan Reassessment for Mechanically Tenderized Beef Products (May 26, 2005; 70 FR 30331). Moreover, comments and other data do not support that the descriptive designations “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized” would be misunderstood by consumers, restaurants, retail stores, and official establishments or that the other alternatives would be better understood by these parties. Furthermore, FSIS's definition of “mechanically tenderized” for raw and partially cooked beef products is consistent with that contained in the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations. 21 To provide flexibility, FSIS is requiring the terms “needle tenderized” or “mechanically tenderized” be used as the descriptive designation for needle-tenderized beef products and the terms “mechanically tenderized” or “blade tenderized” be used as the descriptive designation for blade-tenderized beef products. The terms “needle tenderized” and “blade tenderized” merely provide more specific information on the mechanical methods used to tenderize the product. The terms “needle tenderized” and “blade tenderized” are not interchangeable. Only blade-tenderized product will be allowed to bear that descriptive designation, and only needle-tenderized product will be allowed to bear that descriptive designation. “Mechanically tenderized” could be used on either needle- or blade-tenderized product.

    21 Section B.01.001(1) of the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations defines “mechanically tenderized beef” as uncooked solid cut beef that is prepared in either of the following ways: (a) The integrity of the surface of the beef is compromised by being pierced by blades, needles or other similar instruments; or (b) the beef is injected with a marinade or other tenderizing solution (P.C. 2014-478; May 1, 2014).

    Even though vacuum-tumbled or enzyme-formed beef products are processed in a manner that may introduce pathogens (if present) below the product's surface, this final rule will not apply to them. FSIS regulations (9 CFR 317.8(b)(39)) already require labeling for meat products that are formed or re-formed with an enzyme binder as part of the product name, e.g., “Formed Beef Tenderloin.” As such, formed beef products are already labeled in a manner that distinguishes them from other products. In addition, FSIS has concluded that there is not sufficient data to understand whether the risk that pathogens may be introduced into product as a result of vacuum tumbling or enzyme formed beef product is similar to that associated with needle- and blade-tenderized beef.

    As stated in the preamble of the proposal, FSIS will conduct a public education campaign to explain the significance of the terms “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” and “blade tenderized” to consumers (78 FR at 34593). Thus, FSIS disagrees that additional consumer research is needed before moving forward with a final rule.

    C. How the New Information Appears on the Label

    Comment: Several consumer advocacy groups requested that the descriptive designation appear on the label in distinguishing typeface. Other consumer advocacy groups suggested that the descriptive designation be added to the package as a brightly-colored sticker, separate from the existing label, placed on the front of the packaging. Several meat processors and organizations representing the meat industry requested that the descriptive designation be permitted to appear on the label in a smaller font size than that of the product name. A trade association opposed the addition of the descriptive designation to the product name because it has found that consumers pay the least attention to tenderization information when it is included in the product's name. Noting that other FSIS labeling requirements to enhance food safety (for example, the safe handling instructions) effectively convey useful information that is not part of the product name, a meat processor and several trade associations requested that, rather than in the product name, the descriptive designation be permitted to appear elsewhere on the label.

    Response: To make the descriptive designation readily apparent on the label but provide flexibility and address the comments discussed above, FSIS is requiring that the print for all words in the product name and descriptive designation appear in a single easy-to-read type style and color and on a single-color contrasting background. In addition, the print may appear in upper and lower case letters, with the lower case letters not smaller than 1/3 the size of the largest letter.

    Establishments or retail stores will be permitted to add the required information to existing label designs, or they can apply a separate sticker with the required information to existing labels. Regardless, the product name must contain the term “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized” as an accurate description of the beef component of the product.

    The labels of raw and partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products as required in this final rule will be considered to be generically approved. The labels will not have to be submitted to FSIS for approval prior to their use, provided that they meet the requirements in this rule, display all mandatory features in a prominent manner in compliance with part 317, and are not otherwise false or misleading in any particular manner (9 CFR 412.2).

    Comment: A retail trade association requested that FSIS provide options for the descriptive designation for those labels that are under a certain size (e.g., if a label has less than or equal to six (6) square inches of available printing).

    Response: FSIS is not aware of any raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef product marketed in a package too small (i.e., with less than six square inches of available labeling space) to accommodate the requirements of this final rule.

    D. Mandatory Labeling for Restaurants

    Comment: So that restaurant patrons can make informed decisions as to how their beef product should be prepared, several individuals requested that restaurants be required to disclose on their menus when products are made from mechanically tenderized beef. A trade association recommended that FSIS align any proposed labeling requirements for restaurants with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A consumer advocacy group urged FSIS, in partnership with retail or restaurant associations, to develop an “information system” targeted at those preparing mechanically tenderized beef products served at restaurants.

    Response: FSIS expects that, by requiring the use of the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized,” and validated cooking instructions, food service personnel will be able to identify mechanically tenderized beef as such and to safely prepare the product using the cooking instructions provided on the label.

    Food service personnel should contact their local or State health department for information on the rules and regulations governing the preparation of food in restaurant, retail, or institutional settings.

    FSIS plans to share issues raised in comments received on restaurant menu labeling in response to the proposed rule with FDA.

    E. Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule

    Comment: An industry trade association stated that FSIS failed to assign a dollar value to many of the purported benefits and costs discussed in the proposed rule.

    Response: FSIS made every effort to quantify all known costs and benefits of the proposed rule. However, because of the uncertainty in determining producer and consumer response to the proposed rule, FSIS acknowledges that it was unable to monetize some potential costs and benefits. FSIS did not forecast, nor did it receive data to quantify, in the final rule the loss to producers that sell mechanically tenderized beef products, the loss to consumers when cooking the products to a higher temperature, the loss to consumers who may substitute products that they may like less than mechanically tenderized products because of cooking the mechanically tenderized beef product to a higher temperature, or the loss to food service providers that change their processes.

    Comment: Several meat processors and organizations representing the meat industry stated that FSIS underestimated the costs to industry to comply with the proposed labeling requirements.

    Response: FSIS based the proposal's mid-point label design modification costs estimate ($310 per label) on the most detailed study available on the costs associated with the labeling of consumer products, the March 2011 FDA report.22 However, after consideration of the differences between branded and private labels, FSIS updated the cost estimates after determining that 60 percent of the private label modifications would be uncoordinated changes. The cost for a minor uncoordinated label is $4,380 per label (with a range of $2,417 and $7,330), an increase from $310 per label in the proposal estimate. Even with the increased estimate, FSIS predicts the final rule to have a positive net benefit (see Table 5).

    22 Model to Estimate Costs of Using Labeling as a Risk Reduction Strategy for Consumer Products Regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, March 2011 (Contract No. GS-10F-0097L, Task Order 5).

    In addition, the effective date allows establishments time to use existing labels and will, therefore, result in minimal loss of inventory of labels.

    F. High Pressure Processing

    Comment: An individual requested that mechanically tenderized beef subjected to High Pressure Processing (HPP) be exempted from the mandatory labeling requirements outlined in the proposal.

    Response: Any mechanically tenderized beef product treated at an official establishment with an intervention or process, including HPP, that has been validated to achieve at least a 5-log reduction for Salmonella and Shiga Toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) organisms (including E. coli 0157:H7) would not be subject to the requirements in this final rule because it has received a full lethality treatment.

    In response to this comment, FSIS has modified the proposed codified language (9 CFR 317.2(e)(3)(i)) to clarify that a descriptive designation will not be required on mechanically tenderized beef products destined to receive a full lethality treatment at an official establishment.

    G. Validated Cooking Instructions/Associated Guidance

    Comments: According to commenters, consumers may serve the cooked, mechanically tenderized products without the benefit of a stand time, thereby becoming vulnerable to foodborne illness. Therefore, several comments urged FSIS to require cooking instructions with an endpoint temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Many comments requested that the method of cooking not appear within the cooking instructions, to prevent confusion among consumers. Likewise, rather than requiring the four elements proposed, several organizations representing the meat industry and a retail trade association stated that the validated cooking instructions should be required to include only two elements—an internal temperature at which pathogens can effectively be destroyed and the recommended use of a meat thermometer to verify this temperature.

    Response: FSIS disagrees that the inclusion of the method of cooking within the cooking instructions will confuse consumers. Based on the Agency's experience addressing questions from consumers and based on consumer information from outbreak investigations, FSIS has concluded that the most explicit way to inform consumers as to how to prepare a product that is safe for consumption is to include the cooking method by which the endpoint temperature is achieved within the cooking instructions. Consistent with HACCP requirements, FSIS is providing establishments the flexibility to design cooking instructions. However, in response to comments from consumer groups, FSIS revised its compliance guidance to include a recommendation that if establishments use one of the temperature and time combinations from the FSIS Guidance on Safe Cooking of Non-Intact Meat Chops, Roasts, and Steaks 23 with a temperature less than 145 degrees Fahrenheit and a rest time longer than three minutes (for example, 144 degrees Fahrenheit for four minutes, 143 degrees Fahrenheit for five minutes), then they should consider whether it is practical for consumers to achieve the longer rest time.

    23 Available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/6d2ee97-3fd1-4186-b1e7-656e7a57beb2/time-temperature-table-042009.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    The first draft of the compliance guideline for validating cooking instructions recommended establishments consider, among other factors, the state of the product at the start of cooking (e.g., frozen vs. refrigerated vs. room temperature), product thickness, type of cut, rotation of product, method of cooking to include a cold spot determination, and number and location of temperature measurement sites during cooking to ensure the cooking instructions consistently achieve the desired endpoint temperature. However, new research demonstrates the importance of turning steaks multiple times during cooking to ensure consumers consistently achieve the desired endpoint temperature throughout the steak.24 Accordingly, FSIS has revised its guidance to recommend that establishments design cooking instructions for steaks to include turning the product at least twice.

    24 Gill, C.O., Yang, X., Uttaro, B., Badoni, M. and Liu, T. 2013. “Effects on survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in non-intact steaks of the frequency of turning over steaks during grilling.” Journal of Food Research. 2(5): 77-89.

    Comment: Several commenters indicated that steaks are more commonly merchandised by weight in ounces, rather than by thickness.

    Response: FSIS has revised its compliance guidance for validated cooking instructions to recommend that if an establishment packages products by portion size (e.g., 10, 12, or 14 ounces), it should determine the variability in thickness of products packaged at that portion size and conduct the validation study using a product that represents the thickest product. The guidance now states that products from at least three lots should be measured to determine the worst case scenario.

    Comment: Several consumer groups requested that FSIS recommend (within the guidance document) that the statement “fully thaw before cooking” appear on product labels. The commenters cited research that showed that frozen or partially thawed patties took longer to cook to the desired internal temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit than fully thawed patties.

    Response: FSIS agrees that research has found that patties cooked from the frozen state take longer to achieve the target endpoint temperature than those that have been thawed.25 Moreover, research with patties has shown that temperatures tend to be more consistent across patties that are cooked from the thawed rather than the frozen state.26 Thus, FSIS has revised its guidance to include a recommendation that the instructional statement “fully thaw before cooking” appear on the labels of mechanically tenderized beef products.

    25 Luchansky, J.B., Porto-Fett, A.C.S., Shoyer, B.A., Phillips, J., Chen, V., Eblen, D.R., Cook, V., Mohr, T.B., Esteban, E. and Bauer, N. 2013. “Fate of Shiga Toxin-producing O157:H7 and non-O157:H7 Escherichia coli cells within refrigerated, frozen, or frozen then thawed ground beef patties cooked on a commercial open-flame gas or a clamshell electric grill.” Journal of Food Protection. 76(9): 1500-1512.

    26 Berry, B.W. 2000. “Use of infrared thermography to assess temperature variability in beef patties cooked from the frozen and thawed states.” Foodservice Research International. 12(4): 255-262.

    Comment: An organization representing the meat industry argued that there is not enough space on most mechanically tenderized beef product labels for the level of detail proposed for cooking instructions.

    Response: As stated above, FSIS is not aware of any raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef product marketed in a package too small to accommodate the requirements of this final rule, including those for validated cooking instructions. Based on this concern, FSIS has clarified in the final rule that validated cooking instructions may appear anywhere on the product label.

    H. Risk of Illness Related to Mechanical Tenderization

    Comment: Several meat processors and organizations representing the meat industry stated that the proposed changes are unnecessary and will not function to promote public health because the risk of illness associated with mechanical tenderization is “very low,” and “generally equivalent” to that associated with intact cuts of beef. To support these claims, several comments referenced the Agency's 2002 risk assessment, preliminary information provided by FSIS concerning its 2010 work, and the 2013 Canadian risk assessment. Many comments requested that FSIS conduct (and make available to the public) a comparative risk assessment for intact and non-intact beef using current data before finalizing the rule.

    Response: The proposed and final benefit analysis used the recently published study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that attributed foodborne illnesses by pathogens to general types of foods.27 This study, along with reports of outbreaks attributable to mechanically tenderized products, allowed FSIS to base its estimate predicting 1,965 illnesses from mechanically tenderized products on analysis of recently observed illness data.

    27 Painter, J., R. Hoekstra, et al. 2013. “Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food commodities by using outbreak data, United States, 1998-2008.” Emerg Infect Dis 9(3): 407-415.

    The FSIS attribution analysis is based on the latest published estimates of illness from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and for this pathogen product pair allows an estimate of the current risk of illness. No updates to this dataset became available between the proposed and final rule, and therefore, no corresponding changes to the attribution analysis were necessary. The details of this analysis are included in this final rule.

    Comment: Several meat processors and organizations representing the meat industry stated that additional labeling is unnecessary because present day intervention strategies, like applying interventions directly before tenderization and following best manufacturing practices, have effectively lowered the risk associated with mechanically tenderized beef products since the outbreaks cited in the proposal.

    Response: In the 11-year study cited in the proposed rule, outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 accounted for 4,844 illnesses.28 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 63,153 illnesses from E. coli O157:H7 occur annually. Over an 11-year period this amounts to nearly 700,000 illnesses. Reported outbreaks account for less than 1 percent of these. Thus, the absence of outbreaks in the time after the period studied by Painter, et al., which captured outbreaks through 2008, would not be sufficient to conclude that mechanically tenderized beef has ceased to pose a risk. Since 2008, an additional 2009 outbreak has been attributed to blade-tenderized steaks, which resulted in 10 hospitalizations and one death. Additionally, the 2013 Canadian risk assessment, cited by some commenters, reports a Canadian outbreak attributed to mechanically tenderized beef occurring in 2012. Therefore, data continue to support the need for the rule.

    28 Painter, J., R. Hoekstra, et al. 2013. “Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food commodities by using outbreak data, United States, 1998-2008.” Emerg Infect Dis 9(3): 407-415.

    Comment: An organization representing the meat industry and a meat processor opposed the Agency's approach of combining mechanically tenderized product not containing added solutions with mechanically tenderized product injected with a marinade or solution, because, in their assessment, mechanically tenderized products injected with a solution pose a clearly different risk profile.

    Response: Production of both mechanically tenderized product not containing added solutions and mechanically tenderized product injected with a marinade or solution involve piercing the surface of the product, which allows translocation of bacteria that may reside on the surface into the interior of the product. The 2013 Canadian risk assessment noted above includes both types of products in its analysis but does not distinguish between the two types in its reported results in which it concludes that the risk of illness from mechanically tenderized products is higher than for non-tenderized products. Therefore, FSIS concludes that its approach is consistent with available data.

    I. Mandatory Labeling for Other Species

    Comment: Several comments requested that FSIS require similar mandatory labeling for mechanically tenderized pork and poultry products.

    Response: FSIS considered the option to amend the labeling regulations to include a new requirement for labeling all mechanically tenderized meat and poultry products. However, FSIS has concluded that there is not sufficient data on the production practices and risks of consuming mechanically tenderized poultry products or mechanically tenderized meat products, other than beef, to proceed with this option. For example, there have been no known outbreaks for mechanically tenderized poultry or non-beef products.

    Implementation Issues

    The final new descriptive designation requirement will apply to all raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products going to retail stores, restaurants, hotels, or similar institutions or to other official establishments for further processing other than cooking. The final requirements for validated cooking instructions will apply to raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions. If a second establishment repackages the product for household consumers, hotels, restaurants or similar institutions, the second establishment will be responsible for applying the validated cooking instructions to the product label. If retail stores repackage the product, they will be required to include the descriptive designation and validated cooking instructions from the official establishment on the retail label.

    Under the final rule, establishments or retail stores may add the required information to existing label designs, or they can apply a separate sticker with the required information to existing labels. Under the provisions for generic approval in 9 CFR 412.2(a)(1), the modifications made to the labels for needle- or blade-tenderized beef products from official establishments are generically approved.

    To inform consumers that the nature of needle- or blade-tenderized beef is not the same as that of an intact cut of beef, to make them aware that the consequences of the tenderization process may include the intake of bacteria, and to assure consumers that these products can be prepared safely, FSIS plans to conduct consumer education and awareness efforts as part of its implementation strategy. The Agency will develop webinars and PowerPoint presentations for industry to assist establishments and retail facilities in complying with the new labeling requirements. FSIS staff will also be available to answer questions pertaining to the labeling of mechanically tenderized beef products.

    When the rule becomes effective, FSIS inspection program personnel will verify that establishments meet the labeling requirements in this rule. FSIS inspection program personnel review labels and compare them to actual product formulations to verify that, when applicable, the processes used in the production of the product are listed accurately on the label; that the label is not misleading; and that the label is otherwise in compliance with all labeling requirements. If the label does not meet the labeling requirements in this rule, the product will be misbranded (under 21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1), 601(n)(2), 601(n)(6) or 601(n)(12)). FSIS will inform the establishment that it needs to make corrections to its label. In limited circumstances, if the label is particularly problematic (e.g., the label presents potential health, safety, or dietary problems for the consumer), FSIS would rescind the label's approval under 9 CFR 500.8.

    Descriptive Designations on Intact Product

    Note that intact beef products may bear a descriptive designation of “intact,” consistent with 9 CFR 317.2(e). However, such a descriptive designation is not required. If producers want to use such a descriptive designation on labels of intact product to distinguish it from non-intact product, FSIS would allow the designation and would not consider it a special statement requiring label submission to FSIS and FSIS review prior to using the label. Rather, FSIS would generically approve the labels with the statement based on the provisions for generic approval in 9 CFR 412.2(a)(1).

    Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    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 final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” though not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    FSIS updated the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis to take into account recently updated source data and modified timelines for implementation of the final rule. The changes to the costs and benefits sections incorporate the following factors:

    • Information Resources, Inc., (IRI) scanner data was used to calculate the number of raw meat and poultry products in the retail market and the number of private and branded products. IRI gathers data by scanners in supermarkets, drugstores, and mass merchandisers and maintains a panel of consumer households that record purchases at outlets by scanning UPC codes on the products purchased.

    • FSIS used the more up-to-date model from the secondary cost analysis in the proposed rule to estimate the cost of label changes for the industry. The label design costs were determined utilizing a March, 2011, FDA report that provides a model for determining label design costs.

    • Also, FSIS adjusted the percentage of coordinated and uncoordinated label changes which resulted in greater proportion of labels incurring additional costs.

    Baseline

    The Final Report of the Expert Elicitation on the Market Shares for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing Added Solutions and Mechanically Tenderized Raw Meat and Poultry Product, February 2012 (February 2012 Report),29 estimates that there are 555 official establishments that produce blade-, needle-, and both blade- and needle- tenderized beef products.30 In terms of assigned HACCP processing size, the 555 establishments are comprised of 251 very small, 291 small, and 13 large establishments. Total U.S. beef production was 24.3 billion pounds in 2010.31 The February 2012 Report estimates that the proportion of beef products that is mechanically tenderized is about 10.5 percent of total beef products sold, or 2.6 billion pounds. Of these products, an estimated 318 million pounds were brand-name-packaged by the establishment for retail sales; 640 million pounds were private-label-packaged by the establishment for retail sales; 1,594 million pounds were packaged by the establishment for food service, and 479 million pounds were packaged in retail operations.32

    29 Muth, Mary K., Ball, Melanie, and Coglaiti, Michaela Cimini February 2012.: RTI International Final Report—Expert Elicitation on the Market Shares for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing Added Solutions and Mechanically Tenderized Raw Meat and Poultry Products, Table 3-11 on p. 3-17.

    30 The February 2012 report estimates that 490 establishments produce products that are both mechanically tenderized and containing added solutions.

    31 Based on slaughter volumes multiplied by average carcass weights in the Expert Elicitation on the Market Shares for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing Added Solutions and Mechanically Tenderized Meat and Poultry Products, RTI International, February 2012.

    32 Ibid. Table 3-8 Proportions of Mechanically Tenderized-only Beef Product pounds by Packaging and labeling Type on p. 3-13, and Table 3-14 Estimated Pounds of Mechanically Tenderized-only Beef Products by Packaging and Labeling Type (Millions), p. 3-18.

    Retail establishments would be involved in repackaging products to be sold at retail. FSIS did not estimate the number of retail establishments that would be involved with repackaging raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products or the number of labels they would require to be in compliance with this rule.33 However, in the Agency's estimation, very few retail facilities are producing mechanically tenderized beef. FSIS requested comments on the number of retailers who would be involved with repackaging raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products, but received none.

    33 FSIS believes that the number of retailers involved in repackaging mechanically tenderized beef is small and declining, with large retailers and warehouse clubs moving toward ordering case-ready packaged beef products.

    The new descriptive designation requirement will apply to all raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products going to retail stores, restaurants, hotels, or similar institutions, or other official establishments for further processing, unless such product is destined to be fully cooked or receive another full lethality treatment at an official establishment. The requirements for validated cooking instructions will apply to raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions. If a second establishment repackages the product for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions, the second establishment will also be responsible for applying the validated cooking instructions to the product label. If retail stores repackage the product, they will have to include the descriptive designation and validated cooking instructions from the official establishment on the retail label.

    Expected Cost of the Final Rule

    This final rule requires all official establishments that produce raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products to modify their product labels to include the term “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized” as part of the products' descriptive name and to add validated cooking instructions to the labels of all raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions. To incorporate this information, establishments may add the required information to existing label designs with minor changes.

    Cost Analysis

    IRI scanner data indicate that there are 4,148 34 raw beef labels in retail, approximately 11.55 percent (or 479) of which are private label, with the remainder (3,669) branded. Although IRI's geographic coverage—which includes the largest urban areas in the U.S. and a few whole states—may yield a reasonable estimate of the universe of branded retail labels, a substantial number of chains that are large enough to have their own private labels but that only serve small or medium-sized cities may be missed. For this reason, the IRI results will be used as a lower bound on the number of retail labels affected by this rule. To estimate an upper bound, we make use of the estimates in FSIS's 2012 expert elicitation (see Table 2, below) to calculate that 46 percent (22%/[16% + 22% + 10%]) of retail labels may be private label. In this case, there are an estimated 3,152 private retail labels and 6,821 (3,669 + 3,152) total retail labels. Next, these estimates must be adjusted upward to account for food service labels (because the IRI scanner data do not capture food service labels); based on the contents of Table 2, about 52 percent of all mechanically tenderized beef products are for food service. From this, FSIS estimates about 52 percent of beef labels are for food service and the remaining 48 percent of labels are for retail, yielding estimates of 8,616 (4,148/48.14%) to 14,169 (6,821/48.14%) raw beef product labels in the marketplace.

    34 IRI scanner data was used to calculate the number of raw meat products in the retail market. IRI gathers data by scanners in supermarkets, drugstores, and mass merchandisers and maintains a panel of consumer households that record purchases at outlets by scanning UPC codes on the products purchased.

    Table 2—Percent of Mechanically Tenderized Only and Mechanically Tenderized and Enhanced Beef Products by Packaging and Labeling Type Packaging or labeling type Mechanically
  • tenderized only
  • (pounds)
  • Share of
  • mechanically
  • tenderized only
  • (percent)
  • Mechanically
  • tenderized and enhanced
  • (pounds)
  • Share of all
  • mechanically
  • tenderized
  • (percent)
  • Brand Name Label for Retail Sales 318 10 829 16 Private Label for Retail Sales 640 21 934 22 Foodservice 1,594 53 2,075 52 Retail 479 16 206 10 Source: Expert Elicitation on the Market Shares for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing Added Solutions and Mechanically Tenderized Raw Meat and Poultry Products. Final Report. Tables 3-14 and 3-16. Available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/3a97f0b5-b523-4225-8387-c56a1eeee189/Market_Shares_MTB_0212.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    Using the 10.5-percent estimate for the share of beef products that are mechanically tenderized but do not contain added solutions,35 and the 8,616 to 14,169 estimated range for number of beef labels (with brand and private allocations as shown in the previous paragraph), the estimated number of labels for mechanically tenderized beef products without added solutions is 905 (800 brand and 104 private) to 1,488 (1,316 branded and 172 private), as shown in Table 3.

    35 From Muth, Mary K., Ball, Mary K., and Coglaiti, Michaela Cimini February 2012.: RTI International Final Report—Expert Elicitation on the Market Shares for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing Added Solutions and Mechanically Tenderized Raw Meat and Poultry Products, Table 3-6. In this report, products containing added solution are referred to as “enhanced.”

    There are an additional 15.8 percent (or 1,338 to 2,199) of all beef products that are mechanically tenderized and also contain added solutions. The cost of label changes for these products is included in another FSIS final rule, finalized in December of 2014, which requires label changes for products with added solutions. These costs were overestimated by using a 12 month compliance period, although changes are required in some cases by January 1, 2016, and in other cases by January 1, 2018. For the products required by the added solutions rule to have label changes by January 1, 2016, if such label changes have not already been completed, this rule will delay by a few months the imposition of labeling change costs. For products required by the added solutions rule to have label changes by January 1, 2018, this rule's requirements related to mechanical tenderization would generate non-negligible costs because the shortening of the compliance period (from 36 months as required by the added solutions rule alone to 12 months as required by this rule). However, the added solutions rule's estimates captured the difference in cost from the 12 and 36 month compliance periods by overestimating the cost of labeling changes for these products under a 12 month compliance period.36

    36 If any label changes for mechanically tenderized beef products with added solutions have already been completed in response to the added solutions rule, a second label revision is required to achieve compliance with this rule. The cost of a second label revision for mechanically tenderized beef products with added solutions was not captured in the added solutions rule.

    Table 3—Relabeling Cost for Beef Only Mechanically Tenderized, 12-Month Compliance Period Branded Private Cost Lower bound 800 104 Lower Mid Upper Coor Chg 88 11% 5 5% $15,857 $28,916 $41,042 Uncoor Chg 712 89% 99 95% 1,961,931 3,555,341 5,949,920 Total Lower Bound Cost 1,977,789 3,584,257 5,990,962 Annualized Cost (3% DR, 10 Year) 225,104 407,946 681,868 Annualized Cost (7% DR, 10 Year) 263,171 476,932 797,176 Branded Private Cost Upper bound 1,316 172 Lower Mid Upper Coor Chg 145 11% 9 5% $26,069 $47,538 $67,473 Uncoor Chg 1,171 89% 163 95% 3,225,318 5,844,804 9,781,374 Total Upper Bound Cost 3,251,387 5,892,342 9,848,847 Annualized Cost (3% DR, 10 Year) 370,060 670,643 1,120,957 Annualized Cost (7% DR, 10 Year) 432,640 784,053 1,310,518 Minor Coordinated 170 310 440 Minor Uncoordinated 2,417 4,380 7,330

    This final rule will require the product name to include the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized.”

    The number of labels was not tracked by the FSIS Labeling Submission and Approval System,37 which replaced the Agency's earlier Labeling Information System Database, because many mechanically tenderized beef products are single-ingredient products, and establishments may be eligible for generic approval of these labels. FSIS does not have data on partially-cooked mechanically tenderized beef products but thinks that the amount of these products is small and therefore has not included them in the cost calculations.

    37 Labeling Submission and Approval System (LSAS) replaced the Labeling Information System Database. LSAS, an electronic system designed to expedite many aspects of the prior label approval system by offering electronic submission and status checks for labels and Generic Label Adviser to assist establishments in determining whether labels can be approved generically or require sketch approval.

    This cost analysis uses the mid-point label design modification costs for a minor coordinated label change and a minor uncoordinated label change, as provided in a March 2011 FDA report.38 This report defines a minor change as one in which only one color is affected and the label does not need to be redesigned. We conclude that the labeling change that will be required by this final rule is a minor change because the words “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized” need to be added to the label, which is comparable to the addition of an ingredient to the ingredient list and the addition of validated cooking instructions is comparable to minimal changes to a facts panel (e.g. nutrition facts, supplement facts, or drug facts).

    38 Model to Estimate Costs of Using Labeling as a Risk Reduction Strategy for Consumer Products Regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, March 2011 (Contract No. GS-10F-0097L, Task Order 5).

    For comparison purposes, in 2011, the Food and Drug Administration estimated that the required labeling costs for its final rule 39 on the labeling of bronchodilators were deemed minor. The FDA required revisions to the “Indications,” “Warnings,” and “Directions” sections of the Drug Fact label. Using the RTI labeling model described in the March 2011 report, the FDA concluded that the revisions would be deemed minor. FSIS assumes that the addition of validated cooking instruction is similar to the aforementioned changes to the drug fact panel, and is therefore deemed minor.

    39 Labeling for Bronchodilators To Treat Asthma; Cold, Cough, Allergy, Bronchodilator, and Antiasthmatic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use (76 FR 44475; Jul. 26, 2011); available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/pdf/2011-18347.pdf.

    FSIS anticipates that 11 percent of branded label (a label bearing the “brand” or name of the manufacturer of the product) changes will be coordinated. Five percent of the private label (a label branded by a contract manufacturer for a retailer under the name of the retailer rather than that of the manufacturer) changes will be coordinated and that 95 percent of the private label changes will be uncoordinated with the required changes.40 A coordinated label change is one that occurs when a regulatory label change takes place along with other labeling changes planned by the firm. Moreover, this allows time to use existing labels and results in minimal losses of inventories of labels. An uncoordinated label change occurs when establishments make non-regulatory labeling changes because of an ingredient change or product reformulation; promotional text or graphics purposes; brand images or graphics update, science update, package changes (because of changes in the size, type or vendor); corporate contact, distributor, or country of origin update; and product claims addition or deletion. These labeling changes may be minor, major or extensive, and they may also apply to changing or adding a package insert. Uncoordinated label changes costs include (not necessarily in this order) administrative activities, recordkeeping activities, analytical testing, graphic design alteration, market testing, prepress activities, engraving new plates, and printing and manufacturing labels.

    40 According to the Model to Estimate Costs of Using Labeling as a Risk Reduction Strategy for Consumer Products Regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, March 2011 (Contract No. GS-10F-0097L, Task Order 5), Table 3-1, Assumed Percentages of Changes to Branded and Private-label UPCs that Cannot be Coordinated with a Planned Changed, for private labels for food that has a compliance period of 30 months, it is assumed that 60% of the changes are not coordinated. Thus, 40% of the changes are coordinated. Private labels are not frequently changed. As such, the cost is much higher than for branded labels.

    The mid-point label design modification costs for a minor coordinated label change is an estimated $310 per label (with a range of $170 to $440) and $4,380 per label (with a range of $2,417 and $7,330) for a minor uncoordinated change. Using these costs for the number of minor coordinated and uncoordinated changes in branded and private labels, Table 3, FSIS estimates that the one-time total cost of modifying labels for all federally inspected processors is $3,584,257 to $5,892,342 as an upper and lower bound mid-point estimate. Over a ten-year period, the upper and lower bound annualized cost for the industry is $407,946 and $670,643 at a 3-percent discount rate over ten years and $476,932 and $784,053 at a 7-percent discount rate over ten years.

    This final rule will require validated cooking instructions on the labels of packages for beef that is only mechanically tenderized and beef that is both mechanically tenderized and contains added solutions. Establishments may also incur costs to validate the required cooking instructions for raw and partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products. These costs may be incurred to ensure that the cooking instructions are adequate to destroy any potential pathogens that may remain in the beef products after being tenderized. Most cooking instruction validations will be contracted out to universities or conducted by trade associations or large establishments. FSIS estimates that a validation study will cost between $5,000 and $10,000 per product line with one formulation. Most studies will validate cooking instructions for beef products with two formulations: injected with or without solution; therefore, the total cost per validation study will be between $10,000 -$20,000.41 However, industry cost will likely be relatively small because FSIS is issuing guidance along with this final rule that establishments can use to develop cooking instructions. For purposes of this analysis, FSIS assumes that the costs of developing validated cooking instructions will be minimal because FSIS assumes that most establishments will follow FSIS's guidance. FSIS requested data on the costs of developing validated cooking instructions; however, none were received.

    41 Per telephone conversation with the Grocery Manufacturers Association Director of Science Operations, Food Protection.

    Various types of time costs are associated with this rule. For example, there may be costs due to changes in cooking procedures, as kitchen staff may prepare products differently once the product is labeled to indicate that it has been mechanically tenderized and once the labeling includes validated cooking instructions (e.g., staff may place a product in foil and keep it in a warm oven until it reaches the rest time established in the validated cooking instructions). The changes could potentially lead to training costs for kitchen staff to properly prepare mechanically tenderized beef products.

    There may be additional wait time for consumers in both food service settings and at home before eating their meals due to increased cooking or holding product. In the absence of data with which to reliably estimate the time cost associated with this rule, we have not attempted to quantify this cost.

    FSIS Budgetary Impact of the Final Rule

    This final rule will result in no impact on the Agency's operational costs because the Agency will not need to add any staff or incur any non-labor expenditure since inspectors periodically perform tasks to verify the presence of mandatory label features and to ensure that the label is an accurate representation of the product. The Agency's cost to develop guidance material that establishments can use to develop cooking instructions will be minimal because such guidance exists and can be modified and posted on the FSIS Web site in fewer than six staff-hours.

    Expected Benefits and Miscellaneous Impacts of the Final Rule

    The Agency has determined that the final new labeling requirements will improve public awareness of product identities. The final rule will clearly differentiate non-intact, mechanically tenderized beef products from intact products, thereby providing truthful and accurate labeling of beef products.

    As stated earlier, tenderness is a key factor in deciding to purchase a beef product. Yet it is not often easy to distinguish the more tender from the less tender, and especially the blade-tenderized from the non-tenderized beef products. The mandatory descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized” on the labels of the needle- or blade-tenderized or similar products will inform consumers of the additional product attributes when they are making their purchase decisions.

    Although the benefits of having such additional information cannot be quantified, providing better market information to consumers could promote better competition among establishments that produce beef products. In addition, if the new label causes a divergence in price between intact and mechanically tenderized beef, there would be a number of changes in consumer and producer surplus. Consumers who purchase mechanically tenderized beef in the absence of the rule, and would continue doing so in its presence, would gain surplus if the price for mechanically tenderized beef were to decrease, while consumers purchasing intact beef in the absence of the rule would experience a loss of surplus because of the increase in price for intact beef. Some producers of intact beef or other meats will realize a surplus increase if consumers substitute such products for mechanically tenderized beef.

    FSIS has concluded that labeling information on needle- or blade-tenderized beef products may help consumers and retail establishments better understand the product they are purchasing. This knowledge is the first step in helping consumers and retail establishments become aware that they need to cook these products differently than intact beef products before the products can be safely consumed. Additionally, by including cooking instructions, the food service industry and household consumers will be made aware that a mechanically tenderized beef product or injected beef product needs to be cooked to a minimum internal temperature and may need to be maintained at this temperature for a specific period of time to sufficiently reduce the presence of potential pathogens in the interior of the beef product.

    Additionally, the Food Code for the food service industry, which most states have adopted into State law, recommends cooking mechanically tenderized and injected meats to a minimum temperature of 145 °F for a minimum of 3 minutes. In the absence of readily available information on the label as to how to cook the beef product and whether it is intact or mechanically tenderized, the food service industry likely now spends time determining whether the beef products it purchases have been mechanically tenderized. The final rule will require that raw or partially-cooked mechanically tenderized beef be labeled to indicate that it has been tenderized and to include validated cooking instructions. Therefore, the final rule will save the food service industry time to meet State requirements based on the Food Code. In addition, the new labeling requirements will lead to improved public health as a result of less mistakes in the food service industry meeting the State requirements to adequately cook mechanically tenderized beef products.

    In addition, in this final analysis, FSIS did not include benefits associated with reduced illness associated with mechanically tenderized product prepared at food service establishments. First, FSIS recognizes that even when the food service industry can more readily determine whether beef has been mechanically tenderized, consumers may continue to request that the product be served to degree of doneness that is less than fully cooked. In most States, as long as the restaurant has noted on the menu the risk of consuming meat products that are undercooked, the food service establishment may serve the product less than fully cooked and be in compliance with State law. In addition, FSIS does not have data to estimate the percentage of total food service establishments that currently may not have sufficient information concerning whether beef product they serve is mechanically tenderized or currently may not have adequate cooking instructions for such product. Therefore, FSIS cannot effectively estimate the percentage of product that will be routinely prepared differently at food service establishments as a result of this rule.

    FSIS generated an estimate of the annual number of illnesses from mechanically (needle- or blade-) tenderized beef steaks and roasts and mechanically tenderized beef steaks and roasts that contain added solutions that could potentially be avoided as a result of this final rule. FSIS evaluated the effect of additional cooking of non-intact product by first determining the implied concentration of organisms prior to cooking given current information, then determining the effect of adding additional cooking. Additional cooking is modeled to a minimum temperature of 160 °F. Current cooking practices as captured in the EcoSure dataset do not specifically include the time from when the final cooking temperature was recorded to when consumption occurred. It is likely that product in this data set encountered a range of dwell times. FSIS recommends in its guidance concerning steaks and roasts a cooking temperature of 145 °F with 3 minutes dwell time for cooking steaks and whole roasts because data support that this would be equivalent to cooking at 160 °F without holding a product at that temperature for any dwell time. FSIS's guidance concerning cooking steaks and whole roasts is located at http://blogs.usda.gov/2011/05/25/cooking-meat-check-the-new-recommended-temperatures/. If consumers adopt the cooking practices and temperature and dwell time combinations recommended in the guidance, the results would be comparable to their cooking product to 160 °F but not holding product at that temperature for any dwell time.42 43 Therefore, FSIS used the results from the risk analysis that estimate the benefits of consumers cooking mechanically tenderized product to 160 °F without a dwell time because they are equivalent to 145 °F with 3 minutes of dwell time and because the Agency did not have information about dwell time from the risk analysis.

    42 Equivalency in cooking temperatures and times can be estimated using D and Z-values. The D-value is a measure of how long bacteria must be exposed to a particular temperature to effect a 1 log10 reduction. The Z-value is a measure of how much temperature change is necessary to effect a 1 log10 change in the D-value. Although these values have not been measured for E. coli O157:H7 in steaks, they have been measured in ground beef. At 158 °F (70 °C) E. coli O157:H7 had a D-value of about 3.3 seconds, at 144.5 °F (62.5 °C) the D-value was 52.8 seconds. Three minutes at 145 °F would be equivalent to more than 10 seconds at 160 °F. Using the Z-value for E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef yields similar estimates. The Z-value was given as 9.8 °F (5.43 °C). Changing the temperature from 160 °F to 145 °F would then represent an increase in D-value of about 1.5 log10. Thus, 3 minutes at 145 °F would be equivalent to 5.7 seconds at 160 °F. In either case, three minutes at 145 °F is more than equivalent to an instantaneous temperature (<1 sec) at 160 °F.

    43 Murphy, R. Y., E. M. Martin, et al. (2004). “Thermal process validation for Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes in ground turkey and beef products.” J Food Prot 67(7): 1394-1402.

    The CDC recently completed an analysis attributing foodborne illnesses to their sources. Painter, et al., examined outbreak data from 1998 through 2008 and identified 186 outbreaks of E. coli O157 resulting in 4,844 illnesses during that period.44 As a consequence of this analysis, Painter, et al., attributed 39.4% of illnesses or 1,909 (4,844 × 0.394) to beef.

    44 Painter, J., R. Hoekstra, et al. (2013). “Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food commodities by using outbreak data, United States, 1998-2008.” Emerg Infect Dis 9(3): 407-415.

    Of the 6 outbreaks in tenderized products described in the preamble of the proposed rule (78 FR at 34592), 5 occurred during the time frame analyzed by Painter, et al. These 5 outbreaks (occurring between 2000 and 2007) resulted in 151 illnesses. Thus, approximately 7.9% (151 ÷ 1,909) of E. coli O157 illnesses are attributable to tenderized beef product.

    Painter, et al.'swork includes the illnesses associated with outbreaks, which constitute only a fraction of the overall E. coli O157 illnesses that occur each year. For an estimate of overall illness numbers, we turn to another CDC study, whose authors estimate that there are 63,153 annual illnesses in the United States attributable to E. coli O157 from all sources.45 To determine the annual number of illnesses from E. coli O157 (STEC O157), CDC begins with the annual incidence of STEC O157 infections reported to CDC's Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) sites from 2005 to 2008. This value is adjusted up using an under-diagnosis multiplier that is based on the following factors:

    45 Scallan, E., R. M. Hoekstra, et al. (2011). “Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens.” Emerg Infect Dis 17(1): 7-15.

    1. Whether a person with diarrhea seeks medical care. CDC bases this on unpublished surveys of persons with bloody or non-bloody diarrhea conducted in 2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2006-2007. CDC estimates that about 35% of persons with bloody diarrhea (about 90% of STEC O157 illnesses) would seek medical care and about 18% of persons with non-bloody diarrhea would seek medical care.

    2. Whether a person seeking medical care submits a stool specimen. This is also based on unpublished surveys of persons with bloody or non-bloody diarrhea conducted in 2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2006-2007. CDC estimates that about 36% of persons with bloody diarrhea seeking medical care and about 19% of persons with non-bloody diarrhea seeking medical care would submit stool specimens.

    3. Whether a laboratory receiving a stool specimen would routinely test it for STEC O157. This is based on a published study from the FoodNet Laboratory Survey.46 CDC estimates that 58% of laboratories would routinely test for STEC O157.

    46 Voetsch, A.C., F.J. Angulo, et al. (2004). “Laboratory practices for stool-specimen culture for bacterial pathogens, including Escherichia coli O157:H7, in the FoodNet sites, 1995-2000.” Clin Infect Dis 38 Suppl 3: S190-197.

    4. How sensitive the testing procedure is. CDC used a laboratory test sensitivity rate of 70% based on studies of Salmonella. 47 48

    47 Chalker, R.B. and M.J. Blaser 1988. “A review of human salmonellosis: III. Magnitude of Salmonella infection in the United States.” Rev Infect Dis 10(1): 111-124.

    48 Voetsch, A.C., T.J. Van Gilder, et al. (2004). “FoodNet estimate of the burden of illness caused by nontyphoidal Salmonella infections in the United States.” Clin Infect Dis 38 Suppl 3: S127-134.

    CDC also adjusted the value for geographical coverage of the FoodNet sites and for the changing United States population for the years 2005-2008.

    The value was also adjusted down for the following factors:

    1. The proportion of illnesses that were acquired outside of the United States. Based on the proportion of FoodNet cases of STEC O157 infection who reported travel outside the United States within 7 days of illness onset (2005-2008), CDC estimated that 96.5% of illnesses were domestically acquired.

    2. The proportion of STEC O157 outbreak-associated illnesses that was due to foodborne transmission. Based on reported outbreaks CDC estimated that 68% were foodborne.49 The overall effect of the upward and downward adjustments is a multiplier of 26.1 that is applied to the reported number of illness which is then adjusted down by about 35% to account for domestically acquired foodborne illness.

    49 Rangel, J.M., P.H. Sparling, et al. (2005). “Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks, United States, 1982-2002.” Emerg Infect Dis 11(4): 603-609.

    CDC's credible interval surrounding this point estimate ranges from 17,587 to 149,631.50 The estimated annual illnesses due to mechanically tenderized product is given by 63,153 (annual estimated illnesses of E. coli O157:H7 51 ) × 0.394 (proportion of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses attributable to beef 52 ) × 0.079 (proportion of beef attributable illnesses due to tenderized product 53 ) = 1,965. This gives a range of estimated annual illnesses from 547 (= 17,587 × 0.394 × 0.079) to 4,657 (= 149,631 × 0.394 × 0.079).

    50 Scallan, E., R.M. Hoekstra, et al. (2011). “Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens.” Emerg Infect Dis 17(1): 7-15.

    51 Ibid.

    52 Painter, J., R. Hoekstra, et al. (2013). “Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food commodities by using outbreak data, United States, 1998-2008.” Emerg Infect Dis 9(3): 407-415.

    53 151 outbreak illnesses attributable to tenderized beef out of 1,909 outbreak illnesses attributable to all beef (151/1,909 = 0.079).

    An analysis of the NHANES 2005-2006 Dietary Interview, Individual Foods, First Day, and Second Day files estimated approximately 11.7 billion servings annually of steaks and roasts. FSIS contracted with Research Triangle Institute to estimate market shares for mechanically tenderized beef and mechanically tenderized beef with added solutions.54 After accounting for the proportion of all beef that was ground, FSIS estimates that 21.0% of non-ground product is mechanically tenderized only and that 31.6% of non-ground product was mechanically tenderized with added solutions. Thus, FSIS estimates that mechanically tenderized beef accounts for 6.2 billion servings annually. FSIS also estimates that the frequency of illness for mechanically tenderized product is 1,965 ÷ 6.2 billion or 320 illnesses per billion servings, with a range from 88 (= 547 ÷ 6.2 billion) to 751 (= 4,657/6.2 billion) illnesses per billion servings.

    54 Muth, M.K., M. Ball, et al. (2012). Expert Elicitation on the Market Shares for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing Added Solutions and Mechanically Tenderized Raw Meat and Poultry Products. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road.

    The dose-response function for a pathogen associates an average dose with a corresponding frequency of illness. For E. coli O157:H7 the dose-response function is characterized by a linear part in which the predicted probability of illness per serving across all exposures is proportional with respect to an average dose and by a non-linear part in which the predicted probability of illness is not proportional to dose.

    In the case of E. coli O157 illnesses attributable to mechanically tenderized beef, the frequency of illness is very low; therefore the mean dose across the population of servings that could account for this frequency of illness is also low. For one set of parameters the dose response function for E. coli O157:H7 corresponds to an average dose of 0.0001 E. coli O157:H7 bacteria per serving with a frequency of illness of 320 per billion.55 This average dose is more than 5 log10 below the point at which the dose response function becomes non-linear. This makes the average dose an appropriate surrogate for the distribution of all doses.56 At the lower end of the range of illnesses, a dose of 0.000028 E. coli O157:H7 bacteria per serving corresponds to a frequency of illness of 88 per billion servings. At the upper end of the range of illnesses, a dose of 0.00024 E. coli O157:H7 bacteria per serving corresponds to a frequency of illness of 751 per billion servings. Both of these values also fall well below the point at which the dose response function becomes non-linear.

    55 Powell, M., USDA-FSIS. 2002. “Comparative Risk Assessment for Intact (Non Tenderized) and Non-Intact (Tenderized Beef): Technical Report”. fsis.usda.gov. Retrieved April 27, 2011, from: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/7afddc93-f812-42fb-92b7-52455124bbe0/Beef_Risk_Assess_ExecSumm_Mar2002.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    56 Williams, M.S., E.D. Ebel, et al. (2011). “Methodology for determining the appropriateness of a linear dose-response function.” Risk Anal 31(3): 345-350.

    From a post-cooking dose of 0.0001, a pre-cooking dose of E. coli O157:H7 bacteria can be calculated by determining the average contamination level needed to survive cooking. The 2007 EcoSure consumer cooking temperature audit 57 involved the collection of data from primary shoppers of over 900 households geographically dispersed across the country. Participants were asked to record the final cooking temperature and name or main ingredient of any entrée they prepared during the week of the study. Of the 3,257 recorded consumer cooking temperatures in the database for all products, 318 recorded consumer cooking temperatures ranging from 82 °F to 212 °F for beef (not ground). Table 4 shows the number of observations for each recorded cooking temperature.

    57 EcoSure-EcoLab. (2007). “EcoSure 2007 Cold Temperature Database.” FoodRisk.org. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from http://foodrisk.org/exclusives/EcoSure/.

    Table 4—Final Recorded Consumer Cooking Temperatures for Beef (Not Ground) in 2007 EcoSure Consumer Cooking Temperature Audit [EcoSure-EcoLab, 2007] Final cooking temperature Observations Percent 80-89 1 0.3 90-99 3 0.9 100-109 6 1.9 110-119 11 3.5 120-129 19 6.0 130-139 27 8.5 140-149 38 11.9 150-159 54 17.0 160-169 61 19.2 170-179 31 9.7 180-189 45 14.2 190-199 14 4.4 200-209 7 2.2 210-219 1 0.3

    Sixty-seven (21%) of the recorded cooking temperatures were below 140 °F and 159 (50%) of the temperatures were below 160 °F. A 2010 USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) study by Luchansky, et al., 58 looked at the relationship between final cooking temperatures and log10 reductions for mechanically tenderized beef. An additional ARS study by Luchansky, et al., 59 also examined the relationship between final cooking temperatures and log10 reductions for chemically injected beef (mechanically tenderized beef with added solutions). Equations derived from these studies combined with the distribution of final cooking temperatures shown in Table 4 estimate that an average pre-cooking dose of 0.0432 E. coli O157:H7 bacteria per serving 60 would result in an average post-cooking dose of 0.0001. Thus, a pre-cooking dose of 0.0432 corresponds with the estimate of 1,965 illnesses. Given the current cooking distribution, about 93% of the 1,965 illnesses are attributed to cooking temperatures below 160 °F and about 7% to cooking temperatures equal to or greater than 160 °F.

    58 Luchansky, J.B., A.C. Porto-Fett, et al. (2012). “Fate of Shiga toxin-producing O157:H7 and non-O157:H7 Escherichia coli cells within blade-tenderized beef steaks after cooking on a commercial open-flame gas grill.” J Food Prot 75(1): 62-70.

    59 Ibid.

    60 The previous estimate for an average pre-cooking dose was 0.0188 E. coli O157:H7 bacteria per serving. Both estimates were derived using an attribution estimate of 1,965 illnesses and cooking data from the 2007 EcoSure study. The previous estimate, however, used data from two ARS studies (Luchansky 2011 and Luchansky 2012) provided to FSIS prior to their publication. After their publication, we substituted the data as published. This had the effect of decreasing the effect of cooking. Thus, in the previous submission, cooking to 160 °F resulted in a decrease from 1,965 illnesses to 78 illnesses. With the change to the published data, cooking to 160 °F results in a decrease from 1,965 illnesses to 144 illnesses. The change of the pre-cooking dose from 0.0188 to 0.0432 is a result of this recalculation.

    To evaluate the effect of using a higher minimum cooking temperature, FSIS modified the distribution derived from the EcoSure (2007) data set so that all of the observations that were originally below 160 °F were set to 160 °F. FSIS then calculated a new predicted number of illnesses using this modified cooking temperature distribution with the pre-cooking dose of 0.0432. This changed the post-cooking average dose from 0.0001 E. coli O157:H7 bacteria per serving to an average dose of 0.0000073, which corresponds to a frequency of illness of 23 per billion. With this change, the predicted number of illnesses decreases from 1,965 to 144. Thus, if all consumers cook all mechanically tenderized beef to at least 160 °F, the resulting total number of illness will be 144. Analogous calculations yield illness estimates of 40 and 341 illness, respectively, if the baseline annual illness totals are 547 and 4,657 (the lower and upper values of illnesses that could be attributed to mechanically tenderized beef when we consider the original uncertainty in CDC estimates of all foodborne O157 illnesses (from 17,587 to 149,631)).

    The annual estimated number of illnesses averted or prevented is estimated at 1,821 (1,965 illnesses less 144 illnesses), with a range of 507 illnesses (547 illnesses—40 illnesses) to 4,316 illnesses (4,657 illnesses—341 illnesses), if mechanically tenderized and mechanically tenderized beef containing added solution is cooked to a minimum temperature of 160 °F (which is equivalent to cooking to a minimum internal temperature of 145 °F with 3 minutes of dwell time). However, FSIS knows that not all consumers will change their behavior based on reading the labels and, therefore, the Agency has estimated the uncertainty surrounding the number of illnesses that will be averted by obtaining ranges for consumer response rate, as well as using the range for the estimated number of illnesses if all consumers cooked the product at a minimum recommended temperature.

    To determine this, FSIS used studies on the impacts of food product labels on consumer behavior. These studies estimated the proportion of consumers changing their behavior in response to the presence of cooking instructions (safe-handling instructions) ranging from 15 to 19 percent.61 In a study of the nutrition fact panel on food products, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) conducted a survey which indicated that 56 percent of the people interviewed claimed to have modified their food choices after using this nutrition fact labeling (American Dietetic Association, 1995).62 Finally, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) in early 1995 indicated that the nutrition fact label may be causing some dietary change. Fifteen percent of the shoppers indicated that they had stopped buying products they had regularly purchased, after reading the label.63 We use the range (15 to 56 percent) as the estimate for the impact of labels on consumer behavior in retail and food service, with our primary estimate equaling the average of available estimates, or 24 percent.

    61 Yang states that 15% (51% of respondents seen the Safe Handling Instruction labels × 79% remembered reading the labels × 37% changing their behavior after seeing and reading the labels), and Bruhn states that 17% (60% of respondents seen the labels × 65% said that their awareness was increased × 43% said that they changed their behavior). Ralston states that 19% (67% of respondents seen the label × 29% who changed their behavior).

    62 America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750.

    63 Food Marketing Institute (FMI) states that of the 43 percent of the shoppers interviewed, who had seen the label, 22 percent indicated it had caused them to start buying and using food products they had not used before, and 34 percent said they had stopped buying products they had regularly. We use the higher percentage of 15% (43% × 34%) in our estimate. FMI and Prevention Magazine Report Shopping for Health: Balancing Convenience, Nutrition and Taste, 1997.

    In addition, the RTI study indicates that the market share for mechanically tenderized beef and beef containing added solution is estimated at 48 percent at retail.64

    64 RTI, pp. 3-12 and 3-14.

    Table 5 shows the estimated reduction in illness numbers based on these assumptions for consumer and food service provider behavior. To derive the estimated number of illnesses averted and focusing first on inputs derived from Scallan, et al.'s primary estimate, the range for the estimate would be 131 illness (1,821 illnesses (mid-point estimate from the risk analysis) × 48% (retail share of mechanically tenderized beef market) × 15% (lower end of the range for percent of consumer using validated cooking instructions) to 489 illness averted (1,821 illnesses (mid-point estimate from the risk analysis) × 48% (retail share of mechanically tenderized beef market) × 56% (upper end of the range for percent of consumers using validated cooking instructions). The primary estimate is 210 illnesses.

    Table 5—Response Rate and Resulting Averted Illnesses From Retail Lower Primary Upper Estimated Preventable Illnesses 507 1,821 4,316 Response to Label 15% 1 24% 56% Share of Mechanically Tenderized Beef in Retail 48% Total Estimated Illnesses Averted—Lower Bound 37 58 136 Total Estimated Illnesses Averted—Primary 131 210 489 Total Estimated Illnesses Averted—Upper Bound 311 497 1,160 Expected Benefits—Lower Bound $119,770 $191,631 $447,140 Expected Benefits—Primary $430,178 $688,286 $1,606,000 Expected Benefits—Upper Bound $1,019,577 $1,631,324 $3,806,422 1 The average of the percentages of consumer response rate: Yang 15%, Bruhn 17%, Ralston 19%, American Dietetic Association 56%, and FMI 15% as discussed in the benefits section.

    Using the FSIS estimate for the average cost per case for an E. coli O157:H7 illness of $3,281,65 the expected benefits from this final rule are $688,286 per year (with a range of $430,178 to $1,606,000). Using the credible interval from Scallan, et al., provides expected benefits of $191,631 per year for 58 illnesses prevented (with a range of $119,770 to $447,140) for the lower bound of the credible interval and expected benefit of $1,631,324 per year for 497 illnesses prevented (with a range of $1,019,577 to $3,806,422) in the upper bound of the credible interval. This estimate for the average cost of an E. coli O157:H7 illness is derived by using the 2010 version of ERS Cost calculator (for E. coli) and replacing the case numbers with new case numbers based on Scallan's report.

    65 The FSIS estimate for the cost of E. coli O157:H7 ($3,281 per case,—2010 dollars) was developed using the USDA, ERS Foodborne Illness Cost Calculator: STEC O157 (June 2011). http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1rf5mh0k/http:/www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodborneIllness/ (archived link—calculator currently being updated). FSIS updated the ERS calculator to incorporate the Scallan (2011) case distribution for STEC O157. Scallan E. Hoekstra, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson MA, Roy SL, et. al. (2011) “Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens.” Emerging Infectious Diseases.

    For E. coli, FSIS adjusted Scallan's case distribution to fit the ERS Cost Calculator because Scallan reported each illnesses in three categories (doctor visits, hospitalization, and death) while the ERS Cost Calculator for E. coli O157 has seven severity categories. By changing only the case numbers, FSIS kept all other assumptions in the ERS Cost Calculator. ERS updated the dollar units to 2010 dollars and FSIS is using these estimates.

    These estimates represent a minimal estimate for an average cost of illness because they only include medical costs and loss-of-productivity costs. They do not include pain and suffering costs.

    FSIS believes that consumers prefer lower cooking temperatures and therefore they may substitute other meat choices rather than cooking at a higher recommended temperature included in cooking instructions. This welfare loss associated with substituting to less-preferred meats or cooking to temperatures that are higher than ideal (from a taste perspective) was not quantified in the analysis.

    Conclusion

    The upper and lower bound cost to produce labels for mechanically tenderized beef is a one-time cost of $3,584,257 and $5,892,342. The upper and lower bound annualized cost is $476,932 and $784,053 for 10 years at a 7-percent discount rate or $407,946 and $670,643 over 10 years at a 3-percent discount rate.

    The expected number of illnesses prevented would be 210 per year, with a range of 131 to 489, if the predicted percentages of beef steaks and roasts are cooked to an internal temperature of 160 °F (which is equivalent to 145 °F and 3 minutes of dwell time). These prevented illnesses amount to $688,286 per year in benefits with a range of $430,178 to $1,606,000. The expected annualized net benefits, given the lower and upper bound cost estimate are −$95,768 to $211,353 as reflected in Table 6.

    Using the lower end of the credible interval from Scallan, et al., provides an expected number of illness prevented of 58 per year, with a range of 37 to 136, as discussed earlier. These prevented illnesses amount to $191,631 in benefits, with a range of $119,770 to $447,140. The expected annualized net benefits for the lower end of the Scallan's credible interval, given the lower and upper bound cost are −$592,422 to −$285,301.

    Using the upper end of the credible interval from Scallan, et al., provides an expected number of illnesses prevented of 497 per year, with a range of 311 to 1,160 as discussed earlier. These prevented illnesses amount to $1,631,324 in benefits, with a range of $1,019,577 to $3,806,422. The expected annualized net benefits for the upper end of the Scallan's credible interval given the upper and lower bound costs are $847,270 to $1,154,391.

    Table 6—Estimated Net Benefits Benefits Cost Lower bound net benefits Upper bound net benefits Scallan Midpoint Credible Interval Midpoint $688,286 $211,353 −$95,768 Lower 430,178 476,932 −46,754 −353,875 Upper 1,606,000 784,053 1,129,067 821,946 Scallan Lower Credible Interval Midpoint 191,631 −285,301 −592,422 Lower 119,770 476,932 −357,163 −664,284 Upper 447,140 784,053 −29,792 −336,913 Scallan Upper Credible Interval Midpoint 1,631,324 1,154,391 847,270 Lower 1,019,577 476,932 542,645 235,524 Upper 3,806,422 784,053 3,329,490 3,022,369

    In addition to the quantified net benefits mentioned above, the rule will generate the unquantifiable benefits of increased consumer information and market efficiency, an unquantified consumer surplus loss and an unquantified cost associated with food service establishments changing their standard operating procedures.

    As mentioned above, FSIS is using an estimate of the number of establishments producing needle- or blade-tenderized beef products and the number of labels that will be modified as a result of this final rule.

    Additionally, FSIS did not estimate the number of validation studies that will be necessary to develop cooking instructions for raw and partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products. FSIS requested comments on the number of validation studies; however, no data was received.

    Alternatives

    FSIS considered several alternatives to the final rule:

    Option 1. Extend labeling requirements to include vacuum tumbled beef products and enzyme-formed beef products. FSIS considered the option to amend the labeling regulations to include a new requirement for labeling all vacuum tumbled and enzyme-formed beef products. But, as discussed earlier, FSIS does not have, nor was it provided with, sufficient data on the production practices and risks of consuming vacuum-tumbled and enzyme-formed beef products to proceed with this option.

    Option 2. Extend the labeling requirements to all needle- or blade-tenderized meat and poultry products. FSIS considered the option to amend the labeling regulations to include a new requirement for labeling all mechanically tenderized meat and poultry products. However, as discussed above, FSIS does not have, nor was it provided with, sufficient data on the production practices and risks of consuming mechanically tenderized poultry products or mechanically tenderized meat products, other than beef, to proceed with this option.

    Option 3. Validated cooking instructions for needle- or blade-tenderized beef, needle-injected beef, and all beef containing solutions. FSIS considered the option of amending the labeling regulations to require validated cooking instructions for needle- or blade-tenderized beef, needle-injected, and all beef containing solutions. However, FSIS did not find any outbreak data for products that contain added solutions but are not injected. In addition, if products are marinated but not injected, the pathogen remains on the surface of the product and would typically be eliminated, even if the product is cooked to rare temperatures. Therefore, FSIS does not have any data necessary to substantiate the need for this alternative.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States. This determination was made because the rule will affect the labeling of about 10.5% of 24.3 billion pounds of beef products. Over 97 percent of the 555 Federal establishments that produce mechanically tenderized beef products could possibly be affected by this final rule are small or very small according to the FSIS HACCP definition. There are about 251 very small establishments (with fewer than 10 employees) and 291 small establishments (with more than 10 but less than 500 employees). Therefore, a total of 542 small and very small establishments could possibly be affected by this rule. The FSIS HACCP definition assigns a size based on the total number of employees in each official establishment. The Small Business Administration definition of a small business applies to a firm's parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.

    These small and very small manufacturers, like the large manufacturers, will incur the costs associated with modifying product labels to add on the labels “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized,” and validated cooking instructions needed to ensure adequate pathogen destruction.

    Based on the upper bound estimated number of labels that will be required by the establishments, the cost will add an average of $0.0038 per package ($5,892,342/951,000,000 packages of needle- or blade-tenderized beef).66 The average cost per establishment will be $10,616 per establishment ($5,892,342/555). Also, small and very small establishments will tend to have a smaller number of unique products and will therefore have a smaller number of labels to modify, resulting in less labeling cost.

    66 FSIS estimates that the annual quantity of mechanically tenderized beef at is about 951 million packages (2.6 billion pounds of mechanical tenderized beef produced/2.735 average weight of a retail package according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association).

    The labeling costs discussed above are one-time costs. FSIS believes these one-time costs will not be a financial burden on small entities.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or record keeping requirements included in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This information collection request is at OMB awaiting approval. FSIS will collect no information associated with this rule until the information collection is approved by OMB.

    Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6083, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 690-6510.

    Executive Order 13175

    This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    FSIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSIS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this 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.

    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.

    USDA Nondiscrimination 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.

    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 it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register 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 317

    Food labeling, Food packaging, Meat inspection, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS amends 9 CFR Chapter III as follows:

    PART 317—LABELING, MARKING DEVICES, AND CONTAINERS 1. The authority citation for part 317 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Amend § 317.2 by adding a new paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:
    § 317.2 Labels: definition; required features.

    (e) * * *

    (3) Product name and required validated cooking instructions for needle- or blade-tenderized beef products.

    (i) Unless the product is destined to be fully cooked or to receive another full lethality treatment at an official establishment, the product name for a raw or partially cooked beef product that has been mechanically tenderized, whether by needle or by blade, must contain the term “mechanically tenderized,” “needle tenderized,” or “blade tenderized,” as a descriptive designation and an accurate description of the beef component.

    (ii) The product name must appear in a single easy-to-read type style and color and on a single-color contrasting background. The print may appear in upper and lower case letters, with the lower case letters not smaller than 1/3 the size of the largest letter.

    (iii) The labels on raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions must contain validated cooking instructions, including the cooking method, that inform consumers that these products need to be cooked to a specified minimum internal temperature, whether the product needs to be held for a specified time at that temperature or higher before consumption to ensure that potential pathogens are destroyed throughout the product, and a statement that the internal temperature should be measured by a thermometer. These validated cooking instructions may appear anywhere on the label.

    Done, at Washington, DC, on May 13, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11916 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1537; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-014-AD; Amendment 39-18160; AD 2015-08-51] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are publishing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Enstrom Helicopter Corporation (Enstrom) Model F-28A, 280, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28C-2R, 280C, F-28F, F-28F-R, 280F, 280FX, and 480 helicopters. This AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters and supersedes Emergency AD (EAD) 2015-04-51, dated February 12, 2015. This AD requires inspecting certain main rotor spindles (spindles) for cracks and reporting the inspection results to the FAA. This AD is prompted by a fatal accident and reports of spindles with cracks. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect a crack in a spindle and prevent loss of a main rotor blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective June 2, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by EAD 2015-08-51, issued on April 10, 2015, which contains the requirements of this AD.

    We must receive comments on this AD by July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Enstrom Helicopter Corporation, 2209 22nd Street, Menominee, MI; telephone (906) 863-1200; fax (906) 863-6821; or at www.enstromhelicopter.com. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory J. Michalik, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 East Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; (847) 294-7135; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

    Discussion

    On February 12, 2015, we issued EAD 2015-04-51, which was prompted by a fatal accident. Preliminary results of the investigation indicated that the accident was caused by a crack in the spindle, which resulted in the main rotor blade separating from the helicopter. The crack was discovered at the last thread of the spindle retention nut threads. While the investigation could not determine when the crack initiated, it was able to determine that the crack existed, undetected, for a significant amount of time before the separation. EAD 2015-04-51 required, before further flight, conducting a magnetic particle inspection (MPI) in any spindle that had 5,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS) or where the hours TIS of the spindle is not known. If there was a crack in the spindle, EAD 2015-04-51 required replacing it before further flight. EAD 2015-04-51 also required reporting the inspection results to the FAA within 72 hours.

    Since we issued EAD 2015-04-51, inspection reports received by the FAA indicate approximately 20% of the spindles reported with TIS data had evidence of cracks. The FAA also received inspection reports of spindles without TIS data which did not have evidence of cracks. The inspection reports include spindles with cracks at less than 5,000 hours TIS. With analysis of available data, we determined the need to expand the applicability to include spindles with 1,500 or more hours TIS.

    On April 10, 2015, we issued EAD 2015-08-51, which supersedes EAD 2015-04-51. EAD 2015-08-51 retains all of the requirements of EAD 2014-04-51 except it reduces the TIS of the spindles to be inspected from 5,000 hours to 1,500 hours. EAD 2015-08-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters.

    FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information

    Enstrom has issued Service Directive Bulletin No. 0119, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2015, for all serial numbered Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters with a main rotor spindle, part number (P/N) 28-14282-11 and 28-14282-13. Enstrom has also issued Service Directive Bulletin No. T-050, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2015, for Model 480 helicopters, serial numbers 5001 through 5004 and 5006, and with a main rotor spindle, P/N 28-14282-13, except those aircraft modified with tension-torsion straps. Both service directives specify, for any spindle that has been in service more than 3,500 hours, within 5 hours TIS, sending the spindle to Enstrom for an MPI. For any spindle with less than 3,500 hours TIS, the service directives specify sending the spindle to Enstrom for an MPI at or before it reaches 3,500 hours TIS. The service directives also specify repeating the MPI every 300 hours for spindles with over 3,500 hours TIS.

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires conducting an MPI before further flight to determine if a crack exists in any spindle that has 1,500 or more hours TIS or where the hours TIS of the spindle is not known. If there is a crack in the spindle, this AD requires replacing it before further flight. The MPI of the spindle must be conducted by a Level II or Level III inspector qualified in the MPI method in the Aeronautics Sector according to the EN4179 or NAS410 standard or equivalent. This AD also requires reporting certain information to the FAA within 72 hours.

    Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    This AD requires that the MPI be conducted by a Level II or Level III inspector or equivalent and that the results of the MPI be reported to the FAA, whereas the service information specifies that the MPI be accomplished by or reported to Enstrom. This AD requires an MPI on spindles with 1,500 or more hours TIS, whereas the service information specifies performing an initial MPI on spindles with 3,500 or more hours TIS. This AD does not require a recurring inspection, whereas the service information specifies to repeat the MPI every 300 hours TIS for spindles with over 3,500 hours TIS. This AD requires the MPI before further flight, whereas the service information specifies that it be accomplished within 5 hours TIS.

    Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable us to obtain better insight into the root cause and extent of the cracking, and eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 323 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD. Inspecting the spindles will take about 15 work-hours per helicopter and reporting the required inspection information will take about 0.5 work-hour. We estimate an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, for a total cost of $1,318 per helicopter and $425,714 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing a spindle will cost $8,164 for parts and no additional work-hours.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting required by this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter and the initial required action must be accomplished before further flight.

    Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD were impracticable and contrary to the public interest and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by EAD 2015-08-51, issued on April 10, 2015, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-08-51 The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation (Enstrom): Amendment 39-18160; Docket No. FAA-2015-1537; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-014-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Enstrom Model F-28A, 280, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28C-2R, 280C, F-28F, F-28F-R, 280F, and 280FX helicopters, all serial numbers; and Enstrom Model 480 helicopters, serial numbers 5001 through 5006; with a main rotor spindle (spindle), part number (P/N) 28-14282-11 or 28-14282-13, installed, certificated in any category. This AD applies to any helicopter that has a spindle with 1,500 or more hours time-in-service (TIS) or where the hours TIS of the spindle is not known.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the spindle, which, if not detected, could result in loss of a main rotor blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes Emergency AD 2015-04-51, Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-002-AD, dated February 12, 2015.

    (d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 2, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2015-08-51, issued on April 10, 2015, which contains the requirements of this AD.

    (e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has been accomplished on or after February 11, 2015.

    (f) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, conduct a magnetic particle inspection (MPI) of the spindle to determine if a crack exists, paying particular attention to the threaded portion of the spindle. The MPI of the spindle must be conducted by a Level II or Level III inspector qualified in the MPI in the Aeronautics Sector according to the EN4179 or NAS410 standard or equivalent. If there is a crack in the spindle, replace it with an airworthy spindle before further flight.

    (2) Within 72 hours after accomplishing the MPI, report the information requested in Appendix 1 to this AD by mail to the Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Federal Aviation Administration, ATTN: Gregory J. Michalik, 2300 East Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL, 60018; by fax to (847) 294-7834; or email to [email protected]

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gregory J. Michalik, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 East Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL, 60018; (847) 294-7135; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (3) Any AMOC approved previously in accordance with EAD 2015-04-51, dated February 12, 2015, is approved as an AMOC for the corresponding requirements in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

    (h) Additional Information

    Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Directive Bulletin No. 0119, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2015, and Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Directive Bulletin No. T-050, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2015, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Enstrom Helicopter Corporation, 2209 22nd Street, Menominee, MI; telephone (906) 863-1200; fax (906) 863-6821; or at www.enstromhelicopter.com. You may review this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor Head.

    Appendix 1 to AD 2015-08-51 Spindle Inspection (Sample Format)

    Provide the following information by mail to the Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Federal Aviation Administration, ATTN: Gregory J. Michalik, 2300 East Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL, 60018; by fax to (847) 294-7834; or email to [email protected]

    Aircraft Registration No.: Helicopter Model: Helicopter Serial Number: Helicopter Owner or Operator: Contact Phone No.: Spindle Part Number and Serial Number: Total Hours Time-in-Service (TIS) on Spindle: Total Hours TIS on Helicopter (if hours TIS on spindle were not available): Who Performed the Inspection: Date and Location Inspection was Accomplished: Crack Found? If yes, describe the crack size, location, orientation (provide a sketch or picture):

    Provide Any Other Comments:

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 8, 2015. Lance T. Gant, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11732 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0282] Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Marine Event; Mayor's Hike, Bike and Paddle; Ohio River 602.0-603.5; Louisville, KY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Mayor's Hike, Bike and Paddle marine event for all waters of the Ohio River, beginning at mile marker 602.0 and ending at 603.5, Louisville, KY. This rule will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on May 25, 2015.

    This action is necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with the Mayor's Hike, Bike and Paddle. During the enforcement period, deviation from the regulations is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Line 35 will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on May 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email Petty Officer James C. Robinson, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 502-779-5347, email [email protected] or Petty Officer Stephen F. McConnell, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 502-779-5334, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the “Mayor's Hike, Bike and Paddle” marine event in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Line 35 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on May 25, 2015. These regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, at 33 CFR 100.801.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), and 33 U.S.C. 1233. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). If the COTP Ohio Valley determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in the notice, he or she may use a BNM to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 22, 2015. R.V. Timme, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11941 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0240] RIN 1625-AA08 Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Special Local Regulation; REV3 Triathlon; Tennessee River 646.0-649.0; Knoxville, TN AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a Special Local Regulation for the “REV3 Triathlon” on the Tennessee River mile 646.0 to 649.0 from 7:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2015. This action is necessary for the safeguard of participants and spectators, including all crews, vessels, and persons on navigable waters during the “REV3 Triathlon.” During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting or anchoring in the Regulated Area is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley or his designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1 Sector Ohio Valley, No. 4 will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call Petty Officer Chad Phillips, Coast Guard Marine Safety Detachment Nashville at 615-736-5421, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Special Local Regulation for the annual “REV3 Triathlon” listed in 33 CFR 100.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 4 on May 17, 2015 from 7:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, entry into the regulated area listed in Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 4 is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the Special Local Regulation area must request permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), and 33 U.S.C. 1233. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.

    If the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or his Patrol Commander determines that the Special Local Regulation need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 22, 2015. R.V. Timme, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11929 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100 and 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0125] RIN 1625-AA08 and 1625-AA00 Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing eight special local regulations for eight separate marine events and establishing six safety zones for fireworks displays within the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound (LIS) Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during these events. Entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within these regulated areas and safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by COTP Sector Long Island Sound.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on May 18, 2015 until 5:30 p.m. on September 20, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, April 22, 2015, until May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0125]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Ian Fallon, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4565, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

    This rulemaking establishes eight special local regulations for four regattas, two swim events, one fireworks display and one air show and six safety zones for six fireworks displays. Each event and its corresponding regulatory history is discussed below.

    Special Local Regulations:

    Aquapalooza (regatta): A special local regulation was established in 2014 for the Aquapalooza event when the Coast Guard issued a temporary rule entitled, “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone”. This rule was published on August 12, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 46997).

    Great Peconic Race (regatta): A special local regulation was established in 2014 for the Great Peconic Race event when the Coast Guard issued a temporary rule entitled, “Special Local Regulation and Safety Zone; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone”. This rule was published on August 29, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 51479).

    Kayak for Camp (regatta): Is a recurring marine event with no regulatory history.

    Connecticut River Raft Race (regatta): A special local regulation was established in 2014 for the Connecticut River Raft Race event when the Coast Guard issued temporary rule entitles, “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Zone”. This rule was published on August 12, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 46997).

    Fran Schnarr Open Water Championship (Swim): Is a recurring marine event with regulatory history. This event was previously named Huntington Bay Open Water Championships Swim (78 FR 31402, May 24, 2013) and the event is being held in a different location this year.

    Riverhead Rocks Triathlon (swim): A special local regulation was established in 2014 for the Riverhead Rocks Triathlon event when the Coast Guard issued a temporary rule entitled, “Safety Zones; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone”. This rule was published on August 18, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 48685).

    Jones Beach State Park (fireworks): Is a reoccurring marine event with regulatory history. This event is in Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.151 (7.19). We will be using a Special Local Regulation this year for this event due to a determination that a safety zone will be insufficient to mitigate the event's extra and unusual hazards.

    Jones Beach (Air Show): A special local regulation was established in 2014 for the Jones Beach Air Show event when the Coast Guard issued a final rule entitled, “Special Local Regulation; Jones Beach Air Show; Atlantic Ocean, Sloop Channel Through East Bay, and Zach's Bay; Wantagh, NY”. This rule was published on May 21, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 29088).

    Safety Zones:

    Village of Saltaire (fireworks): A special local regulation was established in 2014 for the Village of Saltaire event when the Coast Guard issued a temporary rule entitled, “Safety Zones; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone”. This rulemaking was published on August 18, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 48685).

    USCG Academy Fireworks Entertainment (fireworks): Is a first time marine event with no regulatory history.

    Boys and Girls Club—Beach Ball 2015 (fireworks): Is a first time marine event with no regulatory history.

    Marine at American Wharf (fireworks): Is a first time event with no regulatory history.

    Cherry Grove Pride Week (fireworks): Is a first time marine event with no regulatory history.

    Riverfest (Fireworks): Is a reoccurring marine event with regulatory history. This event is in Table 1 to § 165.151(7.23). This event is in this temporary rule due to deviation from the date and position listed in the § 165.151 regulation.

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and unnecessary. The Coast Guard did not receive the information about the events early enough to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before the scheduled event dates. In addition, publishing an NPRM is unnecessary for this rule because most of these events are familiar to the community as recurring annual community events. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish regulatory special local regulations and safety zones.

    As discussed in the Regulatory History and Information section, four regattas, seven fireworks displays, two swim events, and one air show will take place in the Coast Guard Sector LIS COTP Zone between April 25, 2015 and September 20, 2015. The COTP Long Island Sound has determined that the eight special local regulations and the six safety zones established by this temporary final rule are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during those events.

    Aquapalooza is a boating event open to the Public that attracts many people and boats into Zach's Bay near Jones Beach State Park in Wantagh, NY. The event sponsor expects to have 500 participants. As such, a large number of boats will be operating in close proximity to each other and to swimmers in a nearby designated swim area. Many of these vessels will be operating at dangerous speeds given the congested conditions during the event and at the conclusion of the vent when a large number of vessels will be departing Zach's Bay within a relatively short period of time. These conditions are especially hazardous for any vessels attempting to navigate in the southbound direction, against the flow of the main vessel traffic at the conclusion of the event. The Coast Guard determined that a special local regulation that restricts vessel speed and the flow of vessel traffic will improve the safety of waterway users.

    Kayak for Camp is a kayak and paddleboard event that starts at Harbor View Beach, Norwalk, CT to Green's Ledge Light, Norwalk, CT and back to Harbor View Beach, Norwalk, CT. There are two courses in this event; the first course is broken into two different races with distances of 2 miles and 8 miles and the second course is 4 miles long. One safety boat will be present behind the race participants for assistance.

    Great Peconic Race is a kayak, surf ski and paddleboard event that starts and ends at Wades Beach on Shelter Island. The race course circumnavigates Shelter Island with a total distance of 19 miles. On the south shore, two event safety vessels will be present with a member of the South Ferry Company Inc. staff with a red flag to stop and then wave paddlers on for safe crossing. One safety boat will be present on the north shore to assist paddlers as well.

    Riverhead Rocks Triathlon will be held in Riverhead, NY, with the swimming portion in the Peconic River. The swim course will be along the shoreline of the river, with life guards and safety boats present to assist the race participants.

    Fran Schnarr Open Water Championship Swim is an open water swim event that will be held in Huntington Harbor, Huntington Bay, NY. The race course will be along the north shore of Huntington Bay, NY.

    Jones Beach State Park fireworks display attracts thousands of spectators to Jones Beach State Park as well as a significant number of spectator vessels to the waters around Jones Beach State Park. The operation of numerous spectator vessels in such close proximity to each other presents additional hazards to the maritime public. The COTP Sector Long Island Sound has determined that these hazards pose a danger to the maritime public. This special local regulation will temporarily regulate three areas around the Jones Beach State Park fireworks display, including portions of the Atlantic Ocean, the navigable waters between Meadowbrook State Parkway and the Wantagh State Parkway, and Zach's Bay. The three areas will be defined as “No Entry Area,” “Slow/No Wake Area,” and “No Southbound Traffic Area.”

    Jones Beach Air Show attracts thousands of spectators to Jones Beach State Park as well as a significant number of spectator vessels to the waters around Jones Beach State Park. The operation of numerous spectator vessels in such close proximity to each other presents additional hazards to the maritime public beyond those associated with the aerial activities. The COTP Sector Long Island Sound has determined that these hazards pose a danger to the maritime public. This special local regulation will temporary regulate three areas around the Jones Beach Air Show, including portions of the Atlantic Ocean, the navigable waters between Meadowbrook State Parkway and the Wantagh State Parkway, and Zach's Bay. The three areas will be defined as “No Entry Area,” “Slow/No Wake Area,” and “No Southbound Traffic Area.”

    The geographic locations of these regulated areas and the specific requirements of this rule are contained in the regulatory text. This regulation prevents vessels from entering, transiting, remaining, or anchoring within the area designated as a “No Entry Area” during the periods of enforcement, unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative. This regulation also partially restricts movement within the “Slow/No Wake Area” and the “No Southbound Traffic Area” unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

    Connecticut River Raft Race involves many participants operating human-powered and/or sail-powered vessels of their own design and construction along a stretch of the Connecticut River near Middletown, CT. Due to the hazards facing these participants, including the unknown and/or untested seaworthiness of their vessels and potential limitations to vessel navigation and/or maneuverability, the Coast Guard determined that a special local regulation that restricts vessel speed and operation is needed to protect participants, spectators and other waterway users during the event.

    USCG Academy Fireworks Entertainment display will be held on the Thames River in New London, CT.

    Boys and Girls Club—Beach Ball 2015 fireworks display will be held on Bellport Bay, Bellport, NY.

    Marina at American Wharf fireworks display will be held on the Thames River, Norwich, CT.

    Cherry Grove Pride Week fireworks display will be held on Great South Bay, Cherry Grove, NY.

    Village of Saltaire fireworks display will be held on Great South Bay, Bay Shore, NY.

    Riverfest Fireworks display will be held on the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT.

    C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    This rule establishes eight special local regulations for four regattas, two swim events, one fireworks display, and one air show and six safety zones for six fireworks displays. The locations of these special regulated areas and safety zones are described in the regulatory text.

    The fireworks displays will launch pyrotechnics from either a barge or a landsite near a waterway. A regulated area, specifically a safety zone, is required for each of these fireworks displays to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards created by the burning debris.

    The special local regulation established for Aquapalooza includes two measures to reduce the risks to waterways users of Zach's Bay before, during, and after the event. The first measure restricts vessel movement within the regulated area to no wake speed or 6 knots, whichever is slower on July 26, 2015 from 11:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. The second measure restricts all vessel movement within the regulated area to the outbound or northbound direction on July 26, 2015 from 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Kayak for Camp is a rowing regatta that will take place in Norwalk Harbor near Norwalk, CT. This special local regulation proposes two temporary regulated areas to restrict vessel movement within the regulated areas of Norwalk Harbor to no wake speeds or 6 knots, whichever is slower.

    Great Peconic Race regulated area would encompass all navigable waters of the United States of the Peconic River, Shelter Island, NY, inside two areas. This special local regulation proposes two temporary regulated areas in which event non-participants must travel at a no-wake speed and remain vigilant at all times for event participants. Additionally, recreational vessels must yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft, and follow directions given by event representatives during the event. Commercial vessels will have right-of-way over event participants and event safety craft.

    Riverhead Rocks Triathlon incorporates swim legs that will place many swimmers in the navigable waters of the Peconic River. A regulated area is required to minimize the hazards posed by spectators and other waterway users operating their vessels in close proximity to the event participants. The special local regulation established for this swim event will minimize the risks to the event participants from this type of boat traffic and improve visibility and maneuverability for the safety vessels supporting the swim event.

    Fran Schnarr Open Water Championship Swim will place many swimmers in the navigable waters of Huntington Harbor. A regulated area is required to minimize the hazards posed by spectators and other waterway users operating their vessels in close proximity to the event participants. The special local regulation established for this swim event will minimize the risks to the event participants from this type of boat traffic and improve visibility and maneuverability for the safety vessels supporting the swim event.

    Jones Beach State Park fireworks display attracts thousands of spectator craft every year to Jones Beach State Park. Three regulated areas will be set to address the safety concerns with high vessel traffic. A “No Entry Area” will be set around the fireworks barge to ensure spectators maintain a safe distance from the barge. A “Slow/No Wake Area” will be set in the navigable waters between Meadow Brook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway. All vessels in the area will operate at “No Wake” speed or up to 6 knots, whichever is slower. A “No Southbound Traffic Area” will be set in all waters of Zach's Bay. No southbound vessel traffic will be allowed into or within this area.

    Jones Beach Air Show involves numerous aircraft performing various aerial maneuvers which present multiple hazards, including those associated with in-flight accidents. This event attracts thousands of spectators and spectator craft which pose their own hazards. Three regulated areas will be set to address the safety concerns. A “Slow/No Wake Area” will be set in the navigable waters between Meadow Brook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway. All vessels in the area will operate at “No Wake” speed or up to 6 knots, whichever is slower. A “No Southbound Traffic Area” will be set in all waters of Zach's Bay. No southbound vessel traffic will be allowed into or within this area.

    The special local regulation established for the Connecticut River Raft Race restricts vessel movement within the regulated area of the Connecticut River to no wake speed or 6 knots, whichever is slower, and also stipulates that vessels must not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas unless authorized by COTP or designated representatives.

    This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or anchoring within areas specifically designated as safety zones and establishes additional vessel movement rules within areas specifically under the jurisdiction of the special local regulations during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

    Public notifications will be made to the local maritime community prior to each event through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The enforcement of these regulated areas and safety zones will be relatively short in duration. Also, persons or vessels desiring entry into a regulated area or a deviance from the stipulations within a regulated area may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Additionally, persons or vessels desiring to enter a safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Furthermore, these special local regulations and safety zones are designed in a way to limit impacts on vessel traffic, permitting vessels to navigate in other portions of the waterways not designated as a regulated area or as a safety zone. Finally, to increase public awareness of these special local regulations and safety zones, the Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This temporary final rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor, or moor within a regulated area or a safety zone during the periods of enforcement, from April 25, 2015 to September 20, 2015. However, this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of special local regulations and safety zones. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) and (h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 100

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

    33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.35T01-0125 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T01-0125 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone.

    (a) Regulations. The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 100.35 as well as the following regulations apply to the marine events listed in Table to § 100.35T01-0125.

    (b) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced on the dates and times listed for each event in Table to § 100.35T01-0125.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. While members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary will not serve as the designated representative, they may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.

    (d) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated areas shall contact the COTP at 203-468-4401 (Sector Long Island Sound command center) or the designated representative via VHF channel 16.

    (e) Vessels may not transit the regulated areas without the COTP or designated representative approval. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no wake speed or 6 knots, whichever is slower, and operate in a manner which will not endanger event participants or other crafts in the event.

    (f) The COTP or designated representative may control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel must come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    (g) The COTP or designated representative may delay or terminate any marine event in this section at any time it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life or property.

    (h) The additional stipulations listed in Table to § 100.35T01-0125 also apply for the event in which they are listed.

    Table to § 100.35T01-0125 1 Jones Beach Air Show • Date: May 21 through 24, 2015.
  • • Time: (1) The “No Entry Area” will be enforced each day from the start of the air show until 30 minutes after it concludes.
  • (2) The “Slow/No Wake Area” and the “No Southbound Traffic Area” will be enforced each day for 6 hours after the air show concludes. • Location: “No Entry Area”: Waters of the Atlantic Ocean off Jones Beach State Park, Wantagh, NY contained within the following described area; Beginning in approximate position 40°34′54″ N, 073°33′21″ W, then running east along the shoreline of Jones Beach State Park to approximate position 40°35′53″ N, 073°28′48″ W; then running south to a position in the Atlantic Ocean off of Jones Beach at approximate position 40°35′05″ N, 073°28′34″ W; then running West to approximate position 40°33′15″ N, 073°33′09″ W; then running North to the point of origin. “Slow/No Wake Area”: All navigable waters between Meadowbrook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway and contained within the following area. Beginning in approximate position 40°35′49.01″ N 73°32′33.63″ W then north along the Meadowbrook State Parkway to its intersection with Merrick Road in approximate position 40°39′14.00″ N 73°34′00.76″ W then east along Merrick Road to its intersection with Wantagh State Parkway in approximate position 40°39′51.32″ N 73°30′43.36″ W then south along the Wantagh State Parkway to its intersection with Ocean Parkway in approximate position 40°35′47.30″ N 73°30′29.17″ W then west along Ocean Parkway to its intersection with Meadowbrook State Parkway at the point of origin in approximate position 40°35′49.01″ N 73°32′33.63″ W. “No Southbound Traffic Area”: All navigable waters of Zach's Bay south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′29.20″ N, 073°29′22.88″ W and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′16.53″ N, 073°28′57.26″ W. 2 Jones Beach State Park Fireworks • Date: July 4, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: July 5, 2015.
  • • Time: 9 p.m. to 10:25 p.m.
  • • “No Entry Area”: All waters off of Jones Beach State Park, Wantagh, NY within a 1000 foot radius of the launch platform in approximate position 40°34′56.68″ N, 073°30′31.19″ W (NAD 83).]
  • “Slow/No Wake Area”: All navigable waters between Meadowbrook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway and contained within the following area. Beginning in approximate position 40°35′49.01″ N 73°32′33.63″ W then north along the Meadowbrook State Parkway to its intersection with Merrick Road in approximate position 40°39′14.00″ N 73°34′00.76″ W then east along Merrick Road to its intersection with Wantagh State Parkway in approximate position 40°39′51.32″ N 73°30′43.36″ W then south along the Wantagh State Parkway to its intersection with Ocean Parkway in approximate position 40°35′47.30″ N 73°30′29.17″ W then west along Ocean Parkway to its intersection with Meadowbrook State Parkway at the point of origin in approximate position 40°35′49.01″ N 73°32′33.63″ W. “No Southbound Traffic Area”: All navigable waters of Zach's Bay south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′29.20″ N, 073°29′22.88″ W and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′16.53″ N, 073°28′57.26″ W. 3 Kayak For Camp • Date: July 11, 2015.
  • • Time: 4:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
  • • Location: The regulated area includes all navigable waterways of Norwalk Harbor, Norwalk, CT within 100 yards of the two regatta courses.
  • Course one begins at a point on land near Harbor View Beach, Norwalk, CT at position 41°05′00″; 073°23′55.80″ W and then west to a point in Norwalk Harbor at position 41°04′56.44″ N; 073°24′07.80″ W and then south to point in Norwalk Harbor near Green Buoy 15 at position 41°04′50.16″ N; 073°24′07.20″ W and then south to a point in Norwalk Harbor near Green Buoy 13 at position 41°04′40.86″ N; 073°24′90.00″ W and the south west to a point in Norwalk Harbor near NRG Norwalk at position 41°04′12.24″ N; 073°24′30.00″ W and then south west to a point in Long Island Sound near Tavern Island at position 41°03′ 29.94″ N; 073°25′35.00″ W and then south west to a point in Long Island Sound near green buoy 1A at position 41°02′ 55.26″ N; 073°26′15.60″ W and then south west to a point in Long Island Sound near Green's Ledge Light at position 41°02′28.62″ N; 073°26′43.80″ W and then east to a point in Long Island Sound near Green's Ledge Light at position 41°02′26.88″ N; 073°26′35.40″ W and then north to a point in Long Island Sound at position 41°02′55.26″ N; 073°26′ 15.60″ W and then north back to point of origin. Course two begins at a point on land near Harbor View Beach, Norwalk, CT at position 41°05′00.00″; 073°23′55.80″ W and then west to a point in Norwalk Harbor at position 41°04′56.44″ N; 073°24′07.80″ W and then south to point in Norwalk Harbor near Green Buoy 15 at position 41°04′50.16″ N; 073°24′07.20″ W and then south to a point in Norwalk Harbor near Green Buoy 13 at position 41°04′40.86″ N; 073°24′90.00″ W and the south west to a point in Norwalk Harbor near NRG Norwalk at position 41°04′12.24″ N; 073°24′30.00″ W and then west to a point in Long Island Sound near Tavern Island at position 41°03′49.56″ N; 073°25′22.80″ W and the south to a point in Long Island Sound near Tavern Island at position 41°03′35.46″ N; 073°25′27.00″ W and then south east to a point in Long Island Sound near Tavern Island at position 41°03′32.76″ N; 073°25′19.20″ W and then north east to the point of origin (NAD 83).
  • • Additional stipulations: Vessel speed in the regulated area is restricted to no wake speed or 6 knots, whichever is slower.
  • 4 Fran Schnarr Open Water Championship • Date: July 12, 2015.
  • • Time: 7:45 a.m. to 1 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Northport Bay, Huntington, NY within the area with the point of origin in Northport Bay at position 40°54′25.8″ N 073°24′28.8″ W and then east to a point in Northport Bay at position 40°54′31.2″ N 073°25′21.0″ W and then south east to a point in Northport Harbor at position 40°54′45.0″ N 073°23′36.6″ W and then east to the point of origin (NAD 83).
  • 5 Connecticut River Raft Race • Date: July 25, 2015.
  • • Time: 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of the Connecticut River near Middletown, CT between Gildersleeve Island (Marker no. 99) 41°36′02.13″ N 072°37′22.71″ W and Portland Riverside Marina (Marker no. 88) 41°33′38.30″ N 072°37′36.53″ W (NAD 83).
  • Additional Stipulations: Vessels must not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas unless authorized by COTP or designated representative. 6 Aquapalooza • Event type: Regatta.
  • • Date: July 26, 2015.
  • • Time: 11:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All navigable waters of Zach's Bay south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′29.20″ N, 073°29′22.88″ W and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′16.53″ N, 073°28′57.26″ W.
  • • Additional stipulations: On July 26, 2015 from 11:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. vessel speed in the regulated area is restricted to no wake speed or 6 knots, whichever is slower. On July 26, 2015 from 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. vessels may only transit the regulated area in the northbound direction or outbound direction. 7 Riverhead Rocks Triathlon • Date: August 9, 2015.
  • • Time: 6:20 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
  • • Location: All waters of the Peconic River, Riverhead, NY within the area bounded to the west by a line connecting points at 40°54′58.09″ N 072°39′37.56″ W on the northern bank and 40°54′56.74″ N 072°39′37.56″ W on the southern bank and bounded to the east by a line connecting points at 40°55′01.92″ N 072°38′51.08″ W on the northern bank and 40°54′59.15″ N 072°38′51.08″ W on the southern bank (NAD 83).
  • 8 Great Peconic Races • Date: September 20, 2015.
  • • Time: 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
  • • Location: The regulated area includes all U.S. navigable waters of the Peconic River, Shelter Island, NY, of the Peconic River, Shelter Island, NY, inside two areas. The first area bound by a line extending from a point on land at Beach Point at position 41°06′25.66″ N; 072°20′04.95″ W and then straight across the Peconic River to a point on land near Cleaves Point at position 41°06′43.70″ N; 072°20′31.99″ W and then west along the shoreline to a point on land near Brick Cove Marina at position 41°04′44.91″ N; 072°23′06.25″ W and then straight across the Peconic River to a point on land near Jennings Point at position 41°04′20.46″ N; 072°22′57.60″ W and then east along the shoreline back to the point of origin (NAD 83). The second area would be bound by a line starting at a point on land near West Neck Point at position 41°02′48.14″ N; 072°20′19.34″ W and then straight across the Peconic River to a point on land near Gleason Point at position 41°02′04.91″ N; 072°19′54.47″ W and then east along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41°01′07.56″ N; 072°17′53.34″ W and the straight across the Peconic River to a point on land near Mashomack Point at position 41°01′44.68″ N; 072°16′54.87″ W and then west along the shoreline back to origin (NAD 83).
  • Additional stipulations: Vessel speed in the regulated area is restricted to no wake speed or 6 knots, whichever is slower. Recreational vessels transiting in the regulated area must yield right-of-way for event participant and event safety craft and must follow directions given by event representatives during the event. Commercial vessel will have right-of-way over the event participants, and event safety craft.
    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 3. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    4. Add § 165.T01-0125 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-0125 Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone.

    (a) Regulations. The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 as well as the following regulations apply to the events listed in Table 1 to § 165.T01-0125.

    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced on the dates and times listed for each event in Table 1 to § 165.T01-0125. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the safety zone will be enforced on the rain date indicated in Table 1 to § 165.T01-0125.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. While members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary will not serve as the designated representative, they may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.

    (d) Vessels desiring to enter or operate within a safety zone should contact the COTP or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 or by telephone at (203) 468-4401 to obtain permission to do so. Vessels given permission to enter or operate in a safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated on-scene representative.

    (e) Upon being hailed by an official patrol vessel or the designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    (f) Fireworks barges used in these locations will also have a sign on their port and starboard side labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY.” This sign will consist of 10 inch high by 1.5 inch wide red lettering on a white background.

    TABLE 1 to § 165.T01-0125 Fireworks Events 1 USCG Academy Fireworks Entertainment • Date: April 25, 2015.
  • • Time: 9:45 p.m. to 10:55 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of the Thames River near New London, CT within 350 feet of the land launch site in approximate position 41°22′28.03″ N, 072°05′48.81″ W (NAD 83).
  • 2 Boys and Girls Club—Beach Ball 2015 Fireworks • Date: June 20, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: June 21, 2015.
  • • Time: 8:45 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Great South Bay near Bellport, NY within 600 feet of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°44′39.19″ N, 073°56′27.72″ W (NAD 83).
  • 3 Marina at America Wharf Fireworks • Date: June 20, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: June 21, 2015.
  • • Time: 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Thames River near Norwich, CT within 400 feet of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 41°31′16.835″ N, 072°04′43.327″ W (NAD 83).
  • 4 Cherry Groves Pride Week Fireworks • Date: June 20, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: June 21, 2015.
  • • Time: 8:50 p.m. to 9:50 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Great South Bay near Fire Island, NY within 600 feet of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°39′49.06″ N, 073°05′27.99″ W (NAD 83).
  • 5 Riverfest Fireworks • Date: July 11, 2015.
  • • Time: 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Connecticut River near Hartford, CT within 500 feet of the fireworks barges located in approximate positions 41°45′41.94″ N, 072°39′50.74″ W and 41°54′38.30″ N, 072°39′48.19″ W (NAD 83).
  • 6 Village of Saltaire Fireworks • Date: August 1, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: September 5, 2015.
  • • Time: 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Saltaire Bay near Saltaire, NY within 600 feet of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°38′38.60″ N, 073°12′05.06″ W (NAD 83).
  • Dated: April 22, 2015. E.J. Cubanski, III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11930 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0271] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New River, Fort Lauderdale, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is issuing a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Railroad Bridge across the New River, mile 2.5, at Fort Lauderdale, FL. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to address the inability of the bridge owner, FEC, to operate the bridge under current regulations.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on May 18, 2015 through 6 a.m. on October 16, 2015.

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 17, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0271 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this test deviation, call or email Robert Glassman at telephone 305-415-6746, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2015-0271), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0271] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0271) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before June 16, 2015, using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Background Information

    The bridge owner, FEC Railway, requested permission to operate the FEC Railroad Bridge across the New River with an automated system. The FEC Railroad Bridge in Fort Lauderdale, FL has a vertical clearance of 4 feet at mean high water in the closed position and horizontal clearance of 60 feet. Traffic on the waterway includes both commercial and recreational vessels.

    Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the bridge is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels. The bridge is usually maintained in the open to navigation position and only closes for train traffic.

    The bridge owner, FEC, determined that by installing an automated system, vessel transit will be more efficient. This automated system allows the railroad dispatcher to receive a signal that the bridge must close for approaching trains. The dispatcher will then be advised when trains clear the bridge so it can reopen.

    Any vessel requesting a bridge opening must contact the bridge tender via telephone or radiotelephone (marine radio) on VHF-FM channel 9 or 16 to coordinate safe passage through the bridge. The tender must provide information to include, but not limited to authorization for the vessel to continue its transit when the bridge is open to navigation, or the tender must advise that the vessel will have to wait because a train is approaching. If a vessel is required to wait, the bridge tender must indicate the amount of time the vessel will have to wait until the train is clear of the bridge. The FEC Dispatch number and bridge tender phone number will be posted at the bridge so they can be seen by vessels approaching from either direction. The bridge tender's number is 305-889-5572 and the FEC Dispatch number is 800-342-1131.

    This deviation seeks comments on FEC's operating schedule and tests an automatic operating system as the method for operating the bridge to determine whether a permanent change to operations can be approved. The deviation period will run from 6 a.m. on May 18, 2015 through 6 a.m. on October 16, 2015.

    During the test deviation period, the draw of the FEC Railroad Bridge across the New River, mile 2.5, at Fort Lauderdale, FL, will operate as follows:

    (a) The bridge is constantly tended.

    (b) The bridge tender will utilize a VHF-FM radio to communicate on channels 9 and 16 and may be contacted by telephone at 305-889-5572.

    (c) Signage will be posted displaying VHF radio contact information and the bridge tender and dispatch telephone number. A countdown clock for bridge closure shall be posted at the bridge site and visible for maritime traffic.

    (d) A bridge log will be maintained including, at a minimum, bridge opening and closing times.

    (e) When the draw is in the fully open position, green lights will be displayed to indicate that vessels may pass.

    (f) When a train approaches, the lights go to flashing red and a horn starts four blasts, pauses, and then continues four blasts then the draw lowers and locks.

    (g) After the train has cleared the bridge, the draw opens and the lights return to green.

    (h) The bridge shall not be closed more than 60 minutes combined for any 120 minute time period beginning at 12:01 a.m.

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

    Dated: April 22, 2015. Barry Dragon, Bridge Administrator, U.S. Coast Guard, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11931 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0415] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the upper deck of the Steel Bridge, mile 12.1, and the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, both crossing the Willamette River, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the route of the annual Rose Festival Parade event, which crosses the Steel Bridge and Burnside Bridge. This deviation allows the upper deck of the Steel Bridge and Burnside Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open for marine traffic to allow for the safe movement of event participants and cleanup crew.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0415] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    TriMet Public Transit and Multnomah County have requested that the upper deck of the Steel Bridge and the Burnside Bridge remain in the closed-to-navigation position to accommodate the annual Rose Festival Parade event. The Steel Bridge, mile 12.1, and the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, both cross the Willamette River.

    The Steel Bridge is a double-deck lift bridge with a lower lift deck and an upper lift deck which operate independent of each other. When both decks are in the down position the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical clearance. When the lower deck is in the up position, the bridge provides 71 feet of vertical clearance. This deviation does not affect the operating schedule of the lower deck which opens on signal.

    The normal operating schedule for the upper deck of the Steel Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(ii) which states from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday one hour advance notice shall be given for draw openings, and at all other times two hours advance notice shall be given to obtain an opening.

    The Burnside Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 64 feet in the closed-to-navigation position. The normal operating schedule for the Burnside Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(iii) which states from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, one hour's notice shall be given for draw openings. At all other times, two hours notice is required. The Steel Bridge and Burnside Bridge clearances are above Columbia River Datum 0.0.

    The deviation period is from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 6, 2015 to accommodate the route of the annual Rose Festival Parade event. The deviation allows the upper deck of the Steel Bridge, mile 12.1, and the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, both crossing the Willamette River, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open for maritime traffic from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 6, 2015. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

    Vessels able to pass through the Steel Bridge and Burnside Bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Steven M Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11831 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2010-0063] Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays Within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for annual firework displays in the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Zone during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to prevent injury and to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the firework displays. During the enforcement periods, entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or their Designated Representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 will be enforced between July 4 and July 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email MST1 Kenneth Hoppe, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established for Annual Fireworks Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility in 33 CFR 165.1332 during the dates and times noted below.

    The following safety zones will be enforced from 5:00 p.m. on July 4, 2015 through 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2015.

    Event name Location Latitude Longitude Radius
  • (yards)
  • Tacoma Freedom Fair Commencement Bay 47°17.103′ N 122°28.410′ W 300 City of Renton Fireworks Renton, Lake Washington 47°30.386′ N 122°12.502′ W 100 Des Moines Fireworks Des Moines 47°24.117′ N 122°20.033′ W 200 Three Tree Point Community Fireworks Three Tree Point 47°27.033′ N 122°23.15′ W 200 Roche Harbor Fireworks Roche Harbor 48°36.7′ N 123°09.5′ W 200 Deer Harbor Annual Fireworks Display Deer Harbor 48°37.0′ N 123°00.25′ W 150 Blast Over Bellingham Bellingham Bay 48°44.933′ N 122°29.667′ W 300

    The following safety zone will be enforced from 5:00 p.m. on July 11, 2015 through 1:00 a.m. on July 12, 2015:

    Event name Location Latitude Longitude Radius
  • (yards)
  • Mercer Island Celebration Mercer Island 47°35.517′ N 122°13.233′ W 250

    The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332, which published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33700), apply to the activation and enforcement of these safety zones. All vessel operators who desire to enter the safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or their Designated Representative by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or via telephone at (206) 217-6002.

    The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1332 and 33 CFR part 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advanced notification of the safety zones via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts on the day of the events.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11937 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 242 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. FWS-R7-SM-2013-0065; FXFR13350700640-156-FF07J00000; FBMS#4500076030] RIN 1018-AZ67 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska—2015-16 and 2016-17 Subsistence Taking of Fish Regulations AGENCY:

    Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule establishes regulations for seasons, harvest limits, methods, and means related to taking of fish for subsistence uses in Alaska during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 regulatory years. The Federal Subsistence Board (Board) completes the biennial process of revising subsistence hunting and trapping regulations in even-numbered years and subsistence fishing and shellfish regulations in odd-numbered years; public proposal and review processes take place during the preceding year. The Board also addresses customary and traditional use determinations during the applicable biennial cycle.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Board meeting transcripts are available for review at the Office of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Mail Stop 121, Anchorage, AK 99503, or on the Office of Subsistence Management Web site (http://www.doi.gov/subsistence/index.cfm).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786-3888 or [email protected] For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Thomas Whitford, Regional Subsistence Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region; (907) 743-9461 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program. This program provides a preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out this program in the Federal Register on June 29, 1990 (55 FR 27114), and published final regulations in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940). The Program has subsequently amended these regulations a number of times. Because this program is a joint effort between Interior and Agriculture, these regulations are located in two titles of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” and Title 50, “Wildlife and Fisheries,” at 36 CFR 242.1-242.28 and 50 CFR 100.1-100.28, respectively. The regulations contain subparts as follows: Subpart A, General Provisions; Subpart B, Program Structure; Subpart C, Board Determinations; and Subpart D, Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife.

    Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board comprises:

    • A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service;

    • The Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs;

    • The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service; and

    • Two public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture.

    Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth program eligibility and specific harvest seasons and limits.

    In administering the program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Regional Advisory Council. The Regional Advisory Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.

    The Board addresses customary and traditional use determinations during the applicable biennial cycle. Section __.24 (customary and traditional use determinations) was originally published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940). The regulations at 36 CFR 242.4 and 50 CFR 100.4 define “customary and traditional use” as “a long-established, consistent pattern of use, incorporating beliefs and customs which have been transmitted from generation to generation. . . .” Since 1992, the Board has made a number of customary and traditional use determinations at the request of affected subsistence users. Those modifications, along with some administrative corrections, were published in the Federal Register as follows:

    Modifications to § __.24 Federal Register citation Date of publication Rule made changes to the following provisions of __.24 59 FR 27462 May 27, 1994 Wildlife and Fish/Shellfish. 59 FR 51855 October 13, 1994 Wildlife and Fish/Shellfish. 60 FR 10317 February 24, 1995 Wildlife and Fish/Shellfish. 61 FR 39698 July 30, 1996 Wildlife and Fish/Shellfish. 62 FR 29016 May 29, 1997 Wildlife and Fish/Shellfish. 63 FR 35332 June 29, 1998 Wildlife and Fish/Shellfish. 63 FR 46148 August 28, 1998 Wildlife and Fish/Shellfish. 64 FR 1276 January 8, 1999 Fish/Shellfish. 64 FR 35776 July 1, 1999 Wildlife. 65 FR 40730 June 30, 2000 Wildlife. 66 FR 10142 February 13, 2001 Fish/Shellfish. 66 FR 33744 June 25, 2001 Wildlife. 67 FR 5890 February 7, 2002 Fish/Shellfish. 67 FR 43710 June 28, 2002 Wildlife. 68 FR 7276 February 12, 2003 Fish/Shellfish. 69 FR 5018 February 3, 2004 Fish/Shellfish. 69 FR 40174 July 1, 2004 Wildlife. 70 FR 13377 March 21, 2005 Fish/Shellfish. 70 FR 36268 June 22, 2005 Wildlife. 71 FR 15569 March 29, 2006 Fish/Shellfish. 71 FR 37642 June 30, 2006 Wildlife. 72 FR 12676 March 16, 2007 Fish/Shellfish. 72 FR 73426 December 27, 2007 Wildlife/Fish. 73 FR 35726 June 26, 2008 Wildlife. 74 FR 14049 March 30, 2009 Fish/Shellfish. 75 FR 37918 June 30, 2010 Wildlife. 76 FR 12564 March 8, 2011 Fish/Shellfish. 77 FR 35482 June 13, 2012 Wildlife. 79 FR 35232 June 19, 2014 Wildlife. Current Rule

    The Departments published a proposed rule on January 10, 2014 (79 FR 1791), to amend the fish section of subparts C and D of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100. The proposed rule opened a comment period, which closed on March 28, 2014. The Departments advertised the proposed rule by mail, radio, and newspaper, and comments were submitted via www.regulations.gov to Docket No. FWS-R7-SM-2013-0065. During that period, the Regional Councils met and, in addition to other Regional Council business, received suggestions for proposals from the public. The Board received a total of 18 proposals for changes to subparts C and D; this included one proposal that the Board had deferred from the previous regulatory cycle. After the comment period closed, the Board prepared a booklet describing the proposals and distributed it to the public. The proposals were also available online. The public then had an additional 30 days in which to comment on the proposals for changes to the regulations.

    The 10 Regional Advisory Councils met again, received public comments, and formulated their recommendations to the Board on proposals for their respective regions. The Regional Advisory Councils had a substantial role in reviewing the proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. Moreover, a Council Chair, or a designated representative, presented each Council's recommendations at the Board's public meeting of January 21-23, 2015. These final regulations reflect Board review and consideration of Regional Advisory Council recommendations and public comments. The public received extensive opportunity to review and comment on all changes.

    Of the 18 proposals, 10 were on the Board's regular agenda and 8 were on the consensus agenda. The consensus agenda is made up of proposals for which there is agreement among the affected Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, a majority of the Interagency Staff Committee members, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game concerning a proposed regulatory action. Any Board member may request that the Board remove a proposal from the consensus agenda and place it on the non-consensus (regular) agenda. The Board votes en masse on the consensus agenda after deliberation and action on all other proposals.

    Of the proposals on the consensus agenda, the Board adopted one, adopted one with modification, took no action on one, and rejected five. The adopted consensus proposals are reflected in the rule portion of this document and consist of the addition of a definition to § ___.25 and the addition of the last two subparagraphs in § __.27 ((e)(13)(xx) and (xxi)). Analysis and justification for each action are available for review at the Office of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Mail Stop 121, Anchorage, AK 99503, or on the Office of Subsistence Management Web site (http://www.doi.gov/subsistence/index.cfm). Of the proposals on the regular agenda, the Board adopted three; adopted two with modification; rejected two; and took no action on three.

    Summary of Non-Consensus Proposals Not Adopted by the Board

    The Board rejected or took no action on five non-consensus proposals. The rejected proposals were recommended for rejection by one or more of the Regional Advisory Councils unless noted below.

    Yukon—Northern Area

    The Board rejected a proposal to restrict the use of driftnets in selected districts of the Yukon River. This action would have been unnecessarily restrictive to subsistence users and was not supported by substantial evidence. This action was supported by three Councils and contrary to the recommendation of one Council.

    Kuskokwim Area

    The Board took no action on one proposal to allow the use of dipnets with provisions to require the release of Chinook salmon. This decision was based on the Board's earlier action on a similar proposal allowing the use of dipnets.

    Southeastern Alaska Area

    The Board rejected a proposal to require the immediate recording of harvested Steelhead on Prince of Wales Island, because the in-season manager could include the provision as a permit condition.

    The Board took no action on two proposals for the Stikine River. One proposal requested to change the subsistence Sockeye salmon annual guideline harvest level, and the second requested a requirement to check the nets every 2 hours. These decisions were based on its earlier action on a similar proposal requiring nets to be checked twice daily and eliminating the harvest level.

    Summary of Non-Consensus Proposals Adopted by the Board

    The Board adopted or adopted with modification five non-consensus proposals. Modifications were suggested by the affected Regional Council(s), developed during the analysis process, or developed during the Board's public deliberations. All of the adopted proposals were recommended for adoption by at least one of the Regional Councils unless noted below.

    Kuskokwim Area

    The Board adopted a proposal to allow the use of dipnets for the harvest of salmon on the Kuskokwim River. This action provides subsistence users an additional gear type that could be used when gillnet restrictions are in place for conservation concerns.

    Cook Inlet Area

    The Board adopted a proposal with modification to establish an experimental community gillnet fishery on the Kasilof River for the residents of Ninilchik. This action provides additional opportunity for subsistence users.

    The Board adopted a proposal to establish a community gillnet fishery on the Kenai River for the residents of Ninilchik. This action provides additional opportunity for subsistence users.

    Southeastern Alaska Area

    The Board adopted with modification a proposal requiring nets to be checked twice daily and eliminating the guideline harvest limits on the Stikine River. The change of the guideline harvest levels will require amending the Pacific Salmon treaty, and final implementation is contingent upon review and approval by the Transboundary Panel of the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Commission and approval by the Pacific Salmon Commission.

    The Board adopted a proposal to close Federal public waters to non-Federally qualified users in the Makhnati Island area to the harvest of herring and herring spawn. This closure was enacted for potential conservation concerns and to protect subsistence uses. This action varied from the Council recommendation, yet met its intent.

    These final regulations reflect Board review and consideration of Regional Council recommendations and public and Tribal comments. Because this rule concerns public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical text will be incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.

    Conformance With Statutory and Regulatory Authorities Administrative Procedure Act Compliance

    The Board has provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements, including publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register, participation in multiple Regional Council meetings, additional public review and comment on all proposals for regulatory change, and opportunity for additional public comment during the Board meeting prior to deliberation. Additionally, an administrative mechanism exists (and has been used by the public) to request reconsideration of the Board's decision on any particular proposal for regulatory change (36 CFR 242.20 and 50 CFR 100.20). Therefore, the Board believes that sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons regarding Board decisions.

    In the more than 25 years that the Program has been operating, no benefit to the public has been demonstrated by delaying the effective date of the subsistence regulations. A lapse in regulatory control could affect the continued viability of fish or wildlife populations and future subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans, and would generally fail to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon the date set forth in DATES to ensure continued operation of the subsistence program.

    National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

    A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.

    The following Federal Register documents pertain to this rulemaking:

    Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, and C: Federal Register Documents Pertaining to the Final Rule Federal Register citation Date of publication Category Details 57 FR 22940 May 29, 1992 Final Rule “Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska; Final Rule” was published in the Federal Register. 64 FR 1276 January 8, 1999 Final Rule Amended the regulations to include subsistence activities occurring on inland navigable waters in which the United States has a reserved water right and to identify specific Federal land units where reserved water rights exist. Extended the Federal Subsistence Board's management to all Federal lands selected under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska Statehood Act and situated within the boundaries of a Conservation System Unit, National Recreation Area, National Conservation Area, or any new national forest or forest addition, until conveyed to the State of Alaska or to an Alaska Native Corporation. Specified and clarified the Secretaries' authority to determine when hunting, fishing, or trapping activities taking place in Alaska off the public lands interfere with the subsistence priority. 66 FR 31533 June 12, 2001 Interim Rule Expanded the authority that the Board may delegate to agency field officials and clarified the procedures for enacting emergency or temporary restrictions, closures, or openings. 67 FR 30559 May 7, 2002 Final Rule Amended the operating regulations in response to comments on the June 12, 2001, interim rule. Also corrected some inadvertent errors and oversights of previous rules. 68 FR 7703 February 18, 2003 Direct Final Rule Clarified how old a person must be to receive certain subsistence use permits and removed the requirement that Regional Councils must have an odd number of members. 68 FR 23035 April 30, 2003 Affirmation of Direct Final Rule Because no adverse comments were received on the direct final rule (67 FR 30559), the direct final rule was adopted. 69 FR 60957 October 14, 2004 Final Rule Clarified the membership qualifications for Regional Advisory Council membership and relocated the definition of “regulatory year” from subpart A to subpart D of the regulations. 70 FR 76400 December 27, 2005 Final Rule Revised jurisdiction in marine waters and clarified jurisdiction relative to military lands. 71 FR 49997 August 24, 2006 Final Rule Revised the jurisdiction of the subsistence program by adding submerged lands and waters in the area of Makhnati Island, near Sitka, AK. This allowed subsistence users to harvest marine resources in this area under seasons, harvest limits, and methods specified in the regulations. 72 FR 25688 May 7, 2007 Final Rule Revised nonrural determinations. 75 FR 63088 October 14, 2010 Final Rule Amended the regulations for accepting and addressing special action requests and the role of the Regional Advisory Councils in the process. 76 FR 56109 September 12, 2011 Final Rule Revised the composition of the Federal Subsistence Board by expanding the Board by two public members who possess personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in rural Alaska. 77 FR 12477 March 1, 2012 Final Rule Extended the compliance date for the final rule (72 FR 25688) that revised nonrural determinations until the Secretarial program review is complete or in 5 years, whichever comes first.

    A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Secretary of the Interior, with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, determined that expansion of Federal jurisdiction does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the human environment and, therefore, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact.

    Section 810 of ANILCA

    An ANILCA section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that the Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting subsistence regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but will not likely restrict subsistence uses significantly.

    During the subsequent environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of this rule was conducted in accordance with section 810. That evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the rule will not reach the “may significantly restrict” threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA section 810(a).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require OMB approval. OMB has reviewed and approved the collections of information associated with the subsistence regulations at 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100, and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0075, which expires February 29, 2016.

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. In general, the resources to be harvested under this rule are already being harvested and consumed by the local harvester and do not result in an additional dollar benefit to the economy. However, we estimate that two million pounds of meat are harvested by subsistence users annually and, if given an estimated dollar value of $3.00 per pound, this amount would equate to about $6 million in food value Statewide. Based upon the amounts and values cited above, the Departments certify that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. It does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, and does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Executive Order 12630

    Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this Program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. The implementation of this rule is by Federal agencies and there is no cost imposed on any State or local entities or tribal governments.

    Executive Order 12988

    The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.

    Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.

    Executive Order 13175

    The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Title VIII, does not provide specific rights to tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, the Board provided Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations opportunities to consult on this rule. Consultation with Alaska Native corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”

    The Secretaries, through the Board, provided a variety of opportunities for consultation: Commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process.

    On January 21, 2015, the Board provided Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations a specific opportunity to consult on this rule prior to the start of its public regulatory meeting. Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations were notified by mail and telephone and were given the opportunity to attend in person or via teleconference.

    Executive Order 13211

    This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Drafting Information

    Theo Matuskowitz drafted these regulations under the guidance of Eugene R. Peltola, Jr. of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by

    • Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;

    • Mary McBurney, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;

    • Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;

    • Trevor T. Fox, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and

    • Thomas Whitford, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Forest Service.

    List of Subjects 36 CFR Part 242

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

    50 CFR Part 100

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

    Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Subsistence Board amends title 36, part 242, and title 50, part 100, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

    PART __—SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA 1. The authority citation for both 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.

    Subpart D—Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife 2. Amend § __.25(a) by adding a definition for “Hook” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § __.25 Subsistence taking of fish, wildlife, and shellfish: general regulations.

    (a) * * *

    Hook means a single shanked fishhook with a single eye constructed with one or more points with or without barbs. A hook without a “barb” means the hook is manufactured without a barb or the barb has been completely removed or compressed so that barb is in complete contact with the shaft of the hook.

    3. Amend § __.27 by: a. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(ix) and (e)(13)(xiii)(E); and b. Adding paragraphs (e)(10)(iv)(I) and (J) and (e)(13)(xx) and (xxi), to read as follows:
    § __.27 Subsistence taking of fish.

    (e) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ix) You may only take salmon by gillnet, beach seine, fish wheel, dipnet, or rod and reel subject to the restrictions set out in this section, except that you may also take salmon by spear in the Kanektok, and Arolik River drainages, and in the drainage of Goodnews Bay.

    (10) * * *

    (iv) * * *

    (I) Residents of Ninilchik may harvest Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, and Pink salmon through an experimental community gillnet fishery in the Federal public waters of the upper mainstem of the Kasilof River from a Federal regulatory marker on the river below the outlet of Tustumena Lake downstream to the Tustumena Lake boat launch July 1-31. The experimental community gillnet fishery will expire 5 years after approval of the first operational plan.

    (1) Only one community gillnet can be operated on the Kasilof River. The gillnet cannot be over 10 fathoms in length, and may not obstruct more than half of the river width with stationary fishing gear. Subsistence stationary gillnet gear may not be set within 200 feet of other subsistence stationary gear.

    (2) One registration permit will be available and will be awarded by the Federal in-season fishery manager, in consultation with the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge manager, based on the merits of the operational plan. The registration permit will be issued to an organization that, as the community gillnet owner, will be responsible for its use in consultation with the Federal fishery manager. The experimental community gillnet will be subject to compliance with Kenai National Wildlife Refuge regulations and restrictions.

    (i) Prior to the season, provide a written operational plan to the Federal fishery manager including a description of fishing method, mesh size requirements, fishing time and location, and how fish will be offered and distributed among households and residents of Ninilchik;

    (ii) After the season, provide written documentation of required evaluation information to the Federal fishery manager including, but not limited to, persons or households operating the gear, hours of operation, and number of each species caught and retained or released.

    (3) The gillnet owner (organization) may operate the net for subsistence purposes on behalf of residents of Ninilchik by requesting a subsistence fishing permit that:

    (i) Identifies a person who will be responsible for fishing the gillnet;

    (ii) Includes provisions for recording daily catches, the household to whom the catch was given, and other information determined to be necessary for effective resource management by the Federal fishery manager.

    (4) Fishing for Sockeye, Chinook, Coho and Pink salmon will be closed by Federal Special Action prior to the operational plan end dates if the annual total harvest limits for any salmon species is reached or suspended.

    (5) Salmon taken in the gillnet fishery will be included as part of dip net/rod and reel fishery annual total harvest limits for the Kasilof River. All fish harvested must be reported to the in-season manager within 72 hours of leaving the fishing location.

    (i) A portion of the total annual harvest limits for the Kasilof River will be allocated to the experimental community gillnet fishery.

    (ii) The gillnet fishery will be closed once the allocation limit is reached.

    (6) Salmon taken in the experimental community gillnet fishery will be included as part of the dip net/rod and reel fishery annual household limits for the Kasilof River.

    (7) Residents of Ninilchik may retain other species incidentally caught in the Kasilof River. When the retention of rainbow/steelhead trout has been restricted under Federal subsistence regulations, the gillnet fishery will be closed.

    (8) Before leaving the site, all harvested fish must be marked by removing their dorsal fin, and all retained fish must be recorded on the fishing permit.

    (9) Failure to respond to reporting requirements or return the completed harvest permit by the due date listed on the permit may result in issuance of a violation notice and will make you ineligible to receive a subsistence permit during the following regulatory year.

    (J) Residents of Ninilchik may harvest Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, and Pink salmon with a gillnet in the Federal public waters of the Kenai River. Residents of Ninilchik may retain other species incidentally caught in the Kenai River except for Rainbow trout and Dolly Varden 18 inches or longer. Rainbow trout and Dolly Varden 18 inches or greater must be released.

    (1) Only one community gillnet can be operated on the Kenai River. The gillnet cannot be over 10 fathoms in length to take salmon, and may not obstruct more than half of the river width with stationary fishing gear. Subsistence stationary gillnet gear may not be set within 200 feet of other subsistence stationary gear.

    (2) One registration permit will be available and will be awarded by the Federal in-season fishery manager, in consultation with the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge manager, based on the merits of the operational plan. The registration permit will be issued to an organization that, as the community gillnet owner, will be responsible for its use and removal in consultation with the Federal fishery manager. As part of the permit, the organization must:

    (i) Prior to the season, provide a written operational plan to the Federal fishery manager including a description of how fishing time and fish will be offered and distributed among households and residents of Ninilchik;

    (ii) After the season, provide written documentation of required evaluation information to the Federal fishery manager including, but not limited to, persons or households operating the gear, hours of operation, and number of each species caught and retained or released.

    (3) The gillnet owner (organization) may operate the net for subsistence purposes on behalf of residents of Ninilchik by requesting a subsistence fishing permit that:

    (i) Identifies a person who will be responsible for fishing the gillnet;

    (ii) Includes provisions for recording daily catches, the household to whom the catch was given, and other information determined to be necessary for effective resource management by the Federal fishery manager.

    (4) Fishing will be allowed from June 15 through August 15 on the Kenai River unless closed or otherwise restricted by Federal special action.

    (5) Salmon taken in the gillnet fishery will be included as part of the dip net/rod and reel fishery annual total harvest limits for the Kenai River and as part of dip net/rod and reel household annual limits of participating households.

    (6) Fishing for each salmon species will end and the fishery will be closed by Federal special action prior to regulatory end dates if the annual total harvest limit for that species is reached or superseded by Federal special action.

    (13) * * *

    (xiii) * * *

    (E) Fishing nets must be checked at least twice each day. The total annual guideline harvest level for the Stikine River fishery is 125 Chinook, 600 Sockeye, and 400 Coho salmon. All salmon harvested, including incidentally taken salmon, will count against the guideline for that species.

    (xx) The Klawock River drainage is closed to the use of seines and gillnets during July and August.

    (xxi) The Federal public waters in the Makhnati Island area, as defined in § __.3(b)(5) are closed to the harvest of herring and herring spawn except by Federally qualified users.

    Dated: April 29, 2015. Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. Dated: April 29, 2015. Thomas Whitford, Subsistence Program Leader, USDA—Forest Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11907 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P; 4310-55-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0227; FRL-9927-68-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Utah County—Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10 Transportation Conformity AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah. On March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah submitted a revision to the Utah SIP, adding a new rule regarding trading of motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for Utah County. The rule allows trading from the motor vehicle emissions budget for primary particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) to the motor vehicle emissions budget for nitrogen oxides (NOX), which is a PM10 precursor. The resulting motor vehicle emissions budgets for NOX and PM10 may then be used to demonstrate transportation conformity with the SIP. The EPA is taking this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 17, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 17, 2015. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0227, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).

    Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

    Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0227. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 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. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I, General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6479, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. General Information II. Background III. What was the State's process? IV. EPA's Evaluation of Utah Rule R307-311 V. EPA's Evaluation of the Technical Support Document for R307-311 VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act VII. Final Action VIII. Incorporation by Reference IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information

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

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    II. Background

    In this action, we are approving and soliciting public comment regarding the Governor's March 9, 2015, submittal of Utah's new Rule R307-311 for adoption into the Utah SIP. The rule will allow certain trading of MVEBs for the purposes of transportation conformity for PM10 for Utah County. Once approved by EPA, the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) will then be able to use the provisions of Rule R307-311 when MAG performs a transportation conformity determination for its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and/or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

    The above SIP action that was adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB), and subsequently submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah for approval, is discussed in greater detail in sections III, IV, and V below. We also discuss the state's associated technical support document (TSD), which gives technical information to support new Rule R307-311.

    III. What was the State's process?

    Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA requires that a state provide reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and submitting it to us. More detailed requirements for notice and public hearing are set out in 40 CFR 51.102.

    On December 4, 2014 the UAQB proposed for public comment amendments to the Utah SIP for Utah Air Quality Rule R307-311; “Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.” In addition on January 12, 2015, the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) made the proposed TSD available for public comment and extended the Rule R307-311 public comment period to February 12, 2015. EPA notes that included with the state's administrative documentation for this SIP and Rule revision was a letter memorandum, DAQ-010-15 dated February 19, 2015, from Bryce Bird, Director, UDAQ to the UAQB. This letter memorandum indicated that a public comment period was held from January 1, 2015 through February 12, 2015 regarding the proposed Rule R307-311 SIP revisions. The UDAQ February 19, 2015 letter memorandum noted that no public comments were received on the proposed rule R307-311, but that EPA did comment on the TSD. UDAQ summarized and responded to EPA's comments in its February 19, 2015 letter memorandum to the UAQB. In addition, UDAQ noted that no public hearings were requested. In consideration of the February 19, 2015 UDAQ letter memorandum, the UAQB subsequently adopted the proposed Rule R307-311, and a revised TSD, on March 4, 2015. The SIP Rule revision became state effective on March 5, 2015 and was submitted by the Governor to EPA by a letter dated March 9, 2015. By a subsequent letter dated March 11, 2015, Bryce Bird, Director, UDAQ submitted the necessary administrative documentation that supported the Governor's submittal.

    We have evaluated Utah's March 9, 2015 SIP submittal and the March 11, 2015 submitted administrative documentation and have determined that the state met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By a letter dated March 24, 2015, we advised the state that the SIP submittal was complete under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act, because the submittal met the minimum “completeness” criteria found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.

    IV. EPA's Evaluation of Utah Rule R307-311 (a) Background and Purpose

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176 of the CAA to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of a SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's transportation conformity rule establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform to the state air quality plan.

    One key provision of EPA's transportation conformity rule (see 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires a demonstration that emissions from the RTP and TIP are consistent with the MVEB in the applicable SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The transportation conformity MVEB is defined as the level of on-road mobile source emissions relied upon in the SIP to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.

    In this particular instance, the NAAQS involved is PM10, the nonattainment area is Utah County, the MVEBs involve direct emissions of PM10 and NOX, the latter as a precursor to the formation of PM10, and the applicable SIP is the EPA-approved Utah PM10 attainment plan, as updated on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The approved PM10 attainment plan contains (among other things) an attainment demonstration for Utah County that sets PM10 and NOX MVEBs.

    Transportation conformity is demonstrated when future year's projected on-road mobile source's emissions, for a particular pollutant or precursor, are estimated to be at or below the on-road motor vehicle's emissions budget for that pollutant or precursor in the applicable SIP. For the PM10 NAAQS for Utah County, conformity must be demonstrated separately for the PM10 and NOX MVEBs established in the Utah County PM10 attainment demonstration. However, emissions can be traded between the PM10 and NOX budgets if there is an approved rule in the SIP that establishes appropriate mechanisms for such trades. See 40 CFR 93.124(b).

    Currently, the Utah SIP does not contain an approved rule that establishes an appropriate mechanism for trading of emissions between the PM10 and NOX MVEBs for Utah County. The EPA notes, however, that we previously approved a Utah Rule (R307-310) that allows trading of emissions between the PM10 and NOX MVEBs for another PM10 nonattainment area in Utah, Salt Lake County. 67 FR 44065 (July 1, 2002). For Utah County, the state has developed a new Rule R307-311, very similar to that for Salt Lake County, which establishes an on-road mobile source emissions trading mechanism that; (1) involves only PM10 and NOX MVEBs from the PM10 attainment demonstration SIP, (2) allows trading in only one direction from the PM10 budget to the NOX budget on a one-to-one basis, (3) applies only to transportation conformity determinations in Utah County in conjunction with the PM10 attainment demonstration SIP, and (4) is pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.

    (b) Utah Rule R307-311 Description

    An overview of all portions of the state's new Rule R307-311 is provided below:

    1. R307-311 is entitled “Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.”

    2. R307-311-1 “Purpose.” The stated purpose of this new rule is:

    This rule establishes the procedures that may be used to trade a portion of the primary PM10 budget when demonstrating that a transportation plan, transportation improvement program, or project conforms with the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Utah County portion of Section IX, Part A of the State Implementation Plan, “Fine Particulate Matter (PM10).

    3. R307-311-2. “Definitions.” This section provides applicable definitions:

    The definitions contained in 40 CFR 93.101, effective as of the date referenced in R307-101-3,1 are incorporated into this rule by reference. The following additional definitions apply to this rule.

    1 R307-101-3 is approved into the Utah SIP and reflects a date of July 1, 2013 for incorporation by reference of federal rules.

    “Budget” means the motor vehicle emission projections used in the attainment demonstration in the Utah County portion of Section IX, Part A of the State Implementation Plan, “Fine Particulate Matter (PM10).

    “NOX” means oxides of nitrogen.

    “Primary PM10” means PM10 that is emitted directly by a source. Primary PM10 does not include particulate matter that is formed when gaseous emissions undergo chemical reactions in the ambient air.

    “Transportation Conformity” means a demonstration that a transportation plan, transportation improvement program, or project conforms with the emissions budgets in a state implementation plan, as outlined in 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 93; 2 Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.

    2 EPA notes this is applicable to projects not from a conforming RTP and TIP which must conform with the MVEBs. This clarification is only for those projects, and not projects from a conforming RTP and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.109(b) and 40 CFR 93.115(a).

    4. R307-311-3. “Applicability”. This portion of the rule defines its applicability. EPA notes that this rule may only be applied to Utah County and only for PM10:

    (A) This rule applies to agencies responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity with the Utah County portion of Section IX, Part A of the State Implementation Plan, “Fine Particulate Matter (PM10).

    (B) This rule does not apply to emission budgets from Section IX, Part C.6 of the State Implementation Plan, “Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Provisions.

    5. R307-311-4. “Trading Between Emission Budgets.” This portion of the rule specifies the trading mechanism and provides the trading ratio of NOX and PM10. In our section V below, EPA evaluates the technical justification provided in the TSD for the trading ratio. In this section, we find that the rule language establishes an appropriate trading mechanism for the Utah County NOX and PM10 motor vehicle emission budgets:

    The agencies responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity are authorized to supplement the budget for NOX with a portion of the budget for primary PM10 for the purpose of demonstrating transportation conformity for NOX. The NOX budget shall be supplemented using the following procedures.

    (a) The metropolitan planning organization shall include the following information in the transportation conformity demonstration:

    (i) The budget for primary PM10 and NOX for each required year of the conformity demonstration, before trading allowed by this rule has been applied;

    (ii) The portion of the primary PM10 budget that will be used to supplement the NOX budget, specified in tons per day using a 1:1 ratio of primary PM10 to NOX, for each required year of the conformity demonstration;

    (iii) The remainder of the primary PM10 budget that will be used in the conformity demonstration for primary PM10, specified in tons per day for each required year of the conformity demonstration; and

    (iv) The budget for primary PM10 and NOX for each required year of the conformity demonstration after the trading allowed by this rule has been applied.

    (b) Transportation conformity for NOX shall be demonstrated using the NOX budget supplemented by a portion of the primary PM10 budget as described in (a)(ii). Transportation conformity for primary PM10 shall be demonstrated using the remainder of the primary PM10 budget described in (a)(iii).

    (c) The primary PM10 budget shall not be supplemented by using a portion of the NOX budget.

    V. EPA's Evaluation of the Technical Support Document for R307-311

    The Governor's SIP revision submittal provided a TSD to support the new Rule R307-311 and address MVEB trading, as contemplated by 40 CFR 93.124(b), for PM10 and NOX in Utah County.

    a. Description

    PM10 is particulate matter with diameters smaller than 10 micrometers. PM10 consists of solid and/or liquid particles of; (1) primary particles that are directly emitted particulate matter (PM) or PM that quickly condenses upon release, and (2) secondary particles which are PM that is formed in the atmosphere from gaseous precursors. Important gaseous precursors to PM include sulfur dioxide (SO2) which converts to sulfate (SO4) particles, NOX which converts to nitrate (NO3) particles, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) some of which convert to secondary organic aerosols, and ammonia (NH3) which adds to the mass of sulfate PM and allows nitric acid to convert to PM10 in the form of ammonium nitrate.

    Currently in Utah County, the RTP and TIP must demonstrate conformity to the MVEBs for PM10 and NOX that were derived from the 2002 EPA-approved PM10 attainment demonstration SIP (see 67 FR 78181, December 23, 2002). Since the regulatory goal is to achieve and maintain attainment of the NAAQS and conformity related to total PM10, not individual components, it should not matter in the conformity analysis whether PM10 consists of directly emitted (primary) PM10 or secondary nitrate PM10 formed in the atmosphere from precursor NOX gas emissions, provided the MVEBs for PM10 and NOX are consistent with the SIP's demonstration of attainment. The state's TSD outlines the scientific rationale for why excess NOX motor vehicle emissions (above the NOX MVEB level) can be offset, on a 1 to 1 basis, with available motor vehicle PM10 emissions (below the PM10 MVEB level). The State's TSD explains why the provisions of Rule R307-311 are considered conservative (i.e., protective of the environment) in that the Rule only allows a one-way direction trading of the MVEBs and a trading ratio of only 1 to 1.

    b. What fraction of the NOX emissions in Utah County convert to PM10?

    The state's TSD describes how each ton of gaseous NOX that gets converted to PM10 creates more than a ton of PM10 because the molecular weight of ammonium nitrate PM10 is greater than the molecular weight of NOX gaseous emissions. Considering the ratio of the molecular weights of the NOX precursor gas and the resulting ammonium nitrate aerosol (PM10), the state notes that a ton of NOX that is converted from a gas to a particle can form as much as 1.74 tons of PM10.

    However, not all NOX emissions are converted because it takes time to convert NOX to nitric acid (HNO3), which is the necessary gaseous precursor to ammonium nitrate PM10. These reactions generally occur at rates of 1 to 10 percent per hour. It would take approximately at least 10 hours to fully convert to nitric acid. After this initial conversion, only a fraction of the gaseous nitric acid will condense as ammonium nitrate PM10, depending on equilibrium considerations. Finally, during the gas-to-particle conversion process, deposition will remove a significant amount of material. Throughout this process of NOX conversion to nitric acid, and then to PM10 and deposition, an equivalent amount of directly emitted PM10 is having a much larger effect on the PM10 concentration. Directly emitted PM10 has an effect on the ambient concentration immediately upon its release, while NOX emissions require hours to have an effect.

    From a historical perspective, the conversion of NOX to PM10 has been discussed at EPA since at least 1996. In our 1996 proposed rule to revise the regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) programs, we discussed a proposed approach for interpollutant trading for PM10 offsets in the nonattainment NSR program:

    The conversion process may depend on several variables, including the availability of chemical reactants in the atmosphere for the conversion process, and the difference in mass between the PM10 precursor molecule and the PM10 particle that the precursor reacts to become. Another concern is that the rate of conversion of the precursor to PM10 may be so long that the precursor may not entirely convert to PM10 within the same nonattainment area. Thus, there would be less counteracting effect and no net improvement to air quality in the area. Under the EPA's proposal, a source of a PM10 precursor may offset its increased emissions with the same precursor type or PM10 (or a combination of the two). In this situation, a net improvement in air quality would be assured. At this point, however, the EPA is not proposing to allow offsetting among different types of PM10 precursors, or offsetting PM10 increases with reduction in PM10 precursors, because the Agency does not now have a scientific basis to propose conversion factors. (61 FR 38305, July 23, 1996).

    These statements were cited in our 2002 proposed approval of the MVEB trading rule (R307-310) for Salt Lake County. 67 FR 21609 (May 1, 2002).

    However, EPA has more recently issued guidance on interpollutant trading provisions for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for offsets under the nonattainment NSR program. The guidance memorandum is entitled “Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5)” and is dated July 21, 2011 (hereafter referred to as “Revised 2011 Trading Policy”). The Revised 2011 Trading Policy states in part (page 3, fourth paragraph) that “. . . states will be expected to develop separate PM2.5 precursor offset ratios that are demonstrated to be suitable for addressing the particular precursor's relationship with ambient PM2.5 concentrations for 24-hour averaging periods that are causing violations in that nonattainment area.” And on page 4, first paragraph; “. . . each ratio will need to be supported by modeling or other technical demonstration to show that such ratio is suitable for the particular PM2.5 nonattainment area of concern . . .”

    Our Revised 2011 Trading Policy provides a general framework for such efforts, involving the following steps:

    1. Definition of the appropriate geographical area.

    2. Sensitivity runs with appropriate air quality models.

    3. Calculation of interpollutant ratios.

    4. Quality assurance of the results.

    To support Utah's rule R307-311, the UDAQ applied the above methodology to the Utah County 24-hour PM10 NAAQS nonattainment area. Although the Revised 2011 Trading Policy is specific to PM2.5 and nonattainment NSR offsets, and is nonbinding guidance, in this action we consider that the recommendations in the Revised 2011 Trading Policy provide a suitable approach for a technical demonstration that the trading ratio for Utah County for the PM10 and NOX MVEBs is appropriate under 40 CFR 93.124(b).

    The UDAQ states in the TSD that exceedances of the PM10 24-hour NAAQS in Utah County are characterized by spikes in secondary aerosol formation under conditions of wintertime temperature inversions which prevent good atmospheric mixing and facilitate conversion of secondary PM10. The UDAQ also states that a high percentage of the PM10 monitored in Utah County, during winter episodes of elevated concentration, lies also within the PM2.5 fraction. EPA also notes that the 2002 Utah County PM10 SIP revision identified both NOX and SO2 as precursors to the formation of PM10.

    The TSD for Rule R307-311 identifies that parts of Utah County (the valley regions, western area of the County) are also designated as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). To meet the requirements set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, title I of the CAA, the UDAQ developed a moderate area attainment plan for Utah County that (among other things) contained a demonstration that attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standards by the applicable attainment date for moderate areas, December 31, 2015, is impracticable (hereafter “PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration”). This attainment plan was submitted by the Governor to EPA on December 16, 2014. The air quality modeling for the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration was conducted by UDAQ using the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model (CMAQ). CMAQ is also capable of determining the relative importance of NOX and PM10 in contributing to PM10 nonattainment.

    The emission inventories that were developed by UDAQ for the Utah County PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration included PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, Ammonia and PM10.3 As PM10 was inventoried for the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration, this allowed CMAQ model sensitivity runs to be made for the purpose of evaluating and supporting the MVEB trading provisions in Rule R307-311. The UDAQ's methodology employed the CMAQ model, as developed for Utah County, with a substitution of PM10 emissions for PM2.5. The UDAQ also notes in the Rule R307-311 TSD that the CMAQ model was re-validated with respect to PM10 emissions data from the appropriate episode period prior to making the sensitivity runs (refer to Appendix A of the TSD).

    3 We are not acting today on any portion of the state's December 16, 2014 submittal, including the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration and the emission inventories.

    Having made these adjustments to the CMAQ model, UDAQ ran the model to generate a time-series plot (refer to Appendix A of the TSD). The UDAQ determined that the ratio of NOX to PM10 equivalence was 5.702 to one. Since this ratio is considerably greater than 1:1, the UDAQ concluded that reducing primary PM10 is more beneficial than reducing NOX for improving Utah County's air quality with respect to PM10. The EPA has evaluated this additional sensitivity modeling information and has concluded that it provides an adequate technical demonstration to support the MVEB trading provisions in Rule R307-311. Based on the demonstration, we also conclude that Rule R307-311 establishes an appropriate trading ratio, and that under Rule R307-311, there will not be adverse impacts to the overall ambient 24-hour PM10 concentrations within Utah County.

    With regard to ambient 24-hour PM10 concentrations within Utah County, we have also evaluated the current (state-certified) 2011 through 2013 PM10 ambient air quality monitoring data for Utah County in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), EPA's repository for the Nation's ambient air quality data. EPA's guidance for the calculation of 24-hour PM10 design value concentrations provide four techniques.4 Our guidance's “Table Lookup” method shows a 2011 through 2013 PM10 design value concentration as 149μm3 at the North Provo monitor and 124μm3 at the Lindon monitor. These values, however, contain certain data quality issues such as missing days of monitoring data and zero reading days. We believe that if the statistical method from our guidance, “Using the empirical frequency distribution of several years of the data (graphical estimation),” is used, in this particular case it provides a more accurate representation of the monitoring data.5 When using this statistical/graphic approach, the North Provo monitor then has a 2011 through 2013 PM10 design value concentration of 133.5 µm3 and the Lindon monitor has a 2011 through 2013 design value concentration of 118.7 µm3. However, EPA notes that regardless of the methodology used, Utah County continues to demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

    4PM 10 SIP Development Guideline, EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987, section 6.3; pages 6-3 through 6-8. The cited portions of this guidance are available in the docket for this action; the entire document is available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pm10sip_dev_guide.pdf.

    5 Memorandum to File entitled “Utah PM10 24-hour Design Concentrations,” Richard M. Payton, USEPA Region 8, dated April 22, 2015.

    c. Impact of the PM10 and NOX MVEB Trading Rule on Other Pollutants; EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Information Regarding the Provisions of Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act

    Section 110(1) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA's evaluation above shows that this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.

    In addition to being a designated nonattainment area for PM10, Utah County is also designated as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The city of Provo, in Utah County, is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). These criteria pollutants, along with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, were evaluated by the state in the TSD for potential collateral impacts from the implementation of the provisions of Rule R307-311.

    1. PM2.5

    As discussed above, part of Utah County (the western portion) was designated by EPA as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009), and on December 16, 2014, the state submitted an attainment plan containing, among other things, the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration. As with PM10 (described above), UDAQ performed sensitivity runs using the CMAQ modeling information that was developed for the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration. This modeling exercise was performed in order to determine an equivalence ratio between NOX and PM2.5. The resulting ratio of NOX to PM2.5 was determined by the UDAQ to be 13.09 to 1.0. Similar to the result for PM10, the ratio is greater than one to one, and illustrates that reducing primary PM2.5 is more beneficial than reducing the same quantity of NOX.

    However, Rule R307-311 provides for reductions in PM10, and generally speaking, a reduction in PM10 is not necessarily a reduction in PM2.5. So that the above PM2.5 to NOX ratio could support a determination that Rule R307-311 would not have an adverse impact on overall PM2.5 concentrations in Utah County, the UDAQ considered the physical make-up of PM10 emissions from on-road mobile sources in Utah County. The following table, presenting information from the TSD, considers PM emissions as they were inventoried for calendar year 2015 in the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration for the Utah County PM2.5 nonattainment area:

    Table 1—Utah County; On-Road Mobile Source Emissions [In tons per day in 2015] PM10 PM2.5 %PM2.5 Road Dust 3.95 0.99 25.1 Direct PM 1.84 1.38 75.0 Total 5.79 2.37 40.9

    As derived from the state's information and as presented in Table 1 above, for every ton of PM10 emissions due to on-road mobile sources, 0.409 tons would be composed of PM2.5. The provisions of Rule R307-311 would allow a one-ton increase in NOX emissions that would be offset by a one-ton decrease in the PM10 emissions. Based on the information in the above table, the state concluded that a one-ton increase in NOX emissions would be offset by a 0.409-ton decrease in PM2.5 emissions. To illustrate, using the 1:0.409 ratio and the equivalence ratio of 13.09:1 for NOX to PM2.5, a 13 ton increase in NOX emissions would equal a 1 ton increase of PM2.5 emissions. However, applying the 1 to 1 trading ratio with PM10 would then require a 13 ton PM10 emissions decrease which is a 5.3 ton (13 x 0.409) PM2.5 emissions decrease. This example results in a net 4.3 ton decrease in PM2.5 emissions.

    Based on this 1:0.409 ratio and the equivalence ratio of 13.09:1 for NOX to PM2.5, the EPA can, therefore, agree with the state and conclude that Rule R307-311, with its requirements to allow the trading of the PM10 budget to the NOX budget in one direction only at a ratio of 1:1, would not have an adverse impact on overall ambient 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations within Utah County.

    The EPA notes that additional supporting information was provided in the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration as it included an emission inventory of NOX emissions for calendar year 2015. The PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration notes that on-road mobile sources in Utah County are expected to account for 21.48 tons per winter weekday in 2015. The on-road mobile sources emissions were calculated using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model and the MOVES2010a version. This estimate is greater than the combined sum of the 2020 MVEBs for both PM10 and NOX contained in the EPA-approved 2002 SIP revision. To demonstrate, even if the entire PM10 MVEB was traded to increase the NOX MVEB as a result of the application of Rule R307-311, the resulting total NOX emissions would still be less than the 2015 estimated NOX emissions contained in the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration.

    2. Carbon Monoxide (CO)

    As noted previously, the Provo-Orem area is a CO attainment/maintenance area (70 FR 66264, November 2, 2005). EPA notes that NOX emissions do not act as a precursor to carbon monoxide; therefore, EPA has concluded that the application of the provisions of R307-311 will not impact the Provo-Orem CO maintenance plan or attainment of the CO NAAQS. The state notes in the Rule R307-311 TSD that CO maintenance plan has its own CO MVEB which has been set at a level demonstrated to keep the Provo-Orem area in attainment with the CO standard. The provisions of Rule R307-311 do not change the maintenance plan's CO MVEB.

    For purposes of completeness, the state provided recent CO ambient air quality monitoring data in the Rule R307-311 TSD. These data have been excerpted by EPA and are provided in the table below:

    Table 2—CO 1-Hour and CO 8-Hour Design Values Year Annual CO NAAQS
  • (1-hour, 35 ppm)
  • 8-hour CO NAAQS (9 ppm)
    Monitor location: North Provo: North Provo: 2011 3.2 ppm 2.1 ppm 2012 2.8 ppm 1.9 ppm 2013 2.9 ppm 2.0 ppm Preliminary 2014 2.8 ppm 1.9 ppm

    As can be seen in Table 2 above, the Provo area continues to demonstrate compliance with both the CO Annual and CO 8-hour NAAQS.

    3. Ozone

    The EPA notes that NOX emissions are a precursor to the formation of ground level ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. With regard to ozone, we also note that Utah County has never been designated as nonattainment for any applicable ozone NAAQS. The current, applicable ozone NAAQS is the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and Utah County was designated by EPA as unclassifiable/attainment for that NAAQS (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). Thus, the state has not had to develop an ozone attainment plan or maintenance plan for Utah County.

    To assess the potential impacts to Utah County's continued attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA considered ozone ambient air quality monitoring data for Utah County and predicted future-year NOX emission reductions from motor vehicles.

    The state provided recent ozone air quality monitoring data in the Rule R307-311 TSD. EPA has excerpted that information from the TSD and presents those data in Table 3 below:

    Table 3—8-Hour Ozone Design Values (DV) Year Monitor location 8-hour ozone DV (NAAQS = 75 ppb) Monitor location 8-hour ozone DV (NAAQS = 75 ppb) 2011 North Provo 67.7 ppb Spanish Fork 68.0 ppb 2012 North Provo 70.7 ppb Spanish Fork 70.3 ppb 2013 North Provo 73.0 ppb Spanish Fork 70.3 ppb 2014 (Preliminary) North Provo 73.0 ppb Spanish Fork 71.7 ppb

    As can be seen in Table 3 above, Utah County continues to demonstrate compliance with 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    The provisions of Rule R307-311 would allow for an increase in the Utah County PM10 SIP's NOX MVEB. However, EPA believes that regardless of this potential increase in the NOX MVEB, overall future NOX emissions from mobile sources will significantly decrease not only in Utah County, but in the nation as a whole. On April 28, 2014, we published a final rule adopting new Tier 3 emission standards and fuel requirements for motor vehicles and for motor vehicle fuels (79 FR 23414).

    Our April 28, 2014 final rule included new Tier 3 emission standards to reduce exhaust and evaporative emissions from light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. In addition, the final rule specified corresponding changes to in-use fuel requirements. The motor vehicle tailpipe standards include different phase-in schedules that vary by vehicle class, but generally phase-in between model years 2017 to 2021 for light duty vehicles and up to 2025 for heavy duty vehicles. The vehicle emission standards combined with the reduction of gasoline sulfur content, which allows both current and new vehicle emission control systems to function at a higher pollutant removal efficiently, will significantly reduce motor vehicle emissions of NOX, VOCs, direct PM2.5, CO and air toxics. Compared to current vehicle and fuel standards, the non-methane organic gases (NMOG) and NOX, presented as NMOG+NOX, Tier 3 tailpipe standards for light-duty vehicles are estimated to show an approximately 80% reduction from today's fleet average. As both NOX and VOCs contribute to the formation of ground level ozone and secondary PM2.5, the EPA notes that these vehicle emission reductions will have a positive impact on all areas of the nation including Utah County. Additionally, we expect to see associated downward trends of CO, ozone, PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations that will reflect the implementation of these fuel/vehicle emission improvements. Based on these expected reductions in motor vehicle emissions of NOX, along with the monitoring data showing that Utah County is currently attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, we conclude that Rule R307-311 will not interfere with attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

    4. NO2

    The EPA notes that NOX emissions, which contain NO2, are a precursor to the formation of ground level ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. We also note that Utah County was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the new, more stringent, 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS (77 FR 9532, February 17, 2012).

    To assess the potential impacts to Utah County's continued attainment of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, as that version of the NO2 NAAQS is more constraining, EPA considered NO2 ambient air quality monitoring data for Utah County. The state provided recent NO2 air quality monitoring data in the Rule R307-311 TSD. EPA has excerpted that information from the TSD and presents those data in Table 4 below:

    Table 4—NO2 1-Hour Design Values Year NO2 NAAQS
  • (DV 1-hour 100 ppb)
  • Monitor location: North Provo: 2011 54.7 ppb 2012 58.0 ppb 2013 66.3 ppb Preliminary 2014 68.3 ppb

    As can be seen in Table 4 above, Utah County continues to demonstrate compliance with 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS with values well below the level of the NAAQS. We, therefore, conclude that Rule R307-311 will not interfere with attainment of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    d. Conclusion

    On the basis of the above EPA analyses, we have concluded that using a portion of the Utah County PM10 SIP's PM10 MVEB to offset or compensate for excess on-road mobile sources NOX emissions, on a one-to-one basis and in one direction only, continues to demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and is conservative and justifiable. In addition, based on the information in the Rule R307-311 TSD, and as supplemented by information prepared by EPA, we have concluded that with the implementation of the provisions in Rule R307-311 there will not be adverse effects to the CO, PM2.5, 8-hour ozone, and NO2 1-hour NAAQS. These statements are with respect to the implementation of the provisions of Rule R307-311 by MAG when MAG performs a transportation conformity determination for its RTP and/or TIP.

    VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In view of the state's rule language for its new Rule R307-311, our analyses presented above in section “V. EPA's Evaluation of the Technical Support Document for R307-311” with respect to PM10, PM2.5, ozone and NO2, and the fact that NOX has less impact on a per ton basis than primary PM10 emissions in Utah County, we have concluded there will be a net benefit on ambient air concentrations of PM10 when excess NOX emissions are offset on a one to one basis. Therefore, implementation of the provisions of Rule R307-311 will allow the continued demonstration of attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in Utah County and is conservative and justifiable. We have also concluded there will be no adverse impact on any other NAAQS or applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, our approval of the State's Rule R307-311 is consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA.

    VII. Final Action

    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views the Governor of Utah's March 9, 2015 submitted SIP revisions for Utah's Rule R307-311 and the Rule's associated TSD as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 17, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by June 17, 2015. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if the 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, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    VIII. Incorporation by Reference

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

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 17, 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 today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

    PART 52 [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart TT—Utah 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as follows:
    § 52.2320 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (79) Revisions to the Utah State Implementation Plan involving Utah Rule R307-311; Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity. The Utah Air Quality Board adopted this SIP revision on March 4, 2015, it became state effective on March 5, 2015, and was submitted by the Governor to EPA by a letter dated March 9, 2015.

    (i) Incorporation by reference.

    (A) Utah Rules R307, Environmental Quality, Air Quality, R307-311, Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity. Effective March 5, 2015, as proposed in the Utah State Bulletin on January 1, 2015 and published on April 1, 2015 as effective.

    [FR Doc. 2015-11784 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0963; FRL-9926-87] Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R under FFDCA.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 18, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 17, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0963, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0963 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 17, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0963, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background

    In the Federal Register of February 21, 2014 (79 FR 9870) (FRL-9904-98), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 2F8102) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Trichoderma fertile strain JM41R in or on all food commodities. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner BASF Corporation, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Subsequently, the petitioner provided additional data (i.e., DNA sequence work based on newly published taxonomies) on the identity of the pesticide to EPA. After reviewing these data, EPA concluded that the correct identity of the pesticide was Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R and not Trichoderma fertile strain JM41R. In order to give the public an opportunity to comment on this new information, EPA republished its receipt of this tolerance exemption petition filing with an updated and accurate description in the Federal Register of January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4525) (FRL-9921-55) and placed a revised petition from BASF Corporation into the docket. There were no comments received in response to the republished notice of filing.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption, and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on that data can be found within the April 20, 2015, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R.” This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES. Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for the reasons contained in the April 20, 2015, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R” and because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 2, 2015. Jack E. Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. Add § 180.1331 to subpart D to read as follows:
    § 180.1331 Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    [FR Doc. 2015-11960 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [WT Docket Nos. 13-238 and 13-32, WC Docket No. 11-59; FCC 14-153] Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, certain information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Report and Order regarding the Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, FCC 14-153. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the new information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    47 CFR 1.40001(c)(3)(i), 1.140001(c)(3)(iii), and 1.140001(c)(4), published at 80 FR 1238, January 8, 2015, are effective on May 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams by email at [email protected] and telephone at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on May 5, 2015, OMB approved certain information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 14-153, published at 80 FR 1238, January 8, 2015. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1208. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of these information collection requirements.

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 5, 2015, for the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 1.40001(c)(3)(i), 1.140001(c)(3)(iii), and 1.140001(c)(4). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1208.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1208.

    OMB Approval Date: May 5, 2015.

    OMB Expiration Date: May 31, 2018.

    Title: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and State, local or Tribal governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,350 respondents; 3,597 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours to 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 301, 303, and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 6003, 6213, and 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 201, 301, 303, 309, 1403, 1433, and 1455(a).

    Total Annual Burden: 3,535 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This information collection may affect individuals or households. However, the information collection consists of third-party disclosures in which the Commission has no direct involvement. Personally identifiable information (PII) is not being collected by, made available to, or made accessible by the Commission. There are no additional impacts under the Privacy Act.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission requested OMB approval for new disclosure requirements pertaining to subpart CC of part 1 of the Commission's rules. This subpart was adopted to implement and enforce Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Section 6409(a) provides, in part, that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” 47 U.S.C. 1455(a)(1). In subpart CC, the Commission adopted definitions of ambiguous terms, procedural requirements, and remedies to provide guidance to all stakeholders on the proper interpretation of the provision and to enforce its requirements, reducing delays in the review process for wireless infrastructure modifications and facilitating the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure.

    The following are the information collection requirements in connection with subpart CC of part 1 of the Commission's rules:

    • 47 CFR 1.40001(c)(3)(i)—To toll the 60-day review timeframe on grounds that an application is incomplete, the reviewing State or local government must provide written notice to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information. Such delineated information is limited to documents or information meeting the standard under paragraph (c)(1) of Section 1.40001.

    • 47 CFR 1.40001(c)(3)(iii)—Following a supplemental submission from the applicant, the State or local government will have 10 days to notify the applicant in writing if the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the State or local government's original notice delineating missing information. The timeframe for review is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices of incompleteness pursuant to the procedures identified in paragraph (c)(3). Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness.

    • 47 CFR 1.40001(c)(4)—If a request is deemed granted because of a failure to timely approve or deny the request, the deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the applicable reviewing authority in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted.

    These collections are necessary to effectuate the rule changes that implement and enforce the requirements of Section 6409(a).

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11810 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 95 Monday, May 18, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0255] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Seattle Seafair 4th of July Fireworks Display, Lake Union, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in Lake Union for the Seattle Seafair 4th of July fireworks display. The safety zone is necessary to help ensure the safety of the maritime public during the display and will do so by prohibiting all persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Kenneth Hoppe, Waterways Management Division, Sector Puget Sound, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6051, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0255] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0255) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish safety and security zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and environmental purposes as described in 33 CFR part 165.

    The Seattle Seafair 4th of July fireworks display will take place this year in Lake Union. Fireworks displays create hazardous conditions for the maritime public because of the large number of vessels that congregate near the displays as well as the noise, falling debris, and explosions that occur during the event. A safety zone is necessary in order to prevent vessels from congregating in the proximity of the firework discharge site to ensure maritime public safety.

    C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Due to the hazards associated with the fireworks display, the Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone in Lake Union, WA in a 300 yard radius around the point 47°38′24.85″ N, 122°20′3.81″ W. The safety zone would be effective from 5:00 p.m. on July 4 until 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2015.

    All persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering the safety zone during the dates and times they are effective unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through the established safety zone during the times of enforcement. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the temporary safety zone is minimal in size and short in duration, maritime traffic will be able to transit around it and may be permitted to transit through with the permission from the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a temporary safety zone around a fireworks display in Lake Union. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T13-288 to read as follows:
    § 165.T13-288 Safety Zone; Seattle Seafair 4th of July; Lake Union, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is designated as a temporary safety zone: All waters within a 300 yard radius around the point 47°38′24.85″ N, 122°20′3.81″ W.

    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in subpart C of this part, no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor, or anchor within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or Designated Representatives. Designated Representatives are Coast Guard Personnel authorized by the Captain of the Port to grant persons or vessels permission to enter or remain in the safety zone created by this section. See subpart C of this part, for additional information and requirements.

    (c) Authorization. All vessel operators who desire to enter the safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or Designated representative by contacting either the on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or the Coast guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at (206) 217-6002.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule is effective from 5:00 p.m. on July 4, 2015, until 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2015.

    Dated: April 30, 2015. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11938 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0254] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration, Friday Harbor, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in Friday Harbor for the San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration fireworks display. The safety zone is necessary to help ensure the safety of the maritime public during the display and will do so by prohibiting all persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Kenneth Hoppe, Waterways Management Division, Sector Puget Sound, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6051, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0254] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0254) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish safety and security zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and environmental purposes as described in 33 CFR part 165.

    The San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration fireworks display will be held on July 4, 2015. Fireworks displays create hazardous conditions for the maritime public because of the large number of vessels that congregate near the displays as well as the noise, falling debris, and explosions that occur during the event. A safety zone is necessary in order to prevent vessels from congregating in the proximity of the firework discharge site to ensure maritime public safety.

    C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In order to mitigate the hazards associated with the fireworks display, the Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone in Friday Harbor, WA in a 200 yard radius around the point 48°32.471′ N, 123°0.714′ W. This safety zone would be in effect from 5:00 p.m. on July 4 until 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2015.

    All persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering the safety zone during the dates and times they are effective unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through the established safety zone during the times of enforcement. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the temporary safety zone is minimal in size and short in duration, maritime traffic will be able to transit around it and may be permitted to transit through with the permission from the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a temporary safety zone around a fireworks display in Friday Harbor. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T13-286 to read as follows:
    § 165.T13-286 Safety Zone; San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration; Friday Harbor, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is designated as a temporary safety zone:

    (1) All waters within a 200 yard radius around the point 48°32.471′ N, 123°0.714′ W.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor, or anchor within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or Designated Representatives. Designated Representatives are Coast Guard

    Personnel authorized by the Captain of the Port to grant persons or vessels permission to enter or remain in the safety zone created by this section. See 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, for additional information and requirements.

    (c) Authorization. All vessel operators who desire to enter the safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or Designated representative by contacting either the on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or the Coast guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at (206) 217-6002.

    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from 5:00 p.m. on July 4, 2015, until 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2015.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11939 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0351; FRL-9927-81-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The EPA is proposing to approve portions of an August 19, 2011 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Wyoming that are intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the requirement that Wyoming's SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the Wyoming SIP submission that addresses the significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance transport requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the interference with prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality transport requirement for this NAAQS, and is not proposing action on the interference with visibility transport requirement at this time. EPA will address the visibility requirement for this NAAQS in a separate future action.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0351, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).

    Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

    Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0351. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 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. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I, General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

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

    (ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

    (iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

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

    (v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    (vi) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.

    (vii) The initials PM 2.5 mean or refer to fine particulate matter.

    (viii) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

    (ix) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    (x) The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support Document.

    (xi) The initial ug/m 3 mean or refer to micrograms per cubic meter.

    (xii) The initials WDEQ mean or refer to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

    (xiii) The words Wyoming and State mean the State of Wyoming, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    Table of Contents I. General Information II. Background A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS C. EPA Guidance III. Wyoming's Submittal IV. EPA's Evaluation A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance D. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant Deterioration V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

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

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When 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 referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    II. Background A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule revising the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3 (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144).

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these specific submittals as “infrastructure” SIPs because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, these infrastructure SIPs were due on September 21, 2009. CAA section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan submission” must meet.

    The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called “good neighbor” provisions) require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (element 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect visibility. In this action, EPA is addressing elements one, two and three of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    EPA has previously addressed the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.1 Most recently, EPA published the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or “Transport Rule”) to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the United States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). CSAPR replaces the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially remanded.2 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating CSAPR, see EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and ordering EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit's ruling and upheld EPA's approach in the CSAPR. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1610 (2014). After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years. On October 23, 2014 the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay on CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. EPA began CSAPR implementation on January 1, 2015 pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's directive lifting the stay. The State of Wyoming was not covered by CSAPR, and EPA made no determinations in the rule regarding whether emissions from sources in Wyoming significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.

    1See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

    2 CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    C. EPA Guidance

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that provides recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 standards (“2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance” or “Guidance”).3 With respect to element 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance advised states to include in their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions an adequate technical analysis to support their conclusions regarding interstate pollution transport, e.g., information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially impacted states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality modeling.4

    3See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.

    4 The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR that would address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and that would provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements related to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that states could not rely on the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3.

    With respect to element 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit emissions that would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state, the Guidance stated that SIP submissions must address this independent and distinct requirement of the statute and provide technical information appropriate to support the State's conclusions, and suggested consideration of the same technical information that would be appropriate for element 1 of this CAA requirement.

    In this action, EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach to evaluating interstate pollution transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that EPA explained in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance and CSAPR. As such, we find that the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Wyoming may be evaluated using a “weight of evidence” approach that takes into account available relevant information, including the factors recommended in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. These submissions can rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the presence or degree of interstate transport in a given situation.

    With respect to the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) which address elements 3 (PSD) and 4 (visibility), EPA most recently issued an infrastructure guidance memo on September 13, 2013 that included guidance on these two elements.5 For the purposes of this action, this memo will hereon be referred to as the “2013 I-SIP Guidance.”

    5 See “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” dated September 13, 2013, in the docket for this action.

    III. Wyoming's Submittal

    On August 19, 2011, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) made a submission certifying that Wyoming's SIP is adequate to implement the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for all the “infrastructure” requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). In this analysis, WDEQ simply listed the regulatory and non-regulatory documents that it felt demonstrated the Wyoming SIP's adequacy to meet the 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.6

    6 WDEQ's certification letter, dated August 19, 2011 is included in the docket for this action.

    To meet the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (elements 1 and 2), WDEQ's submission referenced the State's May 3, 2007 interstate transport SIP. The May 3, 2007 SIP was determined by EPA to meet the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, and was therefore approved by EPA on May 8, 2008 (73 FR 26019). However, Wyoming's May 3, 2007 SIP did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On April 23, 2015, WDEQ sent EPA a letter clarifying that it considered the factors relied upon as part of the May 3, 2007 submittal to also be applicable to a transport analysis for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.7

    7 Wyoming's clarification letter is available in the docket for this action. Wyoming's May 3rd, 2007 Interstate Transport SIP can be found in the docket for that action (EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0648).

    To meet the element 3 (PSD) requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), Wyoming referenced Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 6, section 2, Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation, as well as its May 3, 2007 Interstate Transport SIP. In its April 23, 2015 letter to EPA, Wyoming clarified its element 3 submittal by indicating that it will issue permits to sources locating in nonattainment areas pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, appendix S until it has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program.

    IV. EPA's Evaluation

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is satisfied, EPA first determines whether a state's emissions contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states. If a state is determined not to have such contribution or interference, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any changes to that state's SIP.

    Consistent with the first step of EPA's approach in the 1998 NOX SIP call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA evaluated impacts of emissions from Wyoming with respect to specific ambient air monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance problems, which we refer to as “receptors.” To evaluate these impacts, and in the absence of relevant modeling of Wyoming emissions, EPA examined factors suggested by the 2006 Guidance such as monitoring data, topography, and meteorology. EPA notes that no single piece of information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.

    As noted above, Wyoming's August 19, 2011 submission does not include a technical demonstration specific to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Rather, the State relied on the transport analysis it conducted for a previous PM2.5 NAAQS, later clarifying that it had considered parts of this analysis to be relevant for the purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 standard. While EPA does not agree with the State's position that the analysis from its May 3, 2007 is also applicable to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we agree with Wyoming's determination that the existing SIP has adequate provisions to meet the CAA requirements based on EPA's supplemental evaluation. For this reason, we propose to approve the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the submission based on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information. Our evaluation demonstrates that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that the existing Wyoming SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Our supplemental evaluation considers several factors, including identification of the ambient air monitors in other states that are appropriate “nonattainment receptors” or “maintenance receptors,” consistent with EPA's approach in the CSAPR, and additional technical information to evaluate whether emissions from Wyoming contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at these receptors.

    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a detailed evaluation and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0351. Below, we provide a summary of our analysis.

    A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors

    EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three overlapping 3-year periods (i.e., 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013) to determine which areas are expected to be violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas might have difficulty maintaining attainment of the standard. If a monitoring site measured a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most recent 3-year period (2011-2013), then that monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the significant contribution to nonattainment (element 1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, on the other hand, a monitoring site shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most recent 3-year period (2011-2013) but a violation in at least one of the previous two 3-year periods (2010-2012 or 2009-2011), then that monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the interfere with maintenance (element 2) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

    This approach is similar to that used in the modeling done during the development of CSAPR, but differs in that it relies on monitoring data (rather than modeling) for the western states not included in the CSAPR modeling domain.8 By this method, EPA has identified those areas with monitors to be considered “nonattainment receptors” or “maintenance receptors” for evaluating whether the emissions from sources in another state could significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that particular area.

    8 As noted, the State of Wyoming was not included in the CSAPR modeling domain.

    EPA continues to believe that the more widespread and serious transport problems in the eastern United States are analytically distinct. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes that nonattainment and maintenance problems in the western United States are relatively local in nature with only limited impacts from interstate transport. In CSAPR, EPA did not calculate the portion of any downwind state's predicted PM2.5 concentrations that would result from emissions from individual western states, such as Wyoming. Accordingly, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions for states outside the geographic area analyzed to develop CSAPR may be evaluated using a “weight of evidence” approach that takes into account available relevant information, such as that recommended by the EPA in the Guidance. Such information may include, but is not limited to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to the NAAQS in question, the meteorological conditions in the area, the distance from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that are appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be probative to consider as to whether sources in the state may contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions can rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the presence or degree of interstate transport in a given situation.

    B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    EPA reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential for Wyoming emissions to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the Western U.S.9 EPA first identified as “nonattainment receptors” all monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m3) during the years 2011-2013.10 See Section III of our TSD for more a more detailed description of EPA's methodology for selection of nonattainment receptors.

    9 EPA also considered potential PM2.5 transport from Wyoming to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance receptors located in the eastern, midwestern and southern states covered by CSAPR and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given the significant distance from Wyoming to the nearest such receptor (in Wisconsin) and the relatively insignificant amount of emissions from Wyoming that could potentially be transported such a distance when compared to downwind states whose contribution was modeled for CSAPR, emissions from Wyoming sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same factors also support a finding that emissions from Wyoming sources neither contribute significantly to nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any location further east. See TSD at section I.B.3.

    10 Because CAIR did not cover states in the Western United States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded CAIR and thus could be considered in this analysis. In contrast, recent air quality data in the eastern, midwestern and southern states are significantly impacted by reductions associated with CAIR and because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR, EPA could not consider reductions associated with the CAIR in the base case transport analysis for those states. See 76 FR at 48223-24.

    Because geographic distance is a relevant factor in the assessment of potential pollution transport, EPA first reviewed information related to potential transport of PM2.5 pollution from Wyoming to the nonattainment receptors in states bordering Wyoming, which were located in Idaho, Montana and Utah. As detailed in our TSD, the following factors support a finding that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho, Montana and Utah: (1) Technical information, such as data from monitors in the vicinity of these nonattainment receptors, related to the nature of local emissions; (2) topographical considerations such as intervening mountain ranges which tend to create physical impediments for pollution transport; and (3) meteorological considerations such as prevailing winds. While none of these factors by itself would necessarily show non-contribution, when taken together in a weight-of-evidence assessment they are sufficient for EPA to determine that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment at the Idaho, Montana and Utah receptors.

    EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5 transport to nonattainment receptors in the more distant western states of Oregon and California. The following factors support a finding that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these states: (1) The significant distance from Wyoming to the nonattainment receptors in these states; (2) technical information, such as data from nearby monitors related to the nature of local emissions; and (3) the presence of intervening mountain ranges, which tend to impede pollution transport.

    Based on our evaluation, we propose to conclude that emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources in the State of Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that the existing SIP for the State of Wyoming is adequate to satisfy the “significant contribution” requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and that the State of Wyoming therefore does not need to adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the “significant contribution to nonattainment” requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.

    C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    We also reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential for Wyoming emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards at specified monitoring sites in the Western U.S. EPA first identified as “maintenance receptors” all monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m3) during the 2009-2011 and/or 2010-2012 periods but below this standard during the 2011-2013 period. See section III of our TSD for more information regarding EPA's methodology for selection of maintenance receptors. All of the maintenance receptors in the western states are located in California, Utah and Montana. EPA therefore evaluated the potential for transport of Wyoming emissions to the maintenance receptors located in these states. As detailed in our TSD, the following factors support a finding that emissions from Wyoming do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in those states: (1) Technical information, such as data from monitors near maintenance receptors, relating to the nature of local emissions, and (2) the significant distance between Wyoming and these maintenance receptors.

    Based on this evaluation, EPA proposes to conclude that emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources in the State of Wyoming do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that the existing SIP for the State of Wyoming is adequate to satisfy the “interfere with maintenance” requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of Wyoming therefore does not need to adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the “interfere with maintenance” requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.

    D. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant Deterioration

    With regard to the PSD portion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to all regulated new source review (NSR) pollutants and that satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules.11 On December 6, 2013, EPA approved CAA section 110(a)(2) elements (C) and (J) for Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD requirements for regulated NSR pollutants (78 FR 73445). As discussed in detail in the proposed rulemaking for that final action, the concurrent approval of PSD-related revisions which incorporated certain requirements of the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule to the Wyoming SIP action ensured that Wyoming's SIP-approved PSD program meets the current structural requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) to have a PSD program that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants.12

    11 See 2013 I-SIP Guidance.

    12 As described in the proposed action (78 FR 54828, September 6, 2013) for the final December 6, 2013 rulemaking, EPA did not approve certain portions of the State's incorporation of the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule because these portions were ultimately removed from EPA's PSD regulations.

    As stated in the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, in-state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS related to those particular pollutants may also have the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. One way a state may satisfy element 3 with respect to these sources is by citing an air agency's EPA-approved nonattainment NSR provisions addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated nonattainment areas. Alternatively, if an air agency makes a submission indicating that it issues permits pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, appendix S in a nonattainment area because a nonattainment NSR program for a particular NAAQS pollutant has not yet been approved by EPA for that area, that permitting program may generally be considered adequate for purposes of meeting the requirements of element 3 with respect to sources and pollutants subject to such program. Where neither of the circumstances described above exist, it may also be possible for EPA to find, given the facts of the situation, that other SIP provisions and/or physical conditions are adequate to prohibit interference by such sources with other air agencies' measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.

    EPA recently finalized a rulemaking which disapproved a portion of Wyoming's May 10, 2011 SIP revision that attempted to add nonattainment NSR permitting requirements to the state plan for the first time (80 FR 9194, February 20, 2015). In this partial disapproval, EPA found that this SIP revision failed to create unambiguous and enforceable obligations for sources that would be subject to the nonattainment NSR requirements. Accordingly, the State does not currently have any SIP-approved nonattainment NSR permitting provisions which would subject sources locating in nonattainment areas in the State to regulation. The State has confirmed, via a clarification letter sent to EPA on April 23, 2015, that it will issue permits to sources locating in such nonattainment areas pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, appendix S until it has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program.13

    13 EPA notes that the State's application of appendix S would only currently apply to the Upper Green River Basin 2008 ozone nonattainment area. Wyoming has had a construction ban in place and approved into the SIP for over twenty years in order to meet nonattainment NSR requirements in the Sheridan coarse particulate matter (PM10) nonattainment area (See WAQSR, Chapter 6, section 2(c)(ii)(B)).

    Because the State has committed to applying appendix S until it has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program, EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission with regard to the requirements of element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Wyoming's August 19, 2011 submission. We propose to approve elements 1 and 2 of this portion of the submission based on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information, which supports a finding that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that the existing Wyoming SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    EPA is also proposing to approve element 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from Wyoming's August 19, 2011 submission, based on a finding that the Wyoming SIP is adequate to meet the PSD requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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 proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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).

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11782 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0227; FRL-9927-69-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Utah County—Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10 Transportation Conformity AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah. On March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah submitted a revision to the Utah SIP, adding a new rule regarding trading of motor vehicle emission budgets for Utah County. The rule allows trading from the motor vehicle emissions budget for primary particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) to the motor vehicle emissions budget for nitrogen oxides (NOX) which is a PM10 precursor. The resulting motor vehicle emissions budgets for NOX and PM10 may then be used to demonstrate transportation conformity with the SIP. The EPA is proposing approval of this SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0227, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).

    Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

    Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6479, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

    EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on a distinct provision 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. See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations Section of this Federal Register.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11783 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750; FRL-9927-58-OAR] RIN 2060-AQ60 Reconsideration Petition From Dyno Nobel Inc. on the New Source Performance Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants; Final Action AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final action denying petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    This action provides notice that on May 11, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed a letter denying a petition for reconsideration of the final New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Nitric Acid Plants published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2012. (77 FR 48433)

    DATES:

    Effective May 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Nathan Topham, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0483; fax number: (919) 541-3207; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration, and the letter denying the petition for reconsideration are available in the docket the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 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 Docket is (202) 566-1742. This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration, and the letter denying the petition can also be found on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

    II. Judicial Review

    Any petitions for review of the letter and enclosure denying the petition for reconsideration described in this document must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by July 17, 2015.

    III. Description of Action A. Background

    The initial Nitric Acid Plants NSPS were promulgated on December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24881) and codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart G pursuant to section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed the NSPS three times over the past few decades. Based on the results of the third review, which we completed in August 2012, we determined it was appropriate to revise the NSPS. The revised NSPS were published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2012 (77 FR 48433). The revised NSPS (also referred to as the “final rule” in this document) included a change in the nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit, from 3.0 pounds of NOX per ton of nitric acid production (3.0 lb/T) on a 3-hour basis to 0.5 lb/T on a 30-day average basis, and additional testing and monitoring requirements. The final rule applies to new, modified or reconstructed nitric acid production units (NAPU) that commence construction, modification or reconstruction after October 14, 2011.

    Throughout the rulemaking process, we received comments, data and information that supported these revisions. This information is available in the docket for this action. The revisions were proposed on October 14, 2011 (76 FR 63878). We received additional data and comments during the comment period. These data and comments were considered and analyzed and, where appropriate, revisions to the NSPS were made and incorporated into the final rule published on August 14, 2012.

    On October 10, 2012, Dyno Nobel Inc. (DNI) submitted a petition for reconsideration of the final rule for nitric acid plants. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, a petitioner seeking reconsideration must show that the objection or objections raised in its reconsideration petition “is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” In the EPA's view, an objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule only if it provides substantial support for the argument that the promulgated regulation should be revised.

    After carefully considering the petition and supporting information, the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied the petition for reconsideration on May 11, 2015, in a letter to the petitioner. The EPA denied the petition because the information and analysis submitted by DNI is not of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, in that it does not demonstrate that the rule should be reconsidered. A summary of the petition issues and the EPA's responses are provided below. The letter from Administrator McCarthy and the accompanying enclosure, which are available in the docket for this action, explain in greater detail the issues presented in the petition, the EPA's responses to those issues, and the EPA's reasons for the denial.

    B. Summary of Petition and the EPA's Responses

    The main issues raised by DNI in their petition for reconsideration are the following: They believe the EPA should have established a subcategory and a different emissions limit for modified or reconstructed nitric acid plants that use non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR); and they argue the EPA did not meet the legal requirement of having representative emission data to establish a new emission limit.

    Regarding the petitioner's argument that the EPA should establish a subcategory for modified or reconstructed plants that use NSCR, we have several reasons why we disagree with this request.

    First, the EPA believes it is inappropriate to establish subcategories based on differences in control technologies, so it is inappropriate to establish a subcategory for plants using NSCR.

    Second, regarding the petitioner's argument that the EPA did not meet the legal requirement of having representative emission data to set an emission limit, we believe the agency had ample test data to support selective catalytic reduction as the best system of emission reduction and to establish a revised emission limit.

    Third, although some units with NSCR may not be able to meet the limit without improving their controls, based on available data we believe it is feasible for some units with NSCR to comply with this NSPS without the need for any additional controls as some existing units with NSCR are already achieving the NSPS emission limit.

    Finally, we believe other units with NSCR that are modified or reconstructed, could comply with the NSPS limit by improving their controls at reasonable costs.

    Therefore, based on our review and evaluation of all issues raised by the petitioner and relevant available data and information, we have concluded that reconsideration is not warranted.

    Dated: May 11, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11958 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 RIN 0648-BB40 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Amendment To Simplify Vessel Baselines AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils have submitted an Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Northeastern United States to simplify vessel baselines. This amendment incorporates a draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS is requesting comments from the public. The Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines would eliminate the one-time limit on vessel upgrades and remove gross and net tonnages from vessel baseline specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes. Implementing these measures would reduce the administrative burden to permit holders and NMFS, and would have little effect on fleet capacity. This action would also remove the requirement for vessels to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., “did not fish” reports) during months or weeks when fishing did not occur.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213, by any one of the following methods.

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213,

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    Instructions: 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 by NMFS. 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.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of the Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any Fishery Management Plan (FMP) amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) approved this Baseline Amendment, which would simplify vessel baseline requirements, at their November 18, 2014, and October 8, 2014, meetings, respectively. NMFS prepared the amendment on behalf of the Councils and declared a transmittal date May 12, 2015. Both Councils have reviewed the Baseline Amendment proposed rule regulations as drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the MSA. If approved by NMFS, this amendment would simplify the specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes developed by the MAFMC and NEFMC.

    Background

    The MAFMC developed the first limited entry program in 1977 for the surfclam/quahog fishery, which included restrictions on replacement vessels. This program required that a replacement vessel be of “substantially similar capacity” in an effort to maintain and not increase the harvest capacity of the fleet at that time. Over the following two decades, the MAFMC and NEFMC implemented additional limited entry programs. By 1998, there were four different sets of vessel upgrade and replacement restrictions among the various FMPs. The upgrade restrictions became confusing for fishing industry members with more than one limited access permit, because each permit had the potential to have different vessel upgrade regulations apply. In addition, some vessels added limited access permits to their vessel that originally qualified on another vessel that was a different size and/or horsepower. This results in a vessel having multiple baselines. Thus, in 1999, the MAFMC and NEFMC, in consultation with NMFS, developed an amendment to Achieve Regulatory Consistency on Permit Related Provisions for Vessels Issued Limited Access Federal Fishery Permits (64 FR 8263, February 19, 1999) (Consistency Amendment) to streamline and make consistent baseline provisions and upgrade restrictions across FMPs.

    The Consistency Amendment standardized definitions and restrictions for vessel baselines, upgrades, and replacements across all limited access fisheries. It simplified regulations for vessel replacements, permit transfers, and vessel upgrades, making them consistent and less restrictive in order to facilitate business transactions. Although the Consistency Amendment did standardize the vessel baseline requirements for the fisheries of the northeast, some burdensome requirements remain. Under current restrictions, a vessel baseline is defined by vessel length overall, gross tonnage, net tonnage, and horsepower. We determine the baseline for a limited access permit based on the size (length, gross tonnage, and net tonnage) and horsepower of the first vessel issued a limited access permit for that fishery or, for fisheries that adopted baseline restrictions through the Consistency Amendment, the permitted vessel at the time the final rule became effective.

    Current baseline regulations require that a replacement vessel or an upgrade made to an existing vessel with a limited access permit be within 10 percent of the size and 20 percent of the horsepower of the permit's baseline vessel. To respect the NEFMC and the MAFMC's intended baseline restrictions of individual fisheries, for vessels with multiple baselines, we use the most restrictive of the baselines to judge the approval of a replacement vessel or upgrade, unless the permit holder chooses to relinquish the more restrictive permit. In addition, current baseline regulations limit permit holders to a one-time upgrade of the vessel size and horsepower specifications. For example, we limit a vessel owner that has a 60-ft (18.3-m) baseline length to upgrading to a vessel of up to 66 ft (20.1 m). However, if he moves his permit to a 62-ft (18.9-m) vessel for any reason, it would constitute his one-time size upgrade and he would lose the ability to later upgrade to a vessel of 66 ft (20.1 m). He would only be able to move his permit to a vessel of 62 ft (18.9 m) or less. Because he used his one-time size upgrade, he would not be able upgrade the vessel's tonnages. He would still be able to use his horsepower upgrade to upgrade his horsepower by 20 percent, but only once.

    The Baseline Amendment would:

    1. Eliminate gross and net tonnage from the baseline specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes. Both the Councils and NMFS consider tonnages the most variable of vessel baseline specifications and, therefore, they have little effect on limiting vessel capacity when compared to length and horsepower restrictions. There is more than one acceptable method of determining tonnages, and the tonnages of a vessel can vary significantly depending on whether an exact measurement or simplified calculation is used. In addition, vessel owners can circumvent net tonnage limits by modifying internal bulkheads. Eliminating tonnages would simplify the vessel baseline verification and replacement process. In addition, it could reduce the cost burden on the industry if they only need horsepower verification because this would eliminate the need for a marine survey prior to any permit transactions.

    2. Remove the one-time limit on vessel upgrades. Eliminating the one-time upgrade limit would provide more flexibility for vessel owners in the selection of replacement vessels and upgrades to existing vessels. Some vessel owners have been constrained by the one-time limit because they or a previous owner did not maximize the one-time upgrade with a previous vessel replacement, due to cost or availability or for other reasons, and have since been unable to further upgrade the vessel. Eliminating the one-time limit would also simplify the baseline verification and vessel replacement process for vessel owners and NMFS by eliminating the need to research and document whether a vessel owner used the one-time upgrade during the vessel's entire limited access history.

    This rule proposes to remove the requirement for vessels to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., “did not fish” reports) during months or weeks when fishing did not occur. This was not part of the Baseline Amendment, but is the result of an internal review of the trip-level reporting requirements conducted by the joint Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office-Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fishery Dependent Data Committee (FDDC) during the past year. The division of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responsible for the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), in the interest of reducing compliance costs for small businesses, noted a potential cost savings for fishermen if we remove the DNF report and asked that we investigate the possibility of removing it. As a result of that review, the FDDC has recommended that the negative fishing reports are no longer necessary because the ability to determine if a vessel has engaged in fishing activity and submitted required trip reports has increased in recent years due to improved trip-level data matching and the expansion of other monitoring systems (e.g., Vessel Monitoring Systems). Therefore, in order to simplify the regulations and reduce reporting burdens for the industry, we are proposing to eliminate the requirement in this action under the Secretary's authority at section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Vessel owners would still be required to report all fishing trip activity on a monthly or weekly basis, depending on the requirements associated with their vessel permits.

    We are soliciting public comments on the Baseline Amendment and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement the revised Baseline Amendment will be published in the Federal Register for additional public comment. NMFS will evaluate the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability of the Baseline Amendment to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by July 17, 2015, whether specifically directed to the Baseline Amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove the revised Baseline Amendment, including those postmarked or otherwise transmitted by the last day of the comment period.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11902 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 95 Monday, May 18, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Organic Standards Board: Call for Nominations; Extension of Nomination Period AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of extension of nomination period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published a notice soliciting nominations from qualified individuals to serve on the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) in the Federal Register on April 9, 2015. Nominees will be considered for a 5-year NOSB term that will commence on January 24, 2016, and end January 23, 2021. The nomination period, as set in the notice, was to end on May 15, 2015. To ensure adequate opportunity for all interested members of the public to submit nominations for the NOSB, AMS is extending the nomination period by 30 days. Additional details can be found in the initial Federal Register notice at 68 FR 19059, and on the National Organic Program (NOP) Web site.

    DATES:

    The nomination period for the notice published on April 9, 2015 (AMS-NOP-15-0005; NOP-15-04) is extended. Written nominations must be post-marked on or before June 17, 2015. Electronic submissions must be received on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations should be sent to Rita Meade, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2648-So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268 or via email to [email protected] Electronic submittals by email are preferred.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Arsenault, (202) 720-0081, Email: [email protected]; or Rita Meade, (202) 260-8636, Email: [email protected]

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11947 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0021] Notice of Request To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection: (Requirements for Official Establishments To Notify FSIS of Adulterated or Misbranded Product, Prepare and Maintain Written Recall Procedures, and Document Certain HACCP Plan Reassessments) 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 requirements for official establishments to notify FSIS of adulterated or misbranded product, prepare and maintain written recall procedures, and document certain HACCP plan reassessments. The approval for this information collection will expire on August 31, 2015. FSIS is making no changes to the approved collection. The public may comment on either the entire information collection or on one of its three parts.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 17, 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-2015-0021. 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: Requirements for Official Establishments to Notify FSIS of Adulterated or Misbranded Product, Prepare and Maintain Written Recall Procedures, and Document Certain HACCP Plan Reassessments.

    OMB Control Number: 0583-0144.

    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.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq.). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

    The regulations at 9 CFR 417.4(a)(3) require establishments to notify FSIS of adulterated or misbranded product, prepare and maintain written recall procedures, and document certain HACCP plan reassessments. Accordingly, FSIS requires three information collection activities under these regulations. First, FSIS requires that official establishments notify the appropriate District Office that an adulterated or misbranded product received by or originating from the establishment has entered commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe that this has happened. Second, FSIS requires that establishments prepare and maintain written procedures for the recall of meat and poultry products produced and shipped by the establishment for use should it become necessary for the establishment to remove product from commerce. These written recall procedures have to specify how the establishment will decide whether to conduct a product recall, and how the establishment will effect the recall should it decide that one is necessary. Finally, FSIS requires that establishments document each reassessment of the establishment's HACCP plans. FSIS requires establishments to reassess their HACCP plans annually and whenever any changes occur that could affect the hazard analysis or alter the HACCP plan. For annual reassessments, if the establishment determines that no changes are necessary, documentation of this determination is not necessary.

    FSIS is requesting an extension of the approved information collection addressing paperwork and recordkeeping requirements for these three activities. FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment.

    Estimate of Burden of Average Hours per Response: 1.159.

    Respondents: Official meat and poultry products establishments.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,300.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 40,960.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 6.5.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 47,475.

    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 13, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11999 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0017] Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Certificates of Medical Examination 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 collect certificates of medical examination to determine whether or not an applicant for an FSIS Food Inspector, Consumer Safety Inspector, or Veterinary Medical Officer in-plant position meets the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved medical qualification standards.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 17, 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-2015-0017. 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: Certificates of Medical Examination.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53) as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq.). FSIS protects the public by verifying that the nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and processed egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.

    Annually, the occupants of in plant positions in FSIS inspect more than 8 billion birds and more than 130 million head of livestock. Veterinary Medical Officers, Food Inspectors, and Consumer Safety Inspectors check animals before and after slaughter, preventing diseased animals from entering the food supply, and examining carcasses for visible defects that can affect safety and quality. Consumer Safety Inspectors work in processed product inspection, assuring products are processed under sanitary conditions, are not adulterated, and are truthfully labeled. Inspection activities of Veterinary Medical Officers, Food Inspectors, and Consumer Safety Inspectors are carried out in over 6,000 privately owned establishments nationwide.

    The duties performed by in-plant inspection personnel can be arduous, requiring standing and walking 8-9 hours daily, often on slippery and hazardous surfaces. Work is typically performed in high humidity and, depending on weather conditions, warm or cold temperatures. The work involves frequent contact with animal tissues, animal body fluids, chemical sanitation rinses and water.

    FSIS plans to request a new information collection to collect certificates of medical examination to determine whether or not an applicant for a Food Inspector, Consumer Safety Inspector, or Veterinary Medical Officer in-plant position meets the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)-approved medical qualification standards for the position. These new forms ensure accurate collection of the required data. The OPM-approved medical qualification standards apply only to positions in FSIS, not positions in other Federal agencies.

    When requesting that applicants for the positions listed above undergo the medical examination, a representative of FSIS will notify the applicants in writing of the reasons for the examination, the process, and the consequences of the failure to report for an examination or provide medical documentation. Any physical condition which would hinder an individual's full, efficient, and safe performance of his or her duties will be considered disqualifying for employment, except when convincing evidence is presented that the individuals can perform the essential functions of the job efficiently and without hazard to themselves or others.

    In accordance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, FSIS will make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental limitations of qualified individuals with disabilities unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of FSIS.

    FSIS has made the following estimates on the basis of an information collection assessment.

    Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that it will take each respondent 90 minutes to complete the form.

    Respondents: FSIS Applicants for Food Inspector, Consumer Safety Inspector, and Veterinary Medical Officer in plant positions.

    Estimated No. of Respondents: 500 respondents.

    Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 750 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 13, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11997 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service South Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Jerome, Idaho. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://fs.usda.gov/Sawtooth

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 24, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 324 South 417 East, Jerome, Idaho.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Sawtooth National Forest Supervisors Office, 2647 Kimberly Road East, Twin Falls, Idaho. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Thomas, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 208-737-3262 or 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 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. Oral presentations from individuals or groups proposing projects for funding,

    2. A question and answer perdiod for proponents; and

    3. Reports from other projects presented at the end of the day.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by May 29, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Julie Thomas, Designated Federal Officer, 2647 Kimberly Road East, Twin Falls, Idaho, 83301; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 208-737-3236.

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

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Kit T. Mullen, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11906 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Assessment of Ecological/Social/Cultural/Economic Sustainability, Conditions, and Trends for the Gila National Forest AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of initiating the assessment phase of the Gila National Forest land management plan revision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gila National Forest, located in southwestern New Mexico, is initiating the forest planning process pursuant to the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. This process results in a Forest Land Management Plan which describes the strategic direction for management of forest resources for the next fifteen years on the Gila National Forest. The first phase of the process, the assessment phase, is beginning and interested parties are invited to contribute in the development of the assessment (36 CFR 219.6). The trends and conditions identified in the assessment will help in identifying the current plan's need for change, and aid in the development of plan components. The Forest hosted a series of community conversations with key stakeholders in March 2015. Additional public participation opportunities are forthcoming in the near future to discuss the assessment process—information on these opportunities and all future public participation opportunities will be made available on the Gila Plan Revision Web site (see below for the link).

    DATES:

    A draft of the assessment report for the Gila National Forest is expected to be completed by late spring 2016 and will be posted on the following Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gila/home/?cid=STELPRD3828671.

    The Gila National Forest is currently inviting the public to engage in a collaborative process to identify relevant information and local knowledge to be considered for the assessment. Once the assessment is completed, the Forest will initiate procedures pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prepare a forest plan revision.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments or questions concerning this notice should be addressed to Gila National Forest, Attn.: Matt Schultz, 3005 E. Camino del Bosque, Silver City, NM 88061.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Schultz, Forest Planner, 575-388-8280. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 5 a.m. and 5 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday. More information on the planning process can also be found on the Gila National Forest Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gila/home/?cid=STELPRD3828671.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop a land management plan. On April 9, 2012, the Forest Service finalized its land management planning rule (2012 Planning Rule), which provides broad programmatic direction to National Forests and National Grasslands for developing and implementing their land management plans. Forest plans describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources for fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time.

    Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the assessment of ecological, social, cultural, and economic trends and conditions is the first stage of the planning process. The second stage is a plan development and decision process guided, in part, by the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and includes the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement and revised Forest Plan for public review and comment, and the preparation of the final environmental impact statement and revised Forest Plan, subject to the objection process 36 CFR 219 Subpart B prior to final plan approval. The third stage of the process is monitoring and feedback, which is ongoing over the life of the revised forest plans.

    With this notice, the agency invites other governments, non-governmental parties, and the public to contribute to the development of the assessment report. The assessment will rapidly evaluate existing information about relevant ecological, economic, cultural and social conditions, trends, and sustainability within the context of the broader landscape. It will help inform the planning process through the use of Best Available Scientific Information, while also taking into account other forms of knowledge, such as local information, national perspectives, and native knowledge. Lastly, the assessment provides information that will help to identify the need to change the existing 1986 plan. Public engagement as part of the assessment phase supports the development of relationships of key stakeholders throughout the plan revision process, and is an essential step to understanding current conditions, available data, and feedback needed to support a strategic, efficient planning process.

    As public meetings, public review and comment periods and other opportunities for public engagement are identified to assist with the development of the forest plan revision, public announcements will be made. Notifications will be posted on the Forest's Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gila/home/?cid=STELPRD3828671 and information will be sent out to the Forest's mailing list. If anyone is interested in being on the Forest's mailing list to receive these notifications, please contact Matt Schultz, Forest Planner, at the mailing address identified above, or by sending an email to [email protected] In compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), please be advised that all information provided with your comments will become part of the public record and will be available for public inspection. This includes your name and all contact information provided.

    Responsible Official

    The responsible official for the revision of the land management plan for the Gila National Forest is David Warnack, acting Forest Supervisor, Gila National Forest, 3005 E. Camino del Bosque, Silver City, NM 88061.

    Dated: April 24, 2015. David Warnack Acting Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11911 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Final Record of Decision for Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of plan approval for the Shoshone National Forest.

    SUMMARY:

    Regional Forester Daniel J. Jiron signed the final Record of Decision (ROD) for the Shoshone National Forest revised Land Management Plan (Plan) on May 6, 2015. The Final ROD documents the Regional Forester's decision and rationale for approving the revised plan.

    DATES:

    The effective date of the plan is 30 calendar days after this notice. To view the final ROD, revised Plan, FEIS errata, and other related documents please visit the Shoshone National Forest Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/shoshone.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Further information about the Shoshone planning process can be obtained from Olga Troxel during normal office hours (weekdays 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mountain Time) at the Shoshone National Forest Supervisor's Office (Address: Shoshone National Forest, 808 Meadow Lane, Cody, WY 82414); Phone/voicemail: (307) 527-6241.

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The revised plan describes desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and identifies lands suitable for various uses. The plan will guide project and activity decision making and all resource management activities on the Forest for the next 15 years. The plan is part of the long-range resource planning framework established by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act.

    Dated: May 6, 2015. Daniel J. Jiron, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11914 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Current Population Survey, Basic Demographic Items.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0049.

    Form Number(s): There are no forms. We conduct all interviews on computers.

    Type of Request: Emergency review.

    Number of Respondents: 708,000.

    Average Hours Per Response: 0.0273.

    Burden Hours: 19,347.

    Needs and Uses: The Census Bureau plans to request clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of same sex marriage data as part of the basic demographic information on the Current Population Survey (CPS) beginning in June 2015. The current clearance expires July 31, 2017. The CPS has been the source of official government statistics on employment and unemployment for over 50 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau jointly sponsor the basic monthly survey. The Census Bureau also prepares and conducts all the field work. At the OMB's request, the Census Bureau and the BLS divide the clearance request in order to reflect the joint sponsorship and funding of the CPS program. The BLS submits a separate clearance request for the portion of the CPS that collects labor force information for the civilian non-institutional population. Some of the information within that portion includes employment status, number of hours worked, job search activities, earnings, duration of unemployment, and the industry and occupation classification of the job held the previous week.

    The justification that follows is in support of the demographic data.

    The demographic information collected in the CPS provides a unique set of data on selected characteristics for the civilian non-institutional population. Some of the demographic information we collect are age, marital status, gender, Armed Forces status, education, race, origin, and family income. We use these data in conjunction with other data, particularly the monthly labor force data, as well as periodic supplement data. We also use these data independently for internal analytic research and for evaluation of other surveys. In addition, we use these data as a control to produce accurate estimates of other personal characteristics.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: Monthly.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Section 182; and Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1-9.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.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 13, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11928 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1981] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 175 Under Alternative Site Framework, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the Cedar Rapids Airport Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 175, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-20-2014, docketed 3-6-2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area of Appanoose, Benton, Blackhawk, Buchanan, Cedar, Clinton, Davis, Delaware, Des Moines, Dubuque, Grundy, Henry, Iowa, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Jones, Keokuk, Lee, Linn, Louisa, Mahaska, Monroe, Muscatine, Poweshiek, Scott, Tama, Van Buren, Wapello, and Washington Counties, Iowa, adjacent to the Quad-Cities and Des Moines Customs and Border Protection ports of entry, FTZ 175's existing Site 1 would be categorized as a magnet site, and existing Site 2 would be removed from the zone;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 13612, 3-11-2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the revised examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied if the service area is limited to Benton, Buchanan, Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, Johnson, Jones, Linn, Louisa, Muscatine and Scott Counties;

    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to reorganize FTZ 175 under the ASF is approved with a service area comprised of Benton, Buchanan, Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, Johnson, Jones, Linn, Louisa, Muscatine and Scott Counties, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of May, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11842 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-943 and C-570-944] Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC) have determined that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States. The Department and the ITC have also determined that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on OCTG from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States. Therefore, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.

    DATES:

    Effective date: May 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cordell (AD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, or Shane Subler (CVD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0408 or (202) 482-0189, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 1, 2014, the Department initiated 1 and the ITC instituted 2 five-year (sunset) reviews of the AD and CVD orders on OCTG from the PRC,3 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies. Therefore, the Department notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins and the subsidy rates likely to prevail should the orders be revoked, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) and (c) of the Act.4

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review, 79 FR 71091 (December 1, 2014).

    2See Oil Country Tubular Goods From China; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 79 FR 71121 (December 1, 2014).

    3See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 28551 (May 21, 2010) (AD Amended Final Determination and Order). See also Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 2010) (CVD Order).

    4See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 18604 (April 7, 2015), and Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 19282 (April 10, 2015).

    On May 12, 2015, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on OCTG from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.5

    5See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China, 80 FR 27189 (May 12, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order consists of certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the order also covers OCTG coupling stock. Excluded from the scope of the order are casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.

    The merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.

    The OCTG coupling stock covered by the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, and 7304.59.80.80.

    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

    Continuation of the Orders

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States and revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 75l(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD and CVD orders on OCTG from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

    The effective date of the continuation of the AD and CVD orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this continuation notice.

    These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11981 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 42 assessment webinars for Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 42 assessment of Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper will consist of a series of webinars. This notice is for a webinar associated with the Assessment portion of the SEDAR process. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The final assessment webinar for SEDAR 42 will be held on Thursday, June 4, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. eastern time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; and (2) a series of assessment webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Webinar Process is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses; and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:

    1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

    2. Panelists will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11952 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY 2015 Regional Coastal Resilience Grants Program AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of funding availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to announce the policies and application procedures for the FY 2015 Regional Coastal Resilience Grants Program. Awards made under this program will support eligible entities as they develop or implement activities that build resilience of coastal regions, communities, and economic sectors to the negative impacts from extreme weather events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions.

    Funds will be available to support activities that: (1) Identify and address priority data, information, and capacity gaps; (2) develop tools, as needed, to inform sound, science-based decisions, which support regional efforts to plan for a resilient ocean and coastal economy; (3) acquire and integrate socioeconomic information with physical and biological information to improve the assessment of risk and vulnerability for planning and decision making; (4) understand how hazards and changing ocean conditions affect coastal economies, including existing and emerging sectors that depend on the ocean and coasts; (5) develop the information and approaches needed for improved risk communication, and the necessary tools, technical assistance and training tailored toward enhanced resilience to weather events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions; (6) evaluate the costs, benefits, and tradeoffs of systems-based development or redevelopment approaches that incorporate both natural defenses and hard structural solutions; or (7) support the development of sustainable recovery, redevelopment, and adaptation plans and implement programs and projects that incentivize rebuilding and development approaches which reduce risk and increase resilience.

    See the full FY 2015 Regional Coastal Resilience Grants Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO), located on Grants.gov, as described in the ADDRESSES section, for a complete description of program goals and how applications will be evaluated. Note that this funding opportunity is one of two competitions being administered by NOAA to build coastal resilience. The companion competition, the Coastal Ecosystem Resiliency Grants program, is being administered by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service to implement projects that use a proactive approach to improve or restore coastal habitat to strengthen the resilience of communities, protected resources and fisheries.

    DATES:

    Applications must be postmarked, provided to a delivery service, or received by www.Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 24, 2015. See also Section IV.C and F of the Regional Coastal Resilience Grants FFO.

    ADDRESSES:

    Application packages for proposals are available through the apply function on Grants.gov by searching for Funding Opportunity Number NOAA-NOS-OCM-2015-2004324. If an applicant does not have Internet access, application packages shall be requested from Lisa Warr, 1305 East-West Hwy, N/OCM6, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or contact her at 301-563-1153 or via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For administrative or technical questions regarding this announcement, contact Lisa Warr, Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Hwy, N/OCM6, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or contact her at 301-563-1153 or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Statutory Authority:

    Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1456c), Section 310 (“Technical Assistance”).

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA): 11.473

    Program Description

    As noted above, the purpose of this notice is to announce the policies and application procedures for the FY 2015 Regional Coastal Resilience Grants Program. Awards made under this program will support eligible entities as they develop or implement activities that build resilience of coastal regions, communities, and economic sectors to the negative impacts from extreme weather events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions. Successful applicants will develop proposals that plan or implement actions that mitigate the impacts of these environmental drivers on overall resilience, including economic and environmental resilience.

    Proposals submitted in response to this announcement shall employ a regional approach that results in improved ability of multiple coastal jurisdictions to prepare for, absorb impacts of, recover from, and/or adapt to adverse events and changing environmental, economic, and social conditions. Proposals should demonstrate coordinated effort of multiple jurisdictions (e.g., states, tribes, territories, counties, municipalities, regional organizations, etc.) and/or state or local managed areas within a specified geographic region and involve the appropriate range of partners and stakeholders to ensure project success. Collaborative projects that leverage NOAA supported programs, products, partnerships or services and support federal, tribal, state, regional, county or local plans and partnerships are preferred. Also preferred are proposals that leverage other Administration priorities and other federal resilience investments.

    Projects/proposals are expected to:

    • Result in increased resilience of coastal communities through regional activities that reduce current and potential future risk associated with extreme weather events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions; increase capacity to recover from adverse events; and/or increase capacity to effectively adapt to adverse events;

    • employ a regional approach that engages appropriate stakeholders and demonstrates collaboration and leveraging of resources;

    • result in increased access to and/or understanding of information for decision makers regarding current and future environmental, economic, and social conditions and/or increased capacity to incorporate this type of information into decision/rule making across the project area.

    Priority will be given to projects that:

    • Focus on resilience strategies that address land and ocean use, development, resource management, resource protection, hazard mitigation, pre-disaster recovery, or other similar plans. This includes the creation of new tools, training, workshops, or other resources that build capacity of decision makers or practitioners;

    • leverage available resources (such as programs, plans, partnerships, tools and trainings across government, industry, and NGOs) and/or leverage Federal funding with direct or in-kind match from non-Federal sources;

    • evaluate project results using clear measure(s) of success and monitor longer-term effectiveness of employed strategies where appropriate. The collection of additional data or information for monitoring effectiveness is eligible; however, only for the duration of the award's period of performance. If data collection is proposed, applicants are encouraged to plan for longer-term data management needs in coordination with NOAA.

    The funding instrument for awards may be a grant or cooperative agreement. In the case of a cooperative agreement, NOAA will have substantial involvement in the project. If NOAA is proposed as a partner in a cooperative agreement, the applicant must clearly identify this funding instrument in the proposal summary and cover sheet and clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of NOAA and each partner in implementing the project.

    Section IV.B. of the FFO describes the complete standard NOAA financial assistance application package and suggested information to include in the proposal.

    This competition is one of two competitions being administered by NOAA to build coastal resilience. The companion competition, Coastal Ecosystem Resilience Grants, is being administered by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to improve the resiliency of ocean and coastal ecosystems. The FFO for this program can also be found on www.Grants.gov.

    Funding Availability

    Total anticipated funding for all awards is up to $5,000,000 for FY 2015. NOAA anticipates funding approximately 5-10 awards. The maximum amount that may be requested for the Federal share of each proposal is $1,000,000 and the minimum that may be requested is $500,000. The amount of funding per project will depend on the size, location, and type of project. There is no limit on the number of proposals from any geographic area or jurisdiction. The exact amount of funds for each award will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Applicants must be in good standing with all existing NOAA grants in order to receive funds. Proposals not funded in the current fiscal period may be considered for funding in another fiscal period without NOAA repeating the competitive process outlined in this announcement.

    Eligibility

    Eligible funding applicants are: Regional organizations (see Section III.C of the FFO for explanation), nonprofit organizations, private (for-profit) entities, institutions of higher education, and state, territorial, tribal, and local governments as defined at 2 CFR 200.64, which includes counties, municipalities, and cities. The funding applicants must conduct projects benefiting coastal communities in one or more of the following U.S. states and territories: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Virgin Islands (U.S.), Washington, and Wisconsin. Applications from individuals, federal agencies, or employees of federal agencies will not be considered, but these entities may serve as collaborative project partners. If federal agencies are collaborators, applicants must provide detail on the expected level of federal engagement in the application. The lead applicant on any proposal will be responsible for ensuring that allocated funds are used for the purposes of, and in a manner consistent with, this program, including any funds awarded to an eligible sub-awardee.

    Cost Sharing Requirements

    Federal funds awarded under this program must be matched with non-Federal funds (through cash or in-kind services) at a 2:1 ratio of Federal to non-Federal contributions.

    Evaluation and Selection Procedures

    The general evaluation criteria and selection factors that apply to full applications to this funding opportunity are summarized below. Further information about the evaluation criteria and selection factors can be found in the full FFO announcement in www.Grants.gov. (Funding Opportunity Number NOAA-NOS-OCM-2015-2004324)

    Evaluation Criteria

    Reviewers will assign scores to applications ranging from 0 to 100 points based on the following five standard NOAA evaluation criteria and respective weights specified below. Applications that best address these criteria will be the most competitive.

    1. Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed project to the program goals (35 points): This ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, federal, regional, state, tribal, or local activities. Projects/proposals will be evaluated according to the degree to which they:

    • Support activities that are likely to reduce current and potential future risk to regions, communities, and existing and emerging sectors associated with extreme weather events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions; increase capacity to recover from adverse events; or increase capacity to effectively adapt to adverse events (10 points);

    • employ a regional approach that engages a range of stakeholders and demonstrates collaboration and leveraging of resources, as evidenced by letters of collaboration from partners and community members (10 points);

    • improve access to and/or understanding of information for decision makers regarding current and future environmental, economic, and social conditions and improve capacity to incorporate this information into planning and decision/rule making across the project area (10 points);

    • support other NOAA and Administration priorities (5 points).

    2. Technical and scientific merit (20 points): This criterion assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives. For this competition, projects/proposals will be evaluated according to the degree to which:

    • The approach is fully described and the stated goals and objectives are technically sound, safe for the public, and use the appropriate methods and personnel, including any methods to evaluate results and monitor effectiveness, and methods outlined in the Data Sharing Plan (7 points);

    • the project supports strategies called for or developed by regional, federal, state, tribal or local entities including but not limited to land and ocean use, development, resource management, resource protection/restoration, hazard mitigation, pre-disaster recovery, or other similar plans (8 points); and

    • the project leverages available resources, such as programs, plans, partnerships, tools and trainings within NOAA and across government, industry, and NGOs (5 points).

    3. Overall qualifications of the funding applicants (20 points): This criterion ascertains whether the funding applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. For this competition, projects/proposals will be evaluated according to the degree to which:

    • An applicant demonstrates the capacity (e.g. staffing, resources, expertise and authority) and experience in successfully completing similar projects (12 points); and

    • the project involves the appropriate partners to execute the project, as well as the key personnel from other agencies and institutions partnering on the project with the experience, expertise and/or networks needed to capitalize on available expertise (8 points).

    4. Project costs (15 points). This criterion evaluates the budget to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time-frame. For this competition, projects/proposals will be evaluated according to the degree to which:

    • The budget request is reasonable, the applicant justifies the costs requested, and the requested funds for salaries and fringe benefits are for those personnel directly involved in implementing the proposed project and/or are directly related to specific products or outcomes of the proposed project (6 points);

    • the project optimizes the cost effectiveness of the project to leverage Federal resources through strategic partnerships with collaborating institutions, agencies, or other entities (5 points); and,

    • indirect costs are based on the indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by the applicant's cognizant agency for indirect costs and that other administrative costs have been minimized to the extent possible (4 points).

    5. Outreach and Education (10 points): This criterion assesses whether the project provides a focused and effective education and/or outreach strategy regarding the NOAA's mission to understand and protect the Nation's natural resources. For this competition, this strategy should describe approaches for communicating with various audiences and employ best practices for risk communication. Projects/proposals will be evaluated according to the degree to which:

    • Engagement: The proposal demonstrates that the public and project stakeholders will be engaged in development of the desired project outcomes (8 points); and

    • Outreach: The proposal demonstrates that information generated by the project will reach its target audience and have a positive impact in the project area(s), including improved risk communication. (2 points).

    Review and Selection Process

    Screening, review, and selection procedures will take place in three steps: (1) An initial screening by competition program staff within NOAA's Office for Coastal Management; (2) a merit review; and (3) final selection by the Selecting Official (i.e., Director of the Office for Coastal Management or the Director's designee). The merit review step will involve at least three reviewers per application. The Selecting Official will make the final decision regarding which applications will be funded based on the numerical ranking of the applications, the evaluations by the merit reviewers, and the selection factors set in Section V.C. of the FFO. (1) Initial Screening. The initial screening will ensure that application packages have all required forms and application elements and meet all of the eligibility criteria. Applications that pass this initial screening will be submitted for merit review. (2) Merit Review. Eligible applications for this competition will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria and weights described in this solicitation by at least three independent peer reviewers through an independent peer mail review and/or an independent peer panel. (3) Final Selection. The competition program staff will create a ranking of the proposals to be recommended for funding using the average merit review or panel review scores, if a panel review is conducted. The Selecting Official shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors: (1) Availability of funding; (2) balance/distribution of funds: (a) Geographically, (b) by type of institutions, (c) by type of partners, (d) by research areas, or (e) by project types; (3) whether the project duplicates other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA or other agencies; (4) program priorities and policy factors as described in Section I.A. and I.B. of the FFO; (5) an applicant's prior award performance; (6) partnerships and/or participation of targeted groups; (7) adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the NOAA Grants Officer. The Selecting Official or designee may negotiate the funding level of the proposal.

    Intergovernmental Review

    Applications under the FFO are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Programs.” For states that participate in this process, it is the state agency's responsibility to contact their state's Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to find out about and comply with the state's process under Executive Order 12372. To assist the applicant, the names and addresses of the SPOCs are listed on the Office of Management and Budget's Web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc.

    Limitation of Liability

    In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). Applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required, or in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. Further details regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA can be found in the full Federal Funding Opportunity.

    The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements

    The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of December 30, 2014 (79 FR 78390), are applicable to this solicitation.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The FFO contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to, nor shall a 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.

    Executive Order 12866

    This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Order 13132

    It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

    Dated: May 13, 3015. Christopher C. Cartwright, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11956 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD815 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seabird Monitoring and Research in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 2015 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulations, we, NMFS, hereby give notification that the National Marine Fisheries Service has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Glacier Bay National Park (Glacier Bay NP), to take marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to conducting seabird monitoring and research activities in Alaska, May through September, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective May 15, 2015, through September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public may obtain an electronic copy of Glacier Bay NP's application, supporting documentation, the authorization, and a list of the references cited in this document by visiting: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. In the case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    The Environmental Assessment and associated Finding of No Significant Impact, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are also available at the same site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after NMFS provides a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for review and comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) the taking is limited to harassment.

    An Authorization shall be granted for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The Authorization must also set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat; and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

    Summary of Request

    On January 15, 2015, NMFS received an application from Glacier Bay NP requesting that we issue an Authorization for the take of marine mammals, incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucus-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) within Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Alaska. NMFS determined the application complete and adequate on February 27, 2015.

    NMFS previously issued an Authorization to Glacier Bay NP for the same activities in 2014 (79 FR 56065, September 18, 2014). No seabird research activities occurred during the effective period of the 2014 Authorization.

    Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct ground-based and vessel-based surveys to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting gulls within five study sites in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP proposes to complete up to five visits per study site, from May through September 2015.

    The activities are within the vicinity of pinniped haulout sites and the following aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Noise generated by motorboat approaches and departures; noise generated by researchers while conducting ground surveys; and human presence during the monitoring and research activities. NMFS anticipates that take by Level B harassment only, of individuals of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) would result from the specified activity. Although Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) may be present in the action area, Glacier Bay NP has proposed to avoid any site used by Steller sea lions.

    Description of the Specified Activity Overview

    Glacier Bay NP proposes to identify the onset of gull nesting; conduct mid-season surveys of adult gulls, and locate and document gull nest sites within the following study areas: Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Each of these study sites contains harbor seal haulout sites and Glacier Bay NP proposes to visit each study site up to five times during the research season.

    Glacier Bay NP must conduct the gull monitoring studies to meet the requirements of a 2010 Record of Decision for a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (NPS, 2010) which states that Glacier Bay NP must initiate a monitoring program for the gulls to inform future native egg harvests by the Hoonah Tlingit in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting sites to assess population trends over time (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble et al., 2010). Glacier Bay NP also coordinates pinniped monitoring programs with NMFS' National Marine Mammal Laboratory and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and plans to continue these collaborations and sharing of monitoring data and observations in the future.

    Dates and Duration

    The Authorization would be effective from May 15, 2015 through September 30, 2015. Following is a brief summary of the activities.

    Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct a maximum of three ground-based surveys per each study site and a maximum of two vessel-based surveys per each study site. NMFS refers the reader to the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015) for detailed information on the scope of the proposed activities.

    Specified Geographic Region

    The proposed study sites would occur in the vicinity of the following locations: Boulder (58°33′18.08″ N; 136°1′13.36″ W), Lone (58°43′17.67″ N; 136°17′41.32″ W), and Flapjack (58°35′10.19″ N; 135°58′50.78″ W) Islands, and Geikie Rock (58°41′39.75″ N; 136°18′39.06″ W) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Glacier Bay NP will also conduct studies at Tlingit Point Islet located at 58°45′16.86″ N; 136°10′41.74″ W; however, there are no reported pinniped haulout sites at that location.

    Detailed Description of Activities

    Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct: (1) Ground-based surveys at a maximum frequency of three visits per site; and (2) vessel-based surveys at a maximum frequency of two visits per site from the period of May 15 through September 30, 2015.

    Ground-Based Surveys: These surveys involve two trained observers visiting the largest gull colony on each island to: (1) Obtain information on the numbers of nests, their location, and contents (i.e., eggs or chicks); (2) determine the onset of laying, distribution, abundance, and predation of gull nests and eggs; and (3) record the proximity of other species relative to colony locations.

    The observers would access each island using a kayak, a 32.8 to 39.4-foot (ft) (10 to 12 meter (m)) motorboat, or a 12 ft (4 m) inflatable rowing dinghy. The landing craft's transit speed would not exceed 4 knots (4.6 miles per hour (mph). Ground surveys generally last from 30 minutes to up to two hours depending on the size of the island and the number of nesting gulls. Glacier Bay NP will discontinue ground surveys after they detect the first hatchling to minimize disturbance to the gull colonies.

    Vessel-Based Surveys: These surveys involve two trained observers observing and counting the number of adult and fledgling gulls from the deck of a motorized vessel which would transit around each island at a distance of approximately 328 ft (100 m) to avoid flushing the birds from the colonies. Vessel-based surveys generally last from 30 minutes to up to two hours depending on the size of the island and the number of nesting gulls.

    Comments and Responses

    We published a notice of receipt of Glacier Bay NP's application and proposed Authorization in the Federal Register (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015). During the 30-day comment period, we received one comment from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) which recommended that we issue the requested Authorization, provided that Glacier Bay NP carries out the required monitoring and mitigation measures as described in the notice of the proposed authorization (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015) and the application. We have included all measures proposed in the notice of the proposed authorization (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015) in the final Authorization.

    We also received comments from one private citizen who opposed the authorization on the basis that NMFS should not allow any Authorizations for harassment. We considered the commenter's general opposition to Glacier Bay NP's activities and to our issuance of an Authorization. The Authorization, described in detail in the Federal Register notice of the proposed Authorization (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015) includes mitigation and monitoring measures to effect the least practicable impact to marine mammals and their habitat. It is our responsibility to determine whether the activities will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks; will have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, where relevant; and to prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements.

    Regarding the commenter's opposition to authorizing harassment, the MMPA allows U.S. citizens (which includes Glacier Bay NP) to request take of marine mammals incidental to specified activities, and requires us to authorize such taking if we can make the necessary findings required by law and if we set forth the appropriate prescriptions. As explained throughout the Federal Register notice (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015), we made the necessary preliminary findings under 16 U.S.C. 1361(a)(5)(D) to support issuance of Authorization.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The marine mammals most likely to be harassed incidental to conducting seabird monitoring and research are Pacific harbor seals. We do not anticipate harassment of Steller sea lions due to the researchers avoiding any site with Steller sea lions present.

    NMFS refers the public to the Glacier Bay NP's application and the 2014 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm for further information on the biology and local distribution of these species.

    Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed Action Area

    Northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) and polar bears (Ursis maritimus) listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act could occur in the proposed area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages these species and we do not consider them further in this notice of issuance of an Authorization.

    Potential Effects of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals

    Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Noise generated by kayak, motorboat, or dinghy approaches and departures; (2) human presence during seabird monitoring and research activities, have the potential to cause Pacific harbor seals hauled out on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock to flush into the surrounding water or to cause a short-term behavioral disturbance for marine mammals.

    We expect that acoustic and visual stimuli resulting from the proposed activities has the potential to harass marine mammals. We also expect that these disturbances would be temporary and result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological effects (Level B harassment) of harbor seals.

    We included a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with Glacier Bay NP's specified activities (i.e., visual and acoustic disturbance) have the potential to impact marine mammals in the notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015).

    Vessel Strike: The potential for striking marine mammals is a concern with vessel traffic. However, it is highly unlikely that the use of small, slow-moving kayaks or boats to access the research areas would result in injury, serious injury, or mortality to any marine mammal. Typically, the reasons for vessel strikes are fast transit speeds, lack of maneuverability, or not seeing the animal because the boat is so large. Glacier Bay NP's researchers will access areas at slow transit speeds in easily maneuverable kayaks or small boats negating any chance of an accidental strike.

    Rookeries: No monitoring or research activities would occur on pinniped rookeries and breeding animals are concentrated in areas where researchers would not visit. Therefore, we do not expect mother and pup separation or crushing of pups during flushing.

    Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    We considered these impacts in detail in the notice for the proposed authorization (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015). Briefly, we do not anticipate that the proposed research would result in any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). While NMFS anticipates that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to motorboat operations or human presence, this impact to habitat is temporary and reversible. NMFS considered these as behavioral modification. The main impact associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Based on the preceding discussion, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

    Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant). Applications for incidental take authorizations must include the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stock and their habitat 50 CFR 216.104(a)(11).

    The Glacier Bay NP has reviewed the following source documents and has incorporated a suite of proposed mitigation measures into their project description.

    (1) Recommended best practices in Womble et al. (2013); Richardson et al. (1995); Pierson et al. (1998); and Weir and Dolman, (2007).

    To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with the activities Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:

    • Perform pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site;

    • Avoid accessing a site based on a pre-determined threshold number of animals present; sites used by pinnipeds for pupping; or sites used by Steller sea lions;

    • Perform controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent a stampede and select a pathway of approach to minimize the number of marine mammals harassed;

    • Monitor for offshore predators at study sites. Avoid approaching the study site if killer whales (Orcinus orca) are present. If Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees see predators in the area, they must not disturb the pinnipeds until the area is free of predators.

    • Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual presence of pinnipeds.

    Pre-Survey Monitoring: Prior to deciding to land onshore to conduct the study, the researchers would use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars from the watercraft to document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals at each island. The vessels would maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the shoreline to allow the researchers to conduct pre-survey monitoring. During every visit, the researchers will examine each study site closely using high powered image stabilizing binoculars before approaching at distances of greater than 500 m (1,640 ft) to determine and document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals.

    Site Avoidance: Researchers would decide whether or not to approach the island based on the species present, number of individuals, and the presence of pups. If there are high numbers (more than 25) harbor seals hauled out (with or without young pups present), any time pups are present, or any time that Steller sea lions are present, the researchers will not approach the island and will not conduct gull monitoring research.

    Controlled Landings: The researchers would determine whether to approach the island based on the number and type of animals present. If the island has 25 or fewer individuals without pups, the researchers would approach the island by motorboat at a speed of approximately 2 to 3 knots (2.3 to 3.4 mph). This would provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic or stampede. The researchers would also select a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.

    Minimize Predator Interactions: If the researchers visually observe marine predators (i.e. killer whales) present in the vicinity of hauled out marine mammals, the researchers would not approach the study site.

    Noise Reduction Protocols: While onshore at study sites, the researchers would remain vigilant for hauled out marine mammals. If marine mammals are present, the researchers would move slowly and use quiet voices to minimize disturbance to the animals present.

    Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated Glacier Bay NP's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

    • The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

    • The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

    • The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here:

    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to motorboat operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals exposed to motorboat operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to motorboat operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

    Based on the evaluation of Glacier Bay NP's proposed measures, NMFS has determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

    Monitoring

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for Authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that we expect to be present in the proposed action area. Glacier Bay NP submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 13 of their Authorization application. NMFS or the Glacier Bay NP has not modified or supplemented the plan based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.

    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

    1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, (i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and/or density of species).

    2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g., sound or visual stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following: The action itself and its environment (e.g., sound source characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected species (e.g., life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal (e.g., age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding areas).

    3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).

    4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g. through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival).

    5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).

    6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.

    7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.

    8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.

    As part of its Authorization application, Glacier Bay NP proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the MMPA.

    The Glacier Bay NP researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide dates and location of the researcher's activities and the number and type of species present. The researchers would document the behavioral state of animals present, and any apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof.

    Glacier Bay NP can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in the proposed action area by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.

    If at any time injury, serious injury, or mortality of the species for which take is authorized should occur, or if take of any kind of any other marine mammal occurs, and such action may be a result of the proposed land survey, Glacier Bay NP would suspend research and monitoring activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to proceed to ensure that another injury or death does not occur and to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.

    Encouraging and Coordinating Research

    Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting haul out locations to assess trends over time. This monitoring program involves collaborations with biologists from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Glacier Bay NP will continue these collaborations and encourage continued or renewed monitoring of marine mammal species. Additionally, they would report vessel-based counts of marine mammals, branded, or injured animals, and all observed disturbances to the appropriate state and federal agencies.

    Reporting

    Glacier Bay NP will submit a draft monitoring report to us no later than 90 days after the expiration of the Incidental Harassment Authorization, if we issue it. The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:

    1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities.

    2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities. Report the numbers of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of intensity including: (1) Head orientation in response to disturbance, which may include turning head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, or changing from a lying to a sitting position and/or slight movement of less than 1 meter; “alert”; (2) Movements in response to or away from disturbance, typically over short distances (1-3 meters) and including dramatic changes in direction or speed of locomotion for animals already in motion; “movement”; and (3) All flushes to the water as well as lengthier retreats (>3 meters); “flight”.

    3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities.

    4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), Glacier Bay NP shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the following information:

    • Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    • Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);

    • Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with Glacier Bay to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.

    In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), Glacier Bay NP will immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while we review the circumstances of the incident. We will work with Glacier Bay NP to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Glacier Bay will report the incident to the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 within 24 hours of the discovery. Glacier Bay NP researchers will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us. Glacier Bay NP can continue their research activities.

    Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

    All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. NMFS expects that the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes. NMFS considers the potential for take by injury, serious injury, or mortality as remote. NMFS expects that the presence of Glacier Bay NP personnel could disturb animals hauled out and that the animals may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the researchers.

    As discussed earlier, NMFS considers an animal to have been harassed if it moved greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in response to the surveyors' presence or if the animal was already moving and changed direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushed into the water. NMFS does not consider animals that became alert without such movements as harassed.

    Based on pinniped survey counts conducted by Glacier Bay NP (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble et al., 2010), NMFS estimates that the research activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral harassment 500 harbor seals over the course of the Authorization. This estimate represents 9.9 percent of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seals and accounts for a maximum disturbance of 25 harbor seals each per visit at Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock, Alaska over a maximum level of five visits.

    Harbor seals tend to haul out in small numbers (on average, less than 50 animals) at most sites with the exception of Flapjack Island (Womble, Pers. Comm.). Animals on Flapjack Boulder Islands generally haul out on the south side of the Islands and are not located near the research sites located on the northern side of the Islands. Aerial survey maximum counts show that harbor seals sometimes haul out in large numbers at all four locations (see Table 2 in Glacier Bays NP's application), and sometimes individuals and mother/pup pairs occupy different terrestrial locations than the main haulout (J. Womble, personal observation).

    Considering the conservation status for the Western stock of the Steller sea lion, the Glacier Bay NP researchers would not conduct ground-based or vessel-based surveys if they observe Steller sea lions before accessing Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Thus, NMFS expects no takes to occur for this species during the proposed activities.

    NMFS does not propose to authorize any injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expect all potential takes to fall under the category of Level B harassment only.

    Analysis and Determinations Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact' is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact finding. An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

    Although Glacier Bay NP's survey activities may disturb harbor seals hauled out at the survey sites, NMFS expects those impacts to occur to a small, localized group of animals for a limited duration (e.g., 30 minutes to two hours each visit). Pinnipeds would likely become alert or, at most, flush into the water in reaction to the presence of Glacier Bay NP personnel during the proposed activities. Disturbance will be limited to a short duration, allowing the animals to reoccupy the island within a short amount of time. Thus, the proposed action is unlikely to result in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the haul-out.

    For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, Glacier Bay NP's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, injury, serious injury, or death. These reasons include:

    1. The effects of the research activities would be limited to short-term responses and temporary behavioral changes due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities. Minor and brief responses are not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

    2. The availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid the resultant disturbances from the research operations. Anecdotal reports from previous Glacier Bay NP activities have shown that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not permanently abandon haul-out sites after Glacier Bay NP conducted their research activities.

    3. There is no potential for large-scale movements leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality because the researchers would delay ingress into the landing areas only after the pinnipeds have slowly entered the water.

    4. Glacier Bay NP will limit access to Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock when there are high numbers (more than 25) harbor seals hauled out (with or without young pups present), any time pups are present, or any time that Steller sea lions are present, the researchers will not approach the island and will not conduct gull monitoring research.

    NMFS does not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities would occur as a result of Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities with the mitigation and related monitoring, and NMFS does not propose to authorize injury, serious injury, or mortality at this time. In addition, the research activities would not take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or calving and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.

    Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) harassment anticipated and described (see “Potential Effects on Marine Mammals” section in this notice), we do not expect the activity to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival for any affected species or stock.

    In summary, NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out harbor seals during Glacier Bay NP's research activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (i.e., up to two hours per visit) and limited intensity (i.e., temporary flushing at most). NMFS does not expect stampeding, and therefore injury or mortality, to occur (see “Mitigation” for more details). Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from Glacier Bay's proposed research activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers

    As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that Glacier Bay NP's activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For harbor seals, this estimate is small (9.9 percent) relative to the population size and we have provided the percentage of the harbor seal's regional population estimate that the activities may take by Level B harassment in this notice.

    Based on the analysis contained in this notice of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities would take small numbers of marine mammals relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

    Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Glacier Bay National Park prohibits subsistence harvest of harbor seals within the Park (Catton, 1995).

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    NMFS does not expect that Glacier Bay NP's proposed research activities (which includes mitigation measures to avoid harassment of Steller sea lions) would affect any species listed under the ESA. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In 2014, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the potential effects to the human environment from NMFS' issuance of a Authorization to Glacier Bay NP for their seabird research activities.

    In September 2014, NMFS issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the issuance of an Authorization for Glacier Bay NP's research activities in accordance with section 6.01 of the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999). Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities and impacts for 2015 are within the scope of the 2014 EA and FONSI. NMFS provided relevant environmental information to the public through a previous notice for the proposed Authorization (80 FR 18359, April 6, 2015) and considered public comments received in response prior to finalizing the 2014 EA and deciding whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

    NMFS has reviewed the 2014 EA and determined that there are no new direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the human and natural environment associated with the Authorization requiring evaluation in a supplemental EA and NMFS, therefore, reaffirms the 2014 FONSI. NMFS' EA and FONSI for this activity are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

    Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, we have issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Glacier Bay National Park for conducting seabird research May 15, 2015 through September 30, 2015, provided they incorporate the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11903 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council's) Cooperative Research Committee will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., via internet webinar.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org will have details on the proposed agenda, webinar access, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In August 2014, the Council voted to suspend the Research Set-Aside (RSA) program for 2015 in order to address a range of issues, including abuse of the program and inconsistencies in the quality and usefulness of RSA-funded research. During this period of suspension, staff is working with the RSA Committee and Council to identify potential cooperative research approaches that will enable the Council to achieve these goals more effectively.

    During this meeting the Cooperative Research Committee will discuss a revised action plan and specific next steps for the ongoing review and restructuring of the Council's involvement in cooperative research. The Committee's recommendations will be reviewed by the full Council at its meeting on June 8-11, in Virginia Beach, VA.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Webinar and phone connection information, a detailed agenda, and any briefing materials will be posted at www.mafmc.org prior to the meeting.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11953 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD776 Endangered Species; File No. 19281 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Dr. Isaac Wirgin, New York University School of Medicine, Department of Environmental Medicine, 57 Old Forge Road, Tuxedo, NY 10987, has applied in due form for a permit to take early life stages (ELS) of endangered, captive shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) for purposes of scientific research.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 19281 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Malcolm Mohead or Rosa L. González, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    In directed research with shortnose sturgeon ELS, researchers propose to define the toxic concentrations of the industrial contaminants polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) and Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Twenty-thousand fertilized embryos of shortnose sturgeon would be imported annually from a Canadian captive source and exposed (2 to 3-day post-fertilization) to graded doses of the above contaminants. The laboratory tests would be run both singly and in combination with 10 different temperatures or varying levels of dissolved oxygen, representing environmental stresses. Surviving progeny would be euthanized after tests are completed each year. The permit would be valid for five years from issuance date.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11901 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-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 Groundfish Committee 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, June 4, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 1 Thurber Street, Warwick, RI 02886; phone: (401) 734-9600; fax: (401) 734-9700.

    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 items of discussion on the agenda are:

    The Committee plans to discuss, Framework Adjustment 55/Groundfish Specifications, this action would set specifications for all stocks in the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Fishing Year 2016 through Fishing Year 2018. They will also review the At-Sea Monitoring Framework Adjustment. They will review work of the Groundfish Plan Development Team and develop potential modifications to at-sea monitoring requirements in the groundfish sector program. They will provide a brief update on Amendment 18 progress, (fleet diversity and accumulation limits). Additionally, the committee will receive an update on the Monkfish Framework 9/Northeast Multispecies Framework 54. This joint action would modify Northeast Multispecies regulations to allow the declaration of a Northeast Multispecies Day-At-Sea while at sea and the reduction in minimum standup gillnet mesh size in order to target dogfish. They will also discuss other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The 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 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11950 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings, June 1-9, 2015.

    DATES:

    The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, June 3, continuing through Tuesday, June 9, 2015. The Scientific Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, June 1 and continue through Wednesday, June 3, 2015. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, June 2, and continue through Saturday, June 6, 2015. All meetings are open to the public, except executive sessions. The Council's Legislative Committee will meet Tuesday, June 2 at the Westmark Hotel, 330 Seward Street, Founders Room, Sitka, AK 99835, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    All meetings except for the Legislative Committee meeting will be held at the Centennial Hall, 330 Harbor Drive, Sitka, AK.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.

    1. Executive Director's Report (including Draft National Standard 1 (NS1) comments/legislative updates, Fisheries Forum Information Network (FFIN)) NMFS Management Report ADF&G Report NOAA Enforcement Report U.S. Coast Guard Report U.S. FWS Report Protected Species Report 2. BSAI Crab: Plan team report; Overfishing Levels/Acceptable Biological Catch (OFL/ABC) for 3 stocks 3. Final Action—Bering Sea Halibut Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) 4. Review Observer Program Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) 5. Review Observer Program Annual Report 6. Review Observer Advisory Committee (OAC) report 7. Electronic Monitoring (EM) Workgroup report 8. Observer coverage on BSAI trawl catcher vessels (CVs): Discuss alternatives 9. Final Action on Observer coverage on small Catcher Processors (CPs) 10. Determine priorities—Research Priorities 11. Initial review—Adak crab offload (T) 12. Pacific cod modeling report (SSC only) 13. Staff Tasking

    The SSC agenda will include the following issues:

    1. BSAI Crab 2. Halibut PSC 3. Observer Issues 4. Review NS Guidelines 5. Research Priorities 6. Pacific cod modeling report 7. Adak crab offload

    In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Councils primary peer review panel for scientific information as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review guidelines.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org. Background documents, reports, and analyses for review are posted on the Council Web site in advance of the meeting. The names and organizational affiliations of SSC members are also posted on the Web site.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

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

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11865 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings and hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP) to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.

    DATES:

    The American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP will meet on June 1, 2015, between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. All times listed are local island times. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP will meet at the Toa Conference Room at the Toa Bar & Grill in Nu'uli, Tutuila, American Samoa.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Schedule and Agenda for the American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP Meeting 4:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m., Monday, June 1, 2015 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Review and Approval of the Agenda 3. Issues to be discussed at 163rd Council Meeting A. Upcoming Council Action Items i. Cooperative Research Priorities ii. Five-year Research Priorities B. American Samoa FEP Community Activities 4. American Samoa Archipelago FEP Issues A. Report of the Subpanels i. Island Fisheries Subpanel ii. Pelagic Fisheries Subpanel iii. Ecosystems and Habitat Subpanel iv. Indigenous Fishing Rights Subpanel B. Other Issues 5. Public Comment 6. Discussion and Recommendations 7. Other Business Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11866 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-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 Joint Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) and Herring Committees to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 300 Woodbury Avenue, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 431-8000; fax: (603) 501-3733.

    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 committees plan to review and discuss scientific advice developed by the EBFM Plan Development Team (PDT) on Atlantic herring control rules considering its role in the ecosystem and as a forage species. Related input will also be provided by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The Joint Committee may develop recommendations on how to apply this advice for Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP. They will also be reviewing Amendment 8 scoping comments and discuss Amendment 8 goals and objectives; develop further guidance and related recommendations. The committees will also review and discuss results from the Atlantic herring operational assessment, including comments/recommendations from the May 20, 2015 SSC meeting; develop recommendations. Additionally, the Herring Committee will convene a closed session to review Advisory Panel applications and nominate individuals to fill open seats on the Herring Advisory Panel. The committee will discuss other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    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 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11949 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic 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 SAFMC will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to review stock projections for blueline tilefish. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SSC meeting will be held via webinar on Wednesday, June 3, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact John Carmichael at the SAFMC (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of the webinar.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Carmichael; 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is held to discuss yield and stock status projections for blueline tilefish. This SSC reviewed the SEDAR 32 blueline tilefish stock assessment in October 2013, and considered revised projections in April 2014. The Council has directed the SSC to review the most recent stock projections and consider if they still provide an adequate basis to support the fishery management program.

    Items to be addressed during this meeting.

    Blueline Tilefish Stock Projections

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11951 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a meeting of the Risk of Overfishing (denoted by P*) Working Group (P* WG) for the Main Hawaiian Island Deep 7 Bottomfish Fishery. The P* WG will finalize the scores for the different P* dimensions and criteria, from the last working group meeting and recommend an appropriate risk of overfishing levels. This will be the basis for the specification of Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) levels for the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to consider.

    DATES:

    The P* WG meeting will be on June 4, 2015. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The P* WG meeting will be held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment periods will be provided. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Schedule and Agenda for the P* WG Meeting June 4, 2015—1 p.m.-5 p.m. 1. Introductions 2. Recap of previous meeting 3. Review of the P* Dimensions and Criteria a. Assessment information b. Uncertainty characterization c. Stock status d. Productivity and susceptibility 4. Revisit Productivity and Susceptibility scores 5. Finalizing the P* scores 6. Scoping discussion on changes to the P* dimensions and criteria 7. General Discussion 8. Public comment 9. Summary of scores and P* recommendations Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11954 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION RIN 3038-AE24 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74936; File No. S7-16-11] RIN 3235-AK65 Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final interpretation.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 712(d)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), after consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board of Governors”), are jointly issuing the CFTC's clarification of its interpretation concerning forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality.

    DATES:

    This interpretation is effective on May 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CFTC: Elise Pallais, Counsel, (202) 418-5577, [email protected]; Mark Fajfar, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 418-6636, [email protected], Office of the General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. SEC: Carol McGee, Assistant Director, (202) 551-5870, [email protected], Office of Derivatives Policy, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    In Further Definition of “Swap,” Security-Based Swap,” and “Security-Based Swap Agreement”; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping (the “Products Release”), the CFTC provided an interpretation, in response to requests from commenters, with respect to forward contracts that provide for variations in delivery amount (i.e., that contain “embedded volumetric optionality”).1 Specifically, the CFTC identified when an agreement, contract, or transaction would fall within the forward contract exclusion from the “swap” and “future delivery” definitions in the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”) 2 notwithstanding that it contains embedded volumetric optionality.3 In providing its interpretation, the CFTC was guided by and sought to reconcile agency precedent regarding forward contracts containing embedded options 4 with the statutory definition of “swap” in section 1a(47) of the CEA, which provides, among other things, that commodity options are swaps, even if physically settled.5

    1See 77 FR 48207, 48238-42 (Aug. 13, 2012). As described in the Products Release, the interpretation included the following seven elements:

    1. The embedded optionality does not undermine the overall nature of the agreement, contract, or transaction as a forward contract;

    2. The predominant feature of the agreement, contract, or transaction is actual delivery;

    3. The embedded optionality cannot be severed and marketed separately from the overall agreement, contract, or transaction in which it is embedded;

    4. The seller of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction to deliver the underlying nonfinancial commodity if the optionality is exercised;

    5. The buyer of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement, contract or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction, to take delivery of the underlying nonfinancial commodity if it exercises the embedded volumetric optionality;

    6. Both parties are commercial parties; and

    7. The exercise or non-exercise of the embedded volumetric optionality is based primarily on physical factors, or regulatory requirements, that are outside the control of the parties and are influencing demand for, or supply of, the nonfinancial commodity.

    2See 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(ii) (excluding from the definition of “swap” “any sale of a nonfinancial commodity or security for deferred shipment or delivery, so long as the transaction is intended to be physically settled”); 1a(27) (excluding from the definition of “future delivery” “any sale of any cash commodity for deferred shipment or delivery”) (emphasis added).

    3See 77 FR at 48238-42 & n.335. As explained in the Products Release, the CFTC interprets the exclusions in CEA sections 1a(47)(B)(ii) and 1a(27) as coextensive and thus requiring a consistent interpretation. See id. at 48227-8. See also id. at 48227-36 (discussing the CFTC's interpretation regarding the forward contract exclusion for nonfinancial commodities).

    4See id. at 48237-39 (citing In re Wright, CFTC Docket No. 97-02, 2010 WL 4388247 (CFTC Oct. 25, 2010), and Characteristics Distinguishing Cash and Forward Contracts and “Trade” Options, 50 FR 39656 (Sept. 30, 1985) (“1985 CFTC OGC Interpretation”)).

    5See id. at 48236-37; 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(i) (defining “swap” to include “[an] option of any kind that is for the purchase or sale, or based on the value, of 1 or more * * * commodities * * *”). CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i) does not differentiate between financially- and physically-settled options. Certain physically-settled options, termed “trade options,” are nevertheless exempt from most requirements applicable to swaps. See 17 CFR 32.3. Additionally, the CFTC is proposing to amend its trade option exemption to further reduce the reporting and recordkeeping requirements applicable to certain commercial end users. See Trade Options, 80 FR 26200 (May 7, 2015).

    In response to requests from market participants,6 the CFTC proposed in November 2014 to clarify its interpretation of when an agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality would be considered a forward contract.7 In particular, the CFTC proposed to (a) modify the fourth and fifth elements of its interpretation to clarify that the interpretation applies to embedded volumetric optionality in the form of both puts and calls 8 and (b) modify the seventh element to clarify that the embedded volumetric optionality must be primarily intended, at the time the parties enter into the agreement, contract, or transaction, to address physical factors or regulatory requirements that reasonably influence demand for, or supply of, the nonfinancial commodity.9 The CFTC requested comment on all aspects of its proposal.10

    6 The Products Release included a request for comment on the CFTC's interpretation regarding forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality. See 77 FR at 48241-42. CFTC staff also solicited comments in connection with a public roundtable on issues concerning end users and the Dodd-Frank Act. These comments are available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1256 and http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1485, respectively. In general, commenters asserted that uncertainty with regard to the CFTC's interpretation, particularly the seventh element, has led to confusion over whether to characterize certain transactions as excluded forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality or regulated trade options.

    7Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality, 79 FR 69073 (Nov. 20, 2014) (the “Proposed Interpretation”). Section 712(d)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that “[a]ny interpretation of, or guidance by either Commission regarding, a provision of this title, shall be effective only if issued jointly by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, after consultation with the Board of Governors, if this title requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue joint regulations to implement the provision.” While the Dodd-Frank Act requires this interpretation, which was originally included in the Products Release, to be issued jointly by the CFTC and the SEC, it is an interpretation solely of the CFTC and does not apply to the exclusion from the swap and security-based swap definitions for security forwards or to the distinction between security forwards and security futures products.

    8Id. at 69074.

    9Id. at 69074-76.

    10See id. at 69076. The CFTC also requested comment in response to specific questions relating to its proposal. Id. The comment file, which includes 22 unique comments and one (1) ex parte communication, is available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1541. Commenters include American Gas Association; American Petroleum Institute; American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public Power Council, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Americans for Financial Reform; Barnard, Chris; Better Markets Inc.; Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Coalition for Derivatives End-Users; Coalition of Physical Energy Companies; Cogen Technologies Linden Venture LP; Commercial Energy Working Group and Commodity Markets Council; Dairy Farmers of America; EDF Trading North America LLC; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff; Fig, Willem; International Energy Credit Association; International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc.; National Association of Manufacturers; National Corn Growers Association and Natural Gas Supply Association; National Energy Marketers Association; Public Citizen; and Southern Company Services Inc., acting on behalf of and as agent for Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co., Gulf Power Co., Mississippi Power Co., and Southern Power Co. None of the commenters requested any revisions to SEC rules or regulations (or interpretations thereof), but rather addressed issues relating solely to the CFTC's interpretation.

    II. Overview

    After a careful review of the comments received, the CFTC has determined to finalize its interpretation as proposed with some additional clarifications. Accordingly, an agreement, contract, or transaction falls within the forward exclusion from the swap and future delivery definitions, notwithstanding that it contains embedded volumetric optionality, when:

    1. The embedded optionality does not undermine the overall nature of the agreement, contract, or transaction as a forward contract;

    2. The predominant feature of the agreement, contract, or transaction is actual delivery;

    3. The embedded optionality cannot be severed and marketed separately from the overall agreement, contract, or transaction in which it is embedded;

    4. The seller of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction to deliver the underlying nonfinancial commodity if the embedded volumetric optionality is exercised;

    5. The buyer of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement, contract or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction, to take delivery of the underlying nonfinancial commodity if the embedded volumetric optionality is exercised;

    6. Both parties are commercial parties; and

    7. The embedded volumetric optionality is primarily intended, at the time that the parties enter into the agreement, contract, or transaction, to address physical factors or regulatory requirements that reasonably influence demand for, or supply of, the nonfinancial commodity.

    As stated in the Proposed Interpretation, the first six elements of this interpretation are largely unchanged from the Products Release.11 Among them, only the fourth and fifth elements have been modified, as proposed, to clarify that the CFTC's interpretation applies to embedded volumetric optionality in the form of both puts and calls.12 Accordingly, the CFTC's discussion of these six elements in the Products Release remains relevant and applicable.13 The seventh element of the interpretation is discussed further below.

    11See 77 FR at 48238.

    12 As described in the Products Release, the fifth element did not appear to contemplate circumstances where the seller of the nonfinancial commodity might exercise the embedded volumetric optionality. See 77 FR at 48238 (“The buyer of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement, contract or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction, to take delivery of the underlying nonfinancial commodity if it exercises the embedded volumetric optionality.”) (emphasis added).

    13See 77 FR at 48238-39.

    As a general matter, the CFTC clarifies that its interpretation with respect to forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality should not be read to alter or expand the historic interpretation of the forward contract exclusion. As the first two elements affirm, the interpretation presupposes the existence of an underlying forward contract, as determined by applying the historic interpretation of the forward contract exclusion.14 The CFTC's interpretation, as provided herein, merely identifies the circumstances under which volumetric optionality embedded in such a forward contract would not operate to take the contract outside the forward contract exclusion.15 As explained in the Products Release, the historic interpretation of the forward contract exclusion remains relevant and applicable.16

    14See id. at 48227-36.

    15 The CFTC's interpretation only addresses when a forward contract with embedded volumetric optionality would be excluded from the swap or future delivery definitions in the CEA; it does not address whether a contract would otherwise fall within the swap definition. In other words, a contract that does not meet one or more elements of the CFTC's interpretation may or may not be a swap depending on the characteristics of the contract. See, e.g., id. at 48246-52 (discussing application of the swap definition to consumer and commercial agreements).

    16See, e.g., id. at 48228.

    In response to commenters, the CFTC clarifies that the fourth and fifth elements of the interpretation do not preclude bandwidth (a.k.a. “swing”) contracts, which provide for delivery of a nonfinancial commodity within a certain minimum and maximum range, from falling within the forward contract exclusion from the swap and future delivery definitions.17 As indicated in the Products Release, the fourth and fifth elements merely require that the intent to make or take delivery (as applicable) required of the underlying forward contract extends to the embedded volumetric optionality, such that both parties to the contract intend to make or take delivery (as applicable) of the nonfinancial commodity under the contract if the embedded volumetric optionality is exercised.18 The embedded volumetric optionality may therefore operate to increase and/or decrease the quantity delivered under the underlying forward contract and still not take the contract out of the forward exclusion provided that all elements of the CFTC's interpretation, as provided herein, are satisfied.

    17See Letter from Coalition of Physical Energy Companies (Dec. 22, 2014) at 4; Letter from Commercial Energy Working Group and Commodity Markets Council (Dec. 22, 2014) at 3-4; Letter from EDF Trading North America LLC (“EDFTNA”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 15-17; Letter from International Energy Credit Association (“IECA”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 4-5; Letter from International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. (Dec. 22, 2014) at 3 (each requesting clarification that the fourth and fifth elements permit both increases and decreases in volume).

    18See 77 FR at 48239 (“The fourth and fifth elements are designed to ensure that both parties intend to make or take delivery (as applicable), subject to the relevant physical factors or regulatory requirements, which may lead the parties to deliver more or less than originally intended.”) (emphasis added).

    III. The Seventh Element

    As stated in the Proposed Interpretation, the seventh element addresses the primary reason for including embedded volumetric optionality in a forward contract.19 Embedded volumetric optionality offers commercial parties the flexibility to vary the amount of the nonfinancial commodity delivered during the life of the contract in response to uncertainty in the demand for or supply of the nonfinancial commodity.20 The seventh element ensures that this purpose, consistent with the historical interpretation of a forward contract,21 is the primary purpose for including embedded volumetric optionality in the contract. In other words, the embedded volumetric optionality must primarily be intended as a means of assuring a supply source or providing delivery flexibility in the face of uncertainty regarding the quantity of the nonfinancial commodity that may be needed or produced in the future, consistent with the purposes of a forward contract.22

    19See 79 FR at 69074-75.

    20See, e.g., Letter from the Commodity Markets Council, the National Corn Growers Association, and the Natural Gas Supply Association (“CMC/NCGA/NGA”) (April 17, 2014) at 2 (“Physical end-users need these contracts to address supply input or production output uncertainty associated with the operation of a physical business.”); Letter from the Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (April 17, 2014) at 2 (“Such contracts provide us with the ability to allow our customers flexibility to increase or decrease the amount of purchase or sale of a commodity in response to prevailing market conditions.”).

    21See 77 FR 48228 (describing a forward contract as a “commercial merchandising transaction” in which delivery is delayed for “commercial convenience or necessity”).

    22See 77 FR at 48228 (“The primary purpose of a forward contract is to transfer ownership of the commodity and not to transfer solely its price risk.”). See also Letter from the CMC/NCGA/NGA (April 17, 2014) at 2 (“[Contracts with volumetric optionality] exist to permit end-users to have agreements in place so that they can effectively and economically manage the purchase or sale of commodities related to their commercial businesses, not as a substitute for a financially settled contract or for speculative purposes.”); Letter from ONEOK, Inc. (July 22, 2011) at 7 (stating that “[a]lthough the amounts that can be taken on delivery may vary, the primary intent of the contracts is not to provide price protection”).

    As indicated in the Proposed Interpretation, the focus of the seventh element is the intent of the party with the right to exercise the embedded volumetric optionality at the time of contract initiation.23 In line with the CFTC's historical interpretation of the forward contract exclusion, as discussed in the Products Release, such intent may be ascertained by the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the contract, including the parties' course of performance thereunder.24 Nevertheless, commercial parties may rely on counterparty representations with respect to the intended purpose for embedding volumetric optionality in the contract provided they do not have information that would cause a reasonable person to question the accuracy of the representation. In response to commenters, the CFTC clarifies that commercial parties are not required to conduct due diligence in order to rely on such representations.25

    23 For example, in choosing whether to obtain additional supply by exercising the embedded volumetric optionality under a given contract or turning to another supply source—whether storage, the spot market, or another forward contract with embedded volumetric optionality—commercial parties would be able to consider a variety of factors, including price, provided that the intended purpose for including the embedded volumetric optionality in the contract at contract initiation was to address physical factors or regulatory requirements influencing the demand for or supply of the commodity. See also Letter from EDFTNA (Dec. 22, 2014) at 20 (requesting further clarification that the seventh element only addresses the intent of the party with the right to exercise the embedded volumetric optionality.)

    24See 77 FR 48228 (“In assessing the parties' expectations or intent regarding delivery, the CFTC consistently has applied a `facts and circumstances' test.”). For example, if one party has an option to settle a contract financially based upon a value change in an underlying cash market, then the contract may be a swap. See id. at 48241 n. 370. See also Letter from ONEOK, Inc. (July 22, 2011) at 6 (acknowledging that “[t]he intent of the parties to defer delivery of a varying amount can be ascertained based on objective criteria, such as the pattern of deliveries in relation to variation in weather, customer demand, or other similar factors.”).

    25See Letter from EDFTNA (Dec. 22, 2014) at 22-23 (arguing that requiring counterparties to conduct due diligence in order to ensure that facts suggesting an alternate purpose for the embedded volumetric optionality are not present would be “infeasible” and may undercut the utility of the Proposed Interpretation).

    The CFTC clarifies that the seventh element's reference to “physical factors” should be construed broadly to include any fact or circumstance that could reasonably influence supply of or demand for the nonfinancial commodity under the contract. Such facts and circumstances could include not only environmental factors, such as weather or location, but relevant “operational considerations” (e.g., the availability of reliable transportation or technology) and broader social forces, such as changes in demographics or geopolitics.26 The CFTC further clarifies that the parties' having some influence over such physical factors (e.g., the scheduling of plant maintenance, plans for business expansion) would not be inconsistent with the seventh element, provided that the embedded volumetric optionality is included in the contract at initiation primarily to address potential variability in a party's supply of or demand for the nonfinancial commodity, consistent with the purposes of a forward contract.

    26 As stated in the Products Release, system reliability issues that lead to voluntary supply curtailments would be considered “physical factors” within the scope of the seventh element. See 77 FR at 48239 n.345.

    The CFTC reiterates, however, that if the embedded volumetric optionality is primarily intended, at contract initiation, to address concerns about price risk (e.g., to protect against increases or decreases in the cash market price), the seventh element would not be satisfied absent an applicable regulatory requirement, including guidance, whether formal or informal, received from a public utility commission or other similar governing body, to obtain or provide the lowest price (e.g., the buyer is an energy company regulated on a cost-of-service basis).27 The CFTC recognizes that, as commenters have pointed out, price is likely to be a consideration when entering into any contract, including a forward contract.28 However, to ensure that, as required by the first element, the overall nature of the contract as a forward is not undermined,29 the embedded volumetric optionality must, as stated above, be primarily intended as a means of securing a supply source in the face of uncertainty (arising from physical factors or regulatory requirements, such as an obligation to ensure system reliability) regarding the volume of the nonfinancial commodity to be needed or produced.30

    27 The CFTC confirms that, as stated in the Proposed Interpretation and in the Products Release, the deliverable quantities allowable under embedded volumetric optionality may be justified by a combination of regulatory requirements and physical factors, such that the quantity provided for by the embedded volumetric optionality may reasonably exceed quantities required by regulation. See 77 FR at 48238 n.340.

    28See 77 FR at 48228 (“The primary purpose of a forward contract is to transfer ownership of the commodity and not to transfer solely its price risk.”) (emphasis added). See also Letter from American Gas Association (“AGA”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 8-10; Letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users (Dec. 22, 2014) at 6; Letter from American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public Power Council, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (“Joint Associations”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 4-5; Letter from Southern Company Services Inc., acting on behalf of and as agent for Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co., Gulf Power Co., Mississippi Power Co., and Southern Power Co. (Dec. 22, 2014) at 2-3.

    29See 77 FR at 48227-36.

    30See 1985 CFTC OGC Interpretation, 50 FR at 39658. But see supra note 23; Letter from National Corn Growers Association and Natural Gas Supply Association (Dec. 22, 2014) (recognizing that price concerns are acceptable “if they arise subsequent to execution or are motivated by an applicable regulatory requirement”).

    Additionally, as stated in the Proposed Interpretation, the CFTC understands that in certain retail electric market demand-response programs, electric utilities have the right to interrupt or curtail service to a customer to support system reliability.31 The CFTC clarifies that, given that a key function of an electricity system operator is to ensure grid reliability, demand response agreements, even if not specifically mandated by a system operator, may be properly characterized as the product of regulatory requirements within the meaning of the seventh element.32

    31See Letter from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Public Power Association, the Large Public Power Association, and the Transmission Access Policy Study Group (Oct. 12, 2012) at 9.

    32 The CFTC further clarifies that its interpretations regarding full requirements and output contracts, as provided in the Products Release, remain relevant and unaffected by the discussion herein. See 77 FR at 48239-40. Similarly, the CFTC reiterates that, depending on the relevant facts and circumstances, capacity contracts, transmission (or transportation) service agreements, tolling agreements, and peaking supply contracts, as discussed in the Products Release, may qualify as forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality provided they meet the elements of the CFTC's proposed interpretation. See 77 FR 48240.

    Finally, in response to requests from commenters, the CFTC clarifies that commercial parties may choose to either rely on their good faith characterization of an existing contract (e.g., as an excluded forward contract with embedded volumetric optionality or an exempt trade option) and or recharacterize it in accordance with this final interpretation.33

    33 Letter from AGA (Dec. 22, 2104) at 12, 19 (requesting relief for market participants who reported transactions as trade options that, following adoption of the Proposed Interpretation, they would consider excluded forwards); Letter from EDFTNA (Dec. 22, 2014) at 5-7 (arguing that reassessment of the legal character of an existing contract is impractical) Letter from IECA (Dec. 22, 2014) at 3 (arguing that requiring parties to reclassify their existing contracts following adoption of the Proposed Interpretation would be unduly burdensome); Letter from Joint Associations (Dec. 22, 2014) at 11 (requesting that the CFTC allow counterparties to reclassify their transactions following adoption of the Proposed Interpretation).

    The CFTC believes that these modifications are appropriately measured to clarify the meaning of certain language in the seventh element and should not be construed as a shift in the CFTC's longstanding precedent on the difference between forward contracts and options.

    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2015, by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Appendices to Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality—Commission Voting Summary, Chairman's Statement, and Commissioner's Statement Appendix 1—Commodity Futures Trading Commission Voting Summary

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

    Appendix 2—Statement of Support of CFTC Chairman Timothy G. Massad

    I support the staff's recommendations to finalize a proposal we made in November regarding contracts with embedded volumetric optionality—a contractual right to receive more or less of a commodity at the negotiated contract price.

    As I said in my statement on the proposal, with reforms as significant as these, it is inevitable that there will be a need for some minor adjustments. And that is what we are doing. The changes we are proposing today help ensure that as we regulate the potential for excessive risks in these markets, we make sure that the commercial businesses—whether they are farmers, ranchers, manufacturers or others—that rely on these markets to hedge routine risks can continue to do so efficiently and effectively.

    Specifically, we proposed to clarify when a contract with embedded volumetric optionality will be excluded from being considered a swap. We received a number of comments on this and we have incorporated some of the concerns in the final clarification. Today, following action by the SEC last week, we are posting to the Federal Register the final interpretation. By clarifying how these agreements will be treated for regulatory purposes, the interpretation should make it easier for commercial companies to continue to use these types of contracts in their daily operations.

    In certain situations, commercial parties are unable to predict at the time a contract is entered into the exact quantities of the commodity that they may need or be able to supply, and the embedded volumetric optionality offers them the flexibility to vary the quantities delivered accordingly. The CFTC put out an interpretation, consisting of seven factors, to provide clarity as to when such contracts would fall within the forward contract exclusion from the swap definition, but some market participants have felt this interpretation, in particular the seventh factor, was hard to apply. In some cases, the two parties would reach different conclusions about the same contract.

    Today we are finalizing clarifications to the interpretation that I believe will alleviate this ambiguity and allow contracts with volumetric optionality that truly are intended to address uncertainty with respect to the parties' future production capacity or delivery needs, and not for speculative purposes or as a means to obtain one-way price protection, to fall within the exclusion.

    Appendix 3—Concurring Statement of CFTC Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen

    Today we are approving a final interpretation regarding forward contracts with embedded optionality. This interpretation is improved compared to the proposed interpretation and I am voting in favor of it. However, I am concerned that this interpretation does not provide the clarity that may be required.

    Staff has done a remarkable job in considering the comments received and drafting this final interpretation and they deserve ample praise for their hard work. Yet, staff, and this Commission, face statutory restrictions regarding the definitions of forwards and options that place limits on the relief available through interpretations of the forward contract exclusion. There is no interpretation, by this Commission or its staff, which can turn an option into a forward.

    Given the interpretive questions about the final rule defining “swap” and the difficulties in classifying forward contracts with embedded optionality, I think it is important to be clear on what this interpretation can and cannot do—I do not want people to make business decisions based upon a mistaken belief that they have received relief when they have not.

    The central issue industry faces is that, in the manufacturing, agriculture and energy sectors, a wide variety of physically-delivered instruments are used to secure companies' commercial needs for a physical commodity. These instruments often contain elements of both a forward contract and a commodity option. These contracts, particularly in the energy sector, are all commonly referred to as physical contracts, and they, according to what I have been told, often receive similar treatment from both a business operations and an accounting standpoint within the entities that use them.

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

    I have studied this issue closely, meeting with industry and the public and reviewing the comments we have received. In the case of these transactions which are used to address physical commodity needs, I have doubts about whether any public interest is served by requiring manufacturing, agricultural and energy companies to undertake such a burden and reconfigure processes to comply with Commission swap regulations.

    The limits on relief through this interpretation flow from the statutory lines drawn between options and forward contracts. Under the CEA, options and forwards are discrete, mutually exclusive categories. Options are subject to the Commission's plenary, exclusive jurisdiction. Forward contracts, on the other hand, are almost entirely excluded from the Commission's jurisdiction. If a contract, or some portion of a contract, meets the definition of an “option,” that portion which is an option inherently cannot be a forward contract.

    Under the CEA, a critical difference between a physically-delivered option and a forward contract is the nature of the delivery obligation. A forward contract binds both parties to make and take delivery of a commodity at some date in the future. The contract may only be offset through a separate negotiation of the parties. In a physically-settled option contract, only the party offering the option is bound to make or take delivery at the time of contract.

    The forward contract exclusion from the swap definition, applies only to a “[A] sale of a nonfinancial commodity or security for deferred shipment or delivery, so long as the transaction is intended to be physically settled.” The key part of this definition is that it only applies to a “sale” of a commodity. A “sale” means that one party has agreed to make and the other to take delivery of that commodity.1

    1 The phrase, “so long as the transaction is intended to by physically settled,” has been interpreted by the Commission to be consistent with its traditional approach to determining whether an instrument is a forward contract. As was stated in the Commission's proposed rule,

    The CFTC believes that the forward contract exclusion in the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to nonfinancial commodities should be read consistently with th[e] established, historical understanding that a forward contract is a commercial merchandising transaction.

    Many commenters discussed the issue of whether the requirement in the Dodd-Frank Act that a transaction be “intended to be physically settled” in order to qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition with respect to nonfinancial commodities reflects a change in the standard for determining whether a transaction is a forward contract. Because a forward contract is a commercial merchandising transaction, intent to deliver historically has been an element of the CFTC's analysis of whether a particular contract is a forward contract. In assessing the parties' expectations or intent regarding delivery, the CFTC consistently has applied a “facts and circumstances” test. Therefore, the CFTC reads the “intended to be physically settled” language in the swap definition with respect to nonfinancial commodities to reflect a directive that intent to deliver a physical commodity be a part of the analysis of whether a given contract is a forward contract or a swap, just as it is a part of the CFTC's analysis of whether a given contract is a forward contract or a futures contract. Proposed Rule on “Further Definition of `Swap,' `Security-Based Swap,' and `Security-Based Swap Agreement'; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, 76 FR 29818, 29828 (May 23, 2011) (“Proposed Products Release”).

    This interpretation was ratified in the final rule, “Further Definition of `Swap,' `Security-Based Swap,' and `Security-Based Swap Agreement'; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48208, 48227-48228 (August 13, 2012) (“Products Release”).

    An option, in contrast, is only the option to undertake such a “sale”, not the sale itself. The sale occurs only when the option is exercised. The option to buy or sell a commodity at some later point simply is not the same thing as the sale of that commodity itself. The Commission's Office of the General Counsel memorialized this interpretation in 1985:

    [T]he [forward] contract must be a binding agreement on both parties to the contract: One must agree to make delivery and the other to take delivery of the commodity. Second, because forward contracts are commercial, merchandizing transactions which result in delivery, the courts and the Commission have looked for evidence of the transactions' use in commerce. Thus, the courts and the Commission have examined whether the parties to the contracts are commercial entities that have the capacity to make or take delivery and whether delivery, in fact, routinely occurs under such contracts

    Thus, an option is a contract in which only the grantor is obligated to perform. As a result, the option purchaser has a limited risk from adverse price movements. This characteristic distinguishes an option from a forward contract in which both parties must routinely perform and face the full risk of loss from adverse price changes since one party must make and the other take delivery of the commodity. In contrast, in an option, only the grantor of a call (put) is required to sell (buy) a given quantity of a commodity (or a futures contract on that commodity) on or by a specified date in the future if the option is exercised. “Characteristics Distinguishing Cash and Forward Contracts and `Trade Options' ”, 50 FR 39656-02 (September 30, 1985)

    The Commission ratified this interpretation in 1990 in its “Statutory Interpretation Concerning Forward Transactions”, 55 FR 39188-03 (September 25, 1990) (“Brent Interpretation”) and again in 2012 its final rule, “Further Definition of `Swap,' `Security-Based Swap,' and `Security-Based Swap Agreement'; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48208, 48227-48235 (August 13, 2012) (“Products Release”). In doing so, the Commission explicitly rejected the argument that physically-delivered commodity options could fall within the forward contract exclusion.2

    2See also, Products Release at 4236-37.

    The interpretation being promulgated today does not change this, and therein lays my concern regarding this interpretation's limits.

    I think much of the confusion regarding the seven-part test has been based upon a failure to recognize the difference between forward and option contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act. The fact that a forward contract element and a commodity option are packaged together does not change the regulatory treatment of the different components. Hybrid or packaged instruments are common throughout the industry. There are hybrid or packaged instruments which may have characteristics of futures contracts and securities, swaps and security-based swaps, futures and forward transactions, and even forward contracts and commodity options. Each portion of the contract might be subject to different regulatory treatment. A security does not become a future, nor does a future become a security simply by virtue of being packaged in the same instrument.

    Relevant to the instruments we are discussing today, forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality, it seems that most of them, as described in the comments, have at least two separate, identifiable contractual obligations, each of which must be considered on their own merits. There is a forward contract element which binds the parties to make and take delivery of a set amount of a commodity. In addition, there is an embedded volumetric optionality element that binds the forward contract offeror to make or take delivery of an additional amount of the commodity if the embedded volumetric optionality is exercised by the forward contract offeree. The latter contractual obligation looks like a classic option.

    The difficulty this interpretation faces in providing the relief industry seeks is this: Even though the embedded optionality has the form of an option, can it somehow fit within the forward exclusion? The answer this interpretation gives is, essentially, yes, it can, if it can be demonstrated that, despite the embedded optionality having the form of an option, it is utilized, in practice, as a forward contract. While the seven-prong test and the interpretive guidance around it do not provide an exact roadmap for determining when embedded volumetric optionality included in a forward contract may or may not fall into the option definition, or when embedded volumetric optionality may undermine a forward contract, I think it does provide a good sense of the factors that parties must consider in making those determinations for themselves.

    Such a test, however, is necessarily a facts and circumstances test with no bright lines. Ensuring compliance with this interpretation poses a challenge, and, therefore, that is an area where I would like to see greater legal certainty for these contracts.

    In closing, I support this final interpretation, but I think industry would benefit from broader relief that provides greater legal certainty. I look forward to continuing to work with my fellow Commissioners and staff to make sure that commercial entities have access to the tools they need to manage the commercial risks of their operations.

    [FR Doc. 2015-11946 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-p 6351-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2015-0020] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting to renew the approval for an existing information collection titled, “Mortgage Acts and Practices (Regulation N) 12 CFR 1014.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before July 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

    • Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this mailbox.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Mortgage Acts and Practices (Regulation N) 12 CFR 1014.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0009.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 483.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 242.

    Abstract: Regulation N (12 CFR 1014), prohibits misrepresentations about the terms of mortgage credit products in commercial communications and requires that covered persons keep certain related records for a period of twenty-four (24) months from last dissemination. The information that Regulation N requires covered persons to retain is necessary to ensure efficient and effective law enforcement to address deceptive practices that occur in the mortgage advertising area.

    Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 15, 2015. Ashwin Vasan, Chief Information Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11985 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general 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 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to 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 requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the AmeriCorps Member Application Form. Applicants will respond to the questions included in this ICR in order to apply to serve as AmeriCorps members.

    Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, AmeriCorps State & National; ATTN: Erin Dahlin, Deputy Chief of Program Operations, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Dahlin, 202-606-6931 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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 expected to respond, including 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).

    Background

    This Member Application Form will be used by applicants who are interested in serving as AmeriCorps members. The information requested in the application form makes it possible for programs to select members to serve. Programs also use this form as an example that they customize to develop their own recruitment materials.

    Current Action

    Changes have been made align form with program and technological needs and resources. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on July 31, 2015.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: AmeriCorps Member Application Form.

    OMB Number: 3045-0054.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Applicants applying to serve in AmeriCorps.

    Total Respondents: 225,000.

    Frequency: Ongoing.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 1.25 hours.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 281,250.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Erin Dahlin, Deputy Chief of Program Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11828 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC). The meeting is open to the public. For more information about the Committee, please visit http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Advisory-Committee-on-Arlington-National-Cemetery/Charter

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet from 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Women in Military Service for America Memorial, Conference Room, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Brenda Curfman; Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Committee, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211, or by email at [email protected], or by phone at 703-614-0998.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of the Army independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to, cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the Committee's advice and recommendations.

    Proposed Agenda: The Committee will receive a budget overview briefing for various sources of funding for sustainment and construction; briefing on the American Disabilities Act compliance plan for ANC and briefings on the formal process for proposals for additional quotations in the Welcome Center and the naming of streets and paved roads. Additionally, the Committee will receive a brief on the cemetery's horticulture plan and strategy.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Women in Military Service for America is readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Ms. Brenda Curfman, the Committee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Ms. Brenda Curfman, the Committee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Alternate Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Committee. The Alternate Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the Designated Federal Officer and the Committee Chairperson, and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Committee until its next meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the Committee's Alternate Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Committee Chair determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Committee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11942 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2015-HA-0049] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. 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 information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

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

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

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Health Services Systems (DHSS) Program Executive Office (PEO), ATTN: CDR Patrick Amersbach, Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ) 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Falls Church ,VA 22042-2902, or call 703-681-0845.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System (CCQAS); OMB Control Number 0720-TBD.

    Needs and Uses: CCQAS v2.9.11 is an automated Tri-Service, Web-based database containing credentialing, privileging, risk management, and adverse actions information on direct healthcare providers in the MHS. CCQAS also allows providers to apply for privileges online. This latter capability allows for a privileging workflow for new providers, for transfers (TDY and PCS), for modification of privileges, and for renewal of privileges and staff reappointment within the system. CCQAS was CAC enforced December 2009 and as part of the Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago, VA PIV users gained access in October 2010. In November 2011, CCQAS was PKI/SSO integrated.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 80,000.

    Number of Respondents: 40,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Currently, CCQAS provides credentialing, privileging, risk-management and adverse actions capabilities which support medical quality assurance activities in the direct care system. CCQAS is fully deployed world-wide and is used by all Services (Army, Navy, Air Force) and Components (Guard, Reserve). CCQAS serves users functioning at the facility (defined by an individual UIC), Service, and DoD levels. Access to CCQAS modules and capabilities within each module is permissions-based, so that users have access tailored to the functions they perform and sensitive information receives maximal protection. Within each module, access control is available to the screen level.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11971 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (hereafter referred to as the Panel).

    DATES:

    Thursday, June 11, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William H. Blanche, Alternate DFO, Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101. Telephone: (703) 681-2890. Fax: (703) 681-1940. Email Address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, as amended) and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended).

    Purpose of Meeting: The Panel will review and comment on recommendations made to the Director of Defense Health Agency, by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, regarding the Uniform Formulary.

    Meeting Agenda 1. Sign-In 2. Welcome and Opening Remarks 3. Public Citizen Comments 4. Scheduled Therapeutic Class Reviews (Comments will follow each agenda item) a. Newer Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin b. Hepatitis Antivirals (Hepatitis C) 5. Designated Newly Approved Drugs in Already-Reviewed Classes 6. Pertinent Utilization Management Issues

    7. Panel Discussions and Vote

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and will be provided only to the first 220 people signing-in. All persons must sign-in legibly.

    Administrative Work Meeting: Prior to the public meeting, the Panel will conduct an Administrative Work Meeting from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. to discuss administrative matters of the Panel. The Administrative Work Meeting will be held at the Naval Heritage Center, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.160, the Administrative Work Meeting will be closed to the public.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Panel at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Panel's Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The DFO's contact information can be obtained from the General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Committee Act Database at http://facadatabase.gov/.

    Written statements that do not pertain to the scheduled meeting of the Panel may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than 5 business days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.

    Public Comments: In addition to written statements, the Panel will set aside 1 hour for individuals or interested groups to address the Panel. To ensure consideration of their comments, individuals and interested groups should submit written statements as outlined in this notice; but if they still want to address the Panel, then they will be afforded the opportunity to register to address the Panel. The Panel's DFO will have a “Sign-Up Roster” available at the Panel meeting for registration on a first-come, first-serve basis. Those wishing to address the Panel will be given no more than 5 minutes to present their comments, and at the end of the 1 hour time period, no further public comments will be accepted. Anyone who signs-up to address the Panel, but is unable to do so due to the time limitation, may submit their comments in writing; however, they must understand that their written comments may not be reviewed prior to the Panel's deliberation.

    To ensure timeliness of comments for the official record, the Panel encourages that individuals and interested groups consider submitting written statements instead of addressing the Panel.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11977 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2015-0017] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Armed Forces Medical Examiner (AFMES), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Armed Forces Repository Specimen Samples for the Identification or Remains (AFRSSIR), a part of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES), announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. 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 information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Armed Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains, Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES), 115 Purple Heart Drive, Dover AFB, DE, 19902-5051, ATTN: Mr. John Martin, Legal Counsel, AFMES at (302) 346-8634.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Donor Specimen Card, OMB Control Number: 0702-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collected will be used for the identification of human remains. The principal purpose of the information is to identify reference specimen samples that will routinely be stored and not analyzed until needed for remains identification program purposes.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households and Federal Government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 62,500.

    Number of Respondents: 250,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondents are deploying civilian or contractors and military personnel family members. The principal purpose of the collection is identify reference specimen samples that will be stored and not analyzed until needed for remain identification purposes. The donors at various military collection points and other federal agencies provide a blood sample which is stained on laboratory grade blood stain card (BSC). The identifying information on the blood stain card provided the donor reflects the individual's full name, signature, social security number (SSN), date of birth collection date and branch of service. The BSC is air dried and vacuumed sealed in a poly foil pouch. An adhesive label reflecting the donor information and redacted (SSN) is printed on the label, along with the unique accession number. In the event of the donor's death, the blood sample is scientifically analyzed and a DNA profile is created. This profile is then compared with the post-mortem sample obtained at the autopsy for positive identification.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11857 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Predominantly Black Institutions Competitive Grant Program AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information:

    Predominantly Black Institutions Competitive Grant Program (PBI Program)

    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.382A.

    Dates:

    Applications Available: May 18, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 2, 2015.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 31, 2015.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the PBI Program is to strengthen Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs) to carry out programs in the following areas: science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM); health education; internationalization or globalization; teacher preparation; or improving educational outcomes of African-American males.

    Background: We encourage applicants to read carefully the Selection Criteria section of this notice. Consistent with the Department's increasing emphasis in recent years on promoting evidence-based practices through our grant competitions, the Secretary will evaluate applications on the extent to which the proposed project is supported by a logic model that meets the evidence standard of “strong theory” (as defined in this notice). Resources to assist applicants in creating a logic model can be found here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014007.pdf.

    Priorities: This notice contains two competitive preference priorities. These priorities are from the Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425).

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an application up to three additional points for each priority, for a total of up to six additional points, depending on how well the application meets each of these priorities.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1: Increasing Postsecondary Access, Affordability, and Completion (up to 3 points).

    Projects that are designed to address one or both of the following:

    (a) Reducing the net cost, median student loan debt, and likelihood of student loan default for high-need students who enroll in college, other postsecondary education, or other career and technical education.

    (b) Supporting the development and implementation of high-quality online or hybrid credit-bearing and accessible learning opportunities that reduce the cost of higher education, reduce time to degree completion, or allow students to progress at their own pace.

    Competitive Preference Priority 2: Improving Teacher Effectiveness and Promoting Equitable Access to Effective Teachers (up to 3 points).

    Projects that are designed to increase the number and percentage of effective teachers in lowest-performing schools, schools in rural local educational agencies, or schools with high concentrations of students from low-income families and minority students, through such activities as:

    (a) Improving the preparation, recruitment, selection, and early career development of teachers; implementing performance-based certification systems; reforming compensation and advancement systems; and reforming hiring timelines and systems.

    (b) Improving the retention of effective teachers through such activities as creating or enhancing opportunities for teachers' professional growth; delivering professional development to teachers that is relevant, effective, and outcome-oriented; reforming compensation and advancement systems; and improving workplace conditions to create opportunities for successful teaching and learning.

    Definitions: The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities and from 34 CFR 77.1 and apply to the priorities and selection criteria in this notice:

    High-minority school means a school as that term is defined by a local educational agency (LEA), which must define the term in a manner consistent with its State's Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The applicant must provide the definition(s) of high-minority schools used in its application.

    High-need students means students who are at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners.

    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    Note:

    In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (www.relpacific.mcrel.org/PERR.html or http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544779.pdf) to help design their logic models.

    Lowest-performing schools means—

    For a State with an approved request for flexibility under the ESEA, priority schools or Tier I and Tier II schools that have been identified under the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program.

    For any other State, Tier I and Tier II schools that have been identified under the SIG program.

    Persistently-lowest achieving school means, as determined by the State—

    (a)(1) Any Title I school that has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA and that—

    (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or

    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and

    (2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that—

    (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or

    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.

    (b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both—

    (i) The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and

    (ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group.

    Priority schools means schools that, based on the most recent data available, have been identified as among the lowest-performing schools in the State. The total number of priority schools in a State must be at least five percent of the Title I schools in the State. A priority school is—

    (a) A school among the lowest five percent of Title I schools in the State based on the achievement of the “all students” group in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the state educational agency's (SEA's) differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, and has demonstrated a lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group;

    (b) A Title I-participating or Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; or

    (c) A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program that is using SIG funds to implement a school intervention model.

    Regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a General Education Development credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award.

    Rural local educational agency means an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program or the Rural and Low-Income School program authorized under title VI, part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department's Web site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    Tier I schools means—

    (a) A Title I school that has been identified as in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA and that is identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1) of the definition of persistently-lowest achieving school.

    (b) An elementary school that is eligible for title I, part A funds that—

    (1)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years; or

    (ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and

    (2) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the definition of persistently-lowest achieving school.

    Tier II schools means—

    (a) A secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, title I, part A funds and is identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of persistently-lowest achieving schools.

    (b) A secondary school that is eligible for title I, part A funds that—

    (1)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years; or

    (ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and

    (2)(i) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the definition of persistently-lowest achieving school; or

    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1067q.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $13,920,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $600,000.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 23.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: To qualify as an eligible institution under the PBI Program, an institution of higher education (IHE) must—

    (a) Have an enrollment of needy students, as defined by section 371(c)(3) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1067q(c)(3)).

    The term enrollment of needy students means the enrollment at the eligible IHE with respect to which not less than 50 percent of the undergraduate students enrolled in an academic program leading to a degree—

    (i) In the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the determination is made, were Federal Pell Grant recipients for such year;

    (ii) Come from families that receive benefits under a means-tested Federal benefit program (as defined in section 371(c)(5) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1067q(c)(5));

    (iii) Attended a public or nonprofit private secondary school that—

    (A) Is in the school district of an LEA that was eligible for assistance under part A of title I of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.), for any year during which the student attended such secondary school; and

    (B) For the purpose of this paragraph and for that year, was determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations and after consultation with the SEA of the State in which the school is located) to be a school in which the enrollment of children counted under a measure of poverty described in section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)) exceeds 30 percent of the total enrollment of such school; or

    (iv) Are first-generation college students, as that term is defined in section 402A(h) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(h)), and a majority of such first-generation college students are low-income individuals, as that term is defined in section 402A(h) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(h));

    (b) Have an average educational and general expenditure that is low, per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student, in comparison with the average educational and general expenditure per FTE undergraduate student of IHEs that offer similar instruction. The Secretary may waive this requirement, in accordance with section 392(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1068a(b)), in the same manner as the Secretary applies the waiver requirements to grant applicants under section 312(b)(1)(B) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(b)(1)(B));

    (c) Have an enrollment of undergraduate students—

    (i) That is at least 40 percent Black American students;

    (ii) That is at least 1,000 undergraduate students;

    (iii) Of which not less than 50 percent of the undergraduate students enrolled at the institution are low-income individuals, as that term is defined in section 402A(h) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(h)), or first-generation college students, as that term is defined in section 402A(h) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(h)); and

    (iv) Of which not less than 50 percent of the undergraduate students are enrolled in an educational program leading to a bachelor's or associate's degree that the institution is licensed to award by the State in which the institution is located;

    (d) Be legally authorized to provide, and provide, within the State an educational program for which the IHE awards a bachelor's degree or, in the case of a junior or community college, an associate's degree;

    (e) Be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered, or be, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation; and

    (f) Not be receiving assistance under part B of title III or part A of title V of the HEA or an annual authorization of appropriations under the Act of March 2, 1867 (20 U.S.C. 123).

    Note:

    The notice for applying for designation as an eligible institution was published on November 3, 2014 (75 FR 65197) and applications were due on December 22, 2014. Only institutions that submitted applications by the deadline date and that the Department determined are eligible may apply for a grant.

    Applicants must provide, as an attachment to the application, the documentation the institution relied upon to determine that at least 40 percent of the institution's undergraduate enrollment are Black American students. The 40 percent requirement applies only to undergraduate Black American students and is calculated based upon unduplicated undergraduate enrollment. Instructions for formatting and submitting the verification documentation are in the application package for this competition.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application via the Internet at Grants.gov. If you do not have access to the Internet, please contact Bernadette D. Miles, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-8513. Telephone: (202) 502-7616.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission:

    Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria and the competitive preference priorities that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We have established the following mandatory page limits. You must limit the section of the application narrative that addresses:

    • The selection criteria to no more than 40 pages.

    • A competitive preference priority, if you are addressing one or both, to no more than three pages (for a total of six pages if you address both).

    Accordingly, under no circumstances may the application narrative exceed 46 pages. Please include a separate heading for each competitive preference priority that you address.

    For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limit, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1” margins.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, and all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. These items may be single-spaced. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative count toward the page limit.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. Applications submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet SF 424; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; or Part IV, the assurances and certifications. The page limit also does not apply to the table of contents, the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative for purposes of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria and priorities in the application narrative.

    We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: May 18, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 2, 2015.

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 31, 2015.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the PBI Program, CFDA number 84.382A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the PBI Program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.382, not 84.382A).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Bernadette D. Miles, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6025, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Fax: (202) 502-7861.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:

    U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.382A) LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:

    U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.382A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210. Applicants must address each of the following selection criteria. We will award up to 100 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion are noted in parentheses.

    a. Need for project. (Maximum 15 points) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    1. The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project. (5 points)

    2. The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals. (5 points)

    3. The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (5 points)

    b. Quality of the project design. (Maximum 30 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    1. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (10 points)

    2. The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (10 points)

    3. The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice). (10 points)

    c. Quality of project services. (Maximum 10 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers:

    1. The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (5 points)

    2. The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (5 points)

    d. Quality of project personnel. (Maximum 10 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

    In addition, the Secretary considers:

    1. The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator. (5 points)

    2. The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (5 points)

    e. Adequacy of resources. (Maximum 5 points) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    1. The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project. (3 points)

    2. The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. (2 points)

    f. Quality of the management plan. (Maximum 15 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    1. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (5 points)

    2. The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (5 points)

    3. The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (5 points)

    g. Quality of the project evaluation. (Maximum 15 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers:

    1. The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (5 points)

    2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible. (5 points)

    3. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (5 points)

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). Please see the application package for details of annual and final reporting requirements. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: The Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the PBI Program:

    (a) The percentage of change in the number of full-time, degree-granting undergraduate students enrolled at PBIs.

    (b) The percentage of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year PBIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same four-year PBI.

    (c) The percentage of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students at two-year PBIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same two-year PBI.

    (d) The percentage of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year PBIs who graduate within six years of enrollment.

    (e) The percentage of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year PBIs who graduate within three years of enrollment.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    For Further Information Contact: Bernadette D. Miles, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6025, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Telephone: (202) 502-7616 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11986 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0005] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge: Descriptive Study of Tiered Quality Ratings and Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 States AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 17, 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-0005 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 Tracy Rimdzius, 202-208-7154.

    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: Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge: Descriptive Study of Tiered Quality Ratings and Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 States.

    OMB Control Number: 1850—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 24.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 87.

    Abstract: The Study of Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (RTT-ELC TQRIS) will collect data from two to three RTT-ELC states on TQRIS ratings, component-level ratings, indicator-level ratings, and kindergarten entry assessments. In the event that the kindergarten entry assessment data are not available from state databases, the study will reach out to selected districts in the RTT-ELC states to collect such data. If this step proves necessary, the study will reach out to up to 42 districts in order to ultimately recruit 14 districts from which to collect assessment data. The study will use these data to conduct analyses of the relationship between TQRIS ratings and child outcome measures to inform ongoing development and improvement of TQRIS systems at the state level.

    Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11940 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Countries AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Record of Decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) announces its decision in FE Docket No. 12-97-LNG to issue DOE/FE Order No. 3638, granting long-term, multi-contract authorization for Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (collectively “CMI”) to engage in export of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) in an amount up to 782 million million Btu (million MMBtu) per year, which is equivalent to approximately 767 billion cubic feet (“Bcf”) of natural gas per year, for a 20-year period commencing the earlier of the date of first export or seven-years from the date of issuance of the authorization requested. CMI is seeking authorization to export LNG from the proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project (“Liquefaction Project”) near Corpus Christi, Texas, to any nation with which the United States has not entered into a free trade agreement (“FTA”) that requires national treatment for trade in natural gas (non-FTA countries). Order No. 3638 is issued under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) and 10 CFR part 590 of the DOE regulations. DOE participated as a cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) in preparing an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Liquefaction Project and associated pipeline that, if constructed, will support the export authorization sought from DOE's Office of Fossil Energy (“DOE/FE”).

    ADDRESSES:

    The EIS and this Record of Decision (“ROD”) are available on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) Web site at http://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents. Order No. 3638 is available on DOE/FE's Web site at http://energy.gov/fe/downloads/listing-doefe-authorizations-issued-2015. For additional information about the docket in these proceedings, contact Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain additional information about the project, the EIS, or the ROD, contact Mr. John Anderson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil & Gas Global Security & Supply, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5600; or Mr. Edward LeDuc, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Environment, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4007.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE prepared this ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321, et seq.), and in compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) implementing regulations for NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500 through 1508), DOE's implementing procedures for NEPA (10 CFR part 1021), and DOE's “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements” (10 CFR part 1022).

    Background

    Cheniere Marketing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, is affiliated with Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (Cheniere Marketing, LLC's co-Applicant in this proceeding) and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. (“CCP”), the developers of the Corpus Christi LNG Project (“Corpus Christi LNG Project” or “Project” collectively refers to the Liquefaction Project and the Cheniere Pipeline). Cheniere Marketing, LLC is an indirect subsidiary of Cheniere Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in Houston, Texas. Cheniere Energy, Inc. is a developer of LNG terminals and natural gas pipelines on the Gulf Coast, including the Corpus Christi LNG Project.

    Cheniere Marketing, LLC filed an application (“Application”) with DOE/FE on August 31, 2012, seeking long-term, multi-contract authorization to export to non-FTA countries up to 782 million MMBtu per year of LNG, equivalent to approximately 767 Bcf per year of natural gas, for a period of 22 years beginning on the earlier of the date of first export or eight years from the date the authorization is granted by DOE/FE. On October 10, 2012, Cheniere Marketing, LLC clarified that it is requesting authorization to export LNG both on its own behalf and as agent for other parties who hold title to the LNG at the point of export. On August 15, 2014, Cheniere Marketing, LLC amended its Application to include Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC as an additional applicant.

    The Application was filed in conjunction with the Liquefaction Project being developed by Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. at the site of the previously authorized import terminal and associated pipeline in San Patricia and Nueces Counties Texas.1 Concurrent with the Application, Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC filed an application with FERC for authorization pursuant to Section 3(a) of the NGA 2 to site, construct and operate the Liquefaction Project. In addition, Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. filed an application with the FERC pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA to construct, own, and operate the Cheniere Pipeline (“Pipeline”) to connect the Liquefaction Project to interstate and intrastate natural gas supplies and markets.

    1 The CCL Project is being developed at the same general locations proposed for the previously authorized Corpus Christi LNG L.P. import terminal and associated pipeline. See Corpus Christi LNG L.P. and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline Company, Order Granting Authority Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and Issuing Certificates, 111 FERC ¶ 61,081 (2005). Since the facilities were never constructed, the Commission vacated Corpus Christi LNG, L.P.'s and Corpus Christi Pipeline Company's authorizations to construct the proposed LNG facility and associated pipeline. Corpus Christi LNG, L.P., 139 FERC ¶ 61,195 (2012).

    2 The authority to regulate the imports and exports of natural gas, including liquefied natural gas, under section 3 of the NGA (15 U.S.C. 717b) has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FE in Redelegation Order No. 00-006.02 issued on November 17, 2014.

    On August 31, 2012, in Docket No. 12-99-LNG, Cheniere Marketing, LLC filed with DOE/FE a separate application for long-term multi-contract authorization to engage in the export of LNG in an amount up to 782 million MMBtu per year, to any nation with which the United States has or in the future will have an FTA that requires national treatment for trade in natural gas; that has developed, or in the future develops, the capacity to import LNG; and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. On October 16, 2012, DOE/FE Order No. 3164 was issued in FE Docket No 12-99-LNG granting long-term export authorization to FTA countries from the Project.3

    3Cheniere Marketing, LLC, Order Granting Long-Term Multi-Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project to Free Trade Agreement Nations, DOE/FE Order No. 3164, October 16, 2012 (FE Docket No 12-99-LNG).

    Project Description

    The Liquefaction Project will be located on a 991-acre site located along the northern shore of the La Quinta Channel north and east of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas and will include three ConocoPhillips Optimized CascadeSM LNG trains, each capable of liquefying approximately 700 million standard cubic feet (MMcf) per day of natural gas. Natural gas will be liquefied into LNG and stored in three 160,000 cubic meters LNG storage tanks, each equipped with five in-tank well columns and safety and monitoring systems. The Liquefaction Project will also include two trains of ambient air vaporizers, each with an average vaporization capacity of approximately 200 MMcf per day of natural gas, and marine terminal facilities with two LNG carrier berths. The Pipeline will include an approximately 23-mile-long, 48-inch-diameter pipeline and two compressor stations to be located wholly within San Patricio County, Texas. The Pipeline will function to transport domestic natural gas to the Liquefaction Project for liquefaction and export, as well as to transport regasified imported LNG from the LNG terminal to interconnections with the existing pipeline systems.

    The EIS Process

    In accordance with NEPA, FERC issued a draft EIS for the proposed Corpus Christi LNG Project on June 13, 2014. The notice of availability (“NOA”) for the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2014 (79 FR 35344). The NOA included notice of a public comment meeting on July 15, 2014, in Portland, Texas. The NOA also provided summary information regarding the draft EIS. Copies of the draft EIS were also sent to agencies, elected officials, media organizations, Native American Tribes, private landowners, and other interested parties.

    Issues raised by commenters included concerns regarding: Air pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation and compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards), construction dust and noise vibrations, land use changes, impacts of water discharges on aquatic species (including impacts to an essential fish habitat (“EFH”)), light pollution, visual impacts, public safety and lack of an emergency response plan, water use and CMI's source of water, impacts on property values, expanding the scope of the cumulative impact analysis and alternatives analysis, recreational impacts and workforce availability.4

    4See Final EIS at 1-12, Table 1.4-1 Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Scoping Process for the Corpus Christi LNG Project.

    The final EIS was published on October 8, 2014, and recommended that the FERC approve the Corpus Christi LNG Project. It concluded that the Project will result in some adverse environmental impacts; however, those impacts would not be significant if the Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

    Accordingly FERC issued an Order 5 granting authorization to the Project on December 30, 2014, subject to the 104 environmental conditions contained in Appendix A of that Order.

    5Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P., Order Granting Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 149 FERC ¶ 61,283 (December 30, 2014).

    In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, after an independent review of the FERC's final EIS, DOE adopted the EIS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of that adoption in the Federal Register on April 24, 2015 (80 FR 22992).

    Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States (“Addendum”)

    On June 4, 2014, DOE/FE published the Draft Addendum for public comment (79 FR 32258). Although not required by NEPA, DOE/FE prepared the Addendum in an effort to be responsive to the public and to provide the best information available on a subject that had been raised by commenters. The Addendum is a review of existing literature and was intended to provide information only on the resource areas potentially impacted by unconventional gas production.

    The 45-day comment period on the Draft Addendum closed on July 21, 2014. DOE/FE received 40,745 comments in 18 separate submissions, and considered those comments in issuing the Addendum on August 15, 2014. DOE/FE provided a summary of the comments received and responses to substantive comments in Appendix B of the Addendum. DOE/FE has incorporated the Draft Addendum, comments, and final Addendum into the record in its CMI proceeding.

    Alternatives

    The EIS conducted an alternatives analysis for the Liquefaction Project that could achieve the Project objectives. The range of alternatives analyzed included the No-Action Alternative, system alternatives, alternative Liquefaction Project sites, alternative Pipeline routes, and alternative compressor station sites. Alternatives were evaluated and compared to the Liquefaction Project to determine if these alternatives were environmentally preferable.

    While the No-Action Alternative would avoid the potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts identified in the EIS, adoption of this alternative would preclude meeting the Project objectives. Other LNG export/import projects could also be developed elsewhere in the Gulf Coast region or in other areas of the United States, but would likely result in similar or potentially greater environmental impacts than those of the proposed Project. The No-Action Alternative could also require potential end users to make other arrangements to obtain natural gas service, or continue the use of alternative fossil fuel energy sources (such as coal or fuel oil) to compensate for the reduced availability of natural gas that would otherwise be supplied by the Corpus Christi LNG Project.

    The EIS evaluated 12 system alternatives for the Project, including 6 operating LNG import terminals in the Gulf of Mexico area, and 6 proposed or planned export projects along the Gulf Coast. All of the systems were eliminated from further consideration for reasons that include the need for substantial construction beyond that currently proposed, production volume limitations, in-service dates scheduled significantly beyond the Project schedule, and potential environmental impacts that were considered comparable to or greater than those of the Project.

    The EIS also evaluated three alternative Liquefaction Project sites, two in proximity to the proposed site and one near Brownsville, Texas. Construction of the terminal at each of the alternative sites would have comparable or greater environmental impacts when compared to the proposed terminal site; therefore, none of the three sites evaluated were determined to be environmentally preferable.

    Approximately 86 percent of the Pipeline would be co-located, overlap, or parallel existing rights-of-way, so many types of environmental impacts have already been reduced or avoided. While two route alternatives were evaluated, the EIS did not identify any site-specific environmental concerns along the proposed route that would make the alternative pipeline routes preferable.

    The EIS evaluated a total of five alternative sites for the proposed compressor stations but determined that none of these sites were environmentally preferable to the proposed sites.

    Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    When compared against the other action alternatives assessed in the EIS, as discussed above, the Corpus Christi LNG Project is the environmentally preferred alternative. While the No-Action Alternative would avoid the environmental impacts identified in the EIS, adoption of this alternative would not meet the Project objectives.

    Decision

    DOE/FE has decided to issue Order No. 3638 to grant the long-term, multi-contract authorization for CMI to engage in exports of domestically produced liquefied natural gas in an amount up to 767 Bcf per year for a 20-year period, commencing the earlier of the date of first export or seven-years from the date of issuance of the authorization requested. The authorization is to export LNG from the proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project to any nation with which the United States does not now or in the future have an FTA requiring the national treatment for trade in natural gas, that has, or in the future develops, the capacity to import LNG and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy.

    Concurrently with this Record of Decision, DOE/FE is issuing Order No. 3638 in which it finds that the granting of the requested authorization has not been shown to be inconsistent with the public interest, and that the Application should be granted subject to compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in Order No. 3638, including the environmental conditions adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix A. Additionally, the authorization is conditioned on CMI's compliance with any other preventative and mitigative measures imposed by other Federal or state agencies.

    Basis of Decision

    DOE/FE's decision is based upon the analysis of potential environmental impacts presented in the EIS, and DOE/FE's determination in Order No. 3638 that the opponents of the Application have failed to overcome the statutory presumption that the proposed export authorization is not inconsistent with the public interest. Although not required by NEPA, DOE/FE also considered the Addendum, which summarizes available information on potential upstream impacts associated with unconventional natural gas activities, such as hydraulic fracturing.

    Mitigation

    As a condition of its decision to issue Order No. 3638 authorizing CMI to export LNG to non-FTA countries, DOE/FE is imposing requirements that will avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of the project. These conditions include the environmental conditions adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix A. Mitigation measures beyond those included in DOE/FE Order No. 3638 that are enforceable by other Federal and state agencies are additional conditions of Order No. 3638. With these conditions, DOE/FE has determined that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the project have been adopted.

    Floodplain Statement of Findings

    DOE prepared this Floodplain Statement of Findings in accordance with DOE's regulations entitled “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements” (10 CFR part 1022). The required floodplain and wetland assessment was conducted during development and preparation of the EIS.6 No alternative Liquefaction Project sites were evaluated outside of a floodplain because, as discussed in section 4.1.1.5 of the final EIS, the facilities would be placed above predicted storm surge elevations, and the site is necessarily tied to marine/port locations. Similarly, no Pipeline route alternatives outside of floodplains were evaluated because, as discussed in section 4.1.2.4 of the Final EIS, Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. has proposed to implement acceptable mitigation measures at waterbody crossings and areas subject to flooding to compensate for negative buoyancy. DOE determined that the placement of some project components within floodplains would be unavoidable. However, the current design for the project minimizes floodplain impacts to the extent practicable.

    6See Final EIS at Section 3.0. Table 3.1-1 and Section 3.2.3.3 were revised to include information regarding the proximity of alternative Terminal sites with respect to floodplains.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2015. Christopher A. Smith, Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11926 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-82-000.

    Applicants: Balko Wind Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Balko Wind Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-958-002.

    Applicants: Transource Kansas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Transource Kansas Compliance Filing to be effective 4/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1466-001.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Errata to Filing of First Rev Service Agreement Nos. TSA-NEP-83 and TSA-NEP-86 to be effective 6/7/201.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1665-000.

    Applicants: Greenleaf Power Management LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Baseline new to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1666-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance Filing for Order No. 1000, Regarding Interregional Coordination and Cost Allocation of Transmission Projects with the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and NorthWestern Corporation of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5253.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1667-000.

    Applicants: Northwestern Corporation.

    Description: Compliance Filing for Order No. 1000, Regarding Interregional Coordination and Cost Allocation of Transmission Projects with the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. of Northwestern Corporation.

    Filed Date: 5/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150504-5256.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1668-000.

    Applicants: Phoenix Energy Group, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application for MBR Authority to be effective 6/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1669-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original Service Agreement No. 4104; Queue No. U2-045/W4-063 to be effective 4/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1670-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amended Desert Harvest LGIA to be effective 5/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1671-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-5-5_TSGT-Blue River E&P-405-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 7/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1672-000.

    Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 7/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    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. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11811 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-132-000] Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Summerlin Pipe Replacement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Summerlin Pipe Replacement Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) in Clark County, Nevada. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 11, 2015.

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on March 26, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-132-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    Kern River provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP15-132-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    Kern River proposes the Summerlin Pipe Replacement Project to replace a 1.56-mile-long segment of its existing 36-inch-diameter A-line pipeline from milepost 543.63 to 545.19 in Clark County, Nevada. When originally constructed, this portion of the A-line was designed as pipeline located in a Class I location. This pipe segment must be upgraded with thicker-walled pipe to satisfy U.S. Department of Transportation safety regulations for a Class 3 location as a result of a planned residential development in the vicinity of the existing pipeline.

    In order to maintain delivery to Kern River's customers, the pipeline segment would remain in service until the new pipeline segment is constructed and placed into service, after which the old segment would be removed. Due to a crossover of two existing pipelines, the new pipeline segment would be installed at a 25-foot offset from another existing Kern River line (B-line) for 1.15 miles and at a 25-foot offset from the existing A-line for 0.41 mile. To allow for uninterrupted service during the project, Kern River would install a new 24-inch-diameter crossover valve near milepost 0 of the project by hot tapping the 36-inch-diameter A-line and installing crossover piping to the 24-inch-diameter B-line crossover piping. An existing 0.22-acre valve and pig 1 launcher yard would be expanded by 0.37 acre to accommodate the new crossover valve and crossover piping. The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.2

    1 A “pig” is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    2 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Pipeline facilities are proposed to be installed and removed between October 2015 and December 2015. Kern River expects the new pipeline segment to be placed into service by December 29, 2015.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 39.30 acres of land, which includes 9.74 acres of permanent right-of-way, 22.23 acres of construction right-of-way (i.e., additional temporary workspace, contractor staging yards), and 7.33 acres of access roads. Kern River proposes to use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way to install the replacement pipeline and remove the existing pipeline segment. Of the 31.97 acres used for construction along the pipeline route, 26.12 acres was previously disturbed by construction of the existing A-line and B-line.

    Following construction, Kern River would maintain 9.74 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities with only 1.10 acres of new disturbance, accounting for overlapping rights-of-way with A-line and B-line and previously disturbed land. The remaining acreage used during construction would be restored according to Kern River's project-specific Reclamation Plan and revert to former uses.

    The proposed pipeline crosses 0.44 mile (9.22 acres) of land owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.06 miles (27.34 acres) of private property, and 0.06 mile (2.74 acres) owned by Clark County.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 3 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    3 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.4 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, the BLM has expressed its intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to this project.

    4 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.5 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    5 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Kern River, namely the impact on federally listed threatened and endangered species as well as BLM identified species. Other issues may be added based on your comments and our analysis.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-132). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11922 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-348-000] Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on April 30, 2015, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.211, and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Southern Star's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000. Southern Star seeks authorization to relocate approximately 6,600 feet of 16-inch Pipeline EX-001 by means of horizontal directional drills in order to relocate the pipeline off the Platte Purchase Bridge that spans the Missouri River between Platte County, Missouri and Wyandotte County, Kansas, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should Phyllis K. Medley, Senior Analyst, Regulatory Compliance, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, or phone (270) 852-4653, or by email [email protected]

    Relocation of Southern Star's 6,600 foot section of 16-inch Pipeline EX-00 is needed since the Kansas Department of Transportation and Missouri Department of Transportation are working to demolish the Platte Purchase Bridge and replace it with a new bridge system in the pipeline's location by December 1, 2016.

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11918 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1025-086] Safe Harbor Water Power Corp.; Notice of Technical Conference for Safe Harbor Project

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Monday, June 8, 2015, beginning at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) and concluding at 1:00 p.m. (EDT).

    b. Place: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, 1 Powerhouse Road, Conestoga, PA 17516-9651.

    c. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin at (202) 502-6012 or email at [email protected]

    d. Purpose of Meeting: To discuss the Commission's March 16, 2015 Order approving an increase in the normal maximum water surface elevation of Lake Clarke to 227.6 feet mean sea level (msl) from April 15 to October 15. The Order also approved a temporary increase of Lake Clarke, up to elevation 228.0 feet msl, from April 15 to October 15, if the results of the Safe Harbor annual spring mudflat surveys demonstrate that the minimum area of shorebird habitat can be maintained.

    e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared for the project record.

    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate. Please call Rebecca Martin at (202) 502-6012 or send an email to [email protected] by May 26, 2015, to register your attendance for the meeting.

    g. FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free (866) 208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11920 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-70-000.

    Applicants: Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC.

    Description: Clarification to February 6, 2015 Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Requests for Waivers and Confidential Treatment of Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-137-000.

    Applicants: ALLETE Clean Energy, Inc., MWW Holdings, LLC,AES Armenia Mountain Wind, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for FPA Section 203 Authorization and Request for Expedited Consideration, Confidential Treatment, and Waivers of AES Armenia Mountain Wind, LLC, ALLETE Clean Energy, Inc., and MWW Holdings, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150511-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15

    Docket Numbers: EC15-138-000.

    Applicants: DTE Electric Company, DTE East China, LLC.

    Description: Application for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities, Request for Confidential Treatment, and Request for Expedited Consideration of DTE Electric Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150511-5220.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-83-008.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: SERTP Fourth Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-897-005.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 SERTP Regional Compliance Filing to be effective6/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5133.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-908-005.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 Fourth Regional Compliance Filing to be effective6/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5090.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1516-000.

    Applicants: AES WR Limited Partnership.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: AES WR Rate Schedule 1 Filing to be effective 6/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20150415-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1562-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Errata Filing to Resubmit Original Service Agreement No. 4127 to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150511-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1692-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.

    Description: AEP Texas Central Company submits letter notifying FERC of the Notice of Cancellation of FERC Rate Schedule No. 70 with the City of Robstown, Texas.

    Filed Date: 5/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150511-0003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1693-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.

    Description: AEP Texas North Company submits letter notifying FERC of the Notice of Cancellation of FERC WTU Tariff No. 1 SA No. 17 with the City of Brady, Texas.

    Filed Date: 5/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150511-0002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1695-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-12_SA 2693 NSP-Black Oak Wind 2nd Rev GIA (G858/H071) to be effective 5/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1696-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, Service Agreement No. 136 under Tariff Volume No. 5 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1697-000.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order 1000 Reginal Compliance Filing Transmission Planning Process to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1698-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA and DSA for SunEdison Quarry Street Project to be effective 7/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1699-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service to be effective 7/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    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 12, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11924 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    1 Email record.

    2 Email record.

    3 Phone record.

    4 Phone record.

    Docket no. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited 1. CP14-503-000 4-15-15 Susie Purcell.1 2. OR15-13-000 5-8-15 KC Allan.2 Docket no. File date Presenter or requester Exempt 1. P-10808-000, P-2785-000 4-28-15 Hon. John R. Moolenaar. 2. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-000 4-29-15 FERC Staff.3 3. CP13-83-000 4-30-15 US EPA. 4. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-000 5-1-15 FERC Staff.4 Dated: May 12, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11925 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-7-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-915); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the requirements and burden 1 of the information collection FERC-915 (Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Records Retention Requirements).

    1 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC15-7-000) by either of the following methods:

    • eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp

    • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for the collection described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Title: FERC-915, Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Records Retention Requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0250.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-915 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission has the regulatory responsibility under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that wholesale sales of electricity are just and reasonable and provided in a non-discriminatory manner. The Commission uses the information maintained by the respondents under FERC-915 to monitor the entities' sales, ensure that the prices are just and reasonable, maintain the integrity of the wholesale jurisdictional sales markets, and ensure that the entities comply with the requirements of the FPA and any orders authorizing market-based rate sales. FERC-915 information collection requirements are contained in 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35.41(d).

    Type of Respondents: Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the total Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:

    2 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $30.66 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). The occupation title is “file clerk” and the occupation code is 43-4071. 69.4 percent of this cost is hourly wages. The rest of the cost is benefits (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).

    FERC-915—Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Record Retention Requirements Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden and
  • cost per
  • response 2
  • Total annual burden hours and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)÷(1) Electric Utilities with Market-Based Rate Authority 1,955 1 1,955 1 hr.; $30.66 1,955 hrs.; $59,940 $30.66

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is: $416,293.

    • Labor costs: 1,955 hours * $30.66/hour = $59,940 • Record retention/storage cost for paper records (using an estimate of 48,891 cubic feet): $315,792 3

    3 The Commission bases this figure on industry archival storage costs.

    • Electronic record retention/storage cost: $40,561 ○ staff-time cost: 1,955 hours ÷ 2 4 = 977.50 hours * $28/hour 5 = $27,370;

    4 Only 50% of records are retained in electronic formats.

    5 The Commission bases the $28/hour figure on a FERC staff study that included estimating public utility recordkeeping costs.

    ○ electronic record storage cost: 865 * $15.25/year 6 = $13,191

    6 The Commission bases the estimated $15.25/year for each entity on the estimated cost to service and to store 1 GB of data (based on the aggregated cost of an IBM advanced data protection server).

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11919 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-41-001] Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 5, 2015, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) filed an amendment, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for the Ohio Valley Connector Project in West Virginia, and Ohio. The application of the project was originally filed on December 30, 2014 in Docket No. CP15-41-000. The amended filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Paul W. Diehl, Senior Counsel, Midstream, Equitrans, L.P., 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Telephone (412) 395-5540, fax (412) 553-7781, and email: [email protected].

    Equitrans states that after filing the original application, Equitrans has continued working with landowners and other interested parties with respect to the route of the pipeline and the specific facilities that will be necessary. Also, after discussions with a proposed shipper, Equitrans has determined that the proposed H-313 pipeline will not be required to provide the firm transportation service. To accommodate this change, Equitrans proposes to eliminate the H-313 pipeline from the scope of the project. The H-313 pipeline is approximately 14.0 miles and 24-inch diameter. Equitrans also proposes four minor re-routes of the proposed H-310 pipeline and changes of facilities. The amendment does not affect the Ohio Valley Connector Project's designed capacity of 850 MMcf/day.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of any mailed environmental documents, and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 2, 2015.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11921 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2014-0926; FRL-9927-52-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 0959.15, OMB Control No. 2050-0033) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 8307) on February 17, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2014-0926, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) creates a comprehensive program for the safe management of hazardous waste. Section 3004 of RCRA requires owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste to comply with standards established by EPA that are to protect the environment. Section 3005 provides for implementation of these standards under permits issued to owners and operators by EPA or authorized States. It also allows owners and operators of facilities in existence when the regulations came into effect to comply with applicable notice requirements to operate until a permit is issued or denied. This statutory authorization to operate prior to permit determination is commonly known as “interim status.” Owners and operators of interim status facilities also must comply with standards set under Section 3004.

    This ICR examines the ground-water monitoring standards for permitted and interim status facilities at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, as specified. The ground-water monitoring requirements for regulated units follow a tiered approach whereby releases of hazardous contaminants are first detected (detection monitoring), then confirmed (compliance monitoring), and if necessary, are required to be cleaned up (corrective action). Each of these tiers requires collection and analysis of ground-water samples. Owners or operators that conduct ground-water monitoring are required to report information on releases of contaminants and to maintain records of ground-water monitoring data at their facilities. The goal of the ground-water monitoring program is to prevent and quickly detect releases of hazardous contaminants to groundwater, and to establish a program whereby any contamination is expeditiously cleaned up as necessary to protect human health and environment.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Private facilities; and State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA Sections 3004 and 3005).

    Estimated number of respondents: 881 (total).

    Frequency of response: quarterly, semi-annually, and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 117,027 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $22,424,224 (per year), includes $17,870,276 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 32,636 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The reason for the increase is due to an increase in the respondent universe (818 for the previous ICR vs 881 for this renewal), as well as an increase in burden estimates based on consultations with respondents.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11932 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0100; FRL—9927-27-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Continuous Release Reporting Regulations (CRRR) Under CERCLA 1980 (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Continuous Release Reporting Regulations (CRRR) Under CERCLA 1980 (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1445.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0086) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 7460) on February 10, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0100, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Bosecker, Regulations Implementation Division, Office of Emergency Management, (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7612; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Section 103(a) of CERCLA, as amended, requires the person in charge of a vessel or facility to immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) of a hazardous substance release into the environment if the amount of the release equals or exceeds the substance's reportable quantity (RQ). The list of hazardous substances and the RQs can be found in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4.

    Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA provides facilities relief from this per-occurrence notification requirement if the hazardous substance release at or above the RQ is continuous and stable in quantity and rate. Under the Continuous Release Reporting Requirements (CRRR), the facility must make an initial telephone call to the NRC, an initial written report to the EPA Region, and, if the source and chemical composition of the continuous release does not change and the level of the continuous release does not significantly increase, a follow-up written report must be submitted to the EPA Region one year after submission of the initial written report. If the source or chemical composition of the previously reported continuous release changes, notifying the NRC and EPA Region of a change in the source or composition of the release is required. Further, a significant increase in the level of the previously reported continuous release must be reported immediately to the NRC according to section 103(a) of CERCLA. Finally, any change in information submitted in support of a continuous release notification must be reported to the EPA Region. The reporting of a hazardous substance release that is equal to or above the substance's RQ allows the Federal government to determine whether a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse effects to public health or welfare or the environment.

    Form Numbers: EPA Form 6100-10, Continuous Release Reporting Form.

    Respondents/affected entities: EPA expects a number of different industrial categories to report hazardous substance releases under the provisions of the CRRR.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory per 40 CFR part 302 if respondents want to obtain reduced reporting for continuous releases.

    Estimated number of respondents: 4,046.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 325,582 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $17,774,471 (per year), includes $165,111 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 9,616 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to applying a growth rate of 7.5%, which is consistent with prior years reporting.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11933 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0486; FRL 9926-22-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; TSCA Section 402 and Section 404 Training and Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted a new information collection request (ICR), “TSCA Section 402 and Section 404 Training and Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting” (EPA ICR No. 1715.14, OMB Control No. 2070-0155) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 78084) on December 29, 2014, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A full description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0486, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colby Lintner, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Mail code: 7408-M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-554-1404; fax number: 202-564-8251; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: This information collection request (ICR) combines information collection activities defined in existing ICRs 1715.09 (lead-based paint activities), 1715.10 (2008 Renovation, Repair and Painting final rule), and 1715.12 (2010 Renovation, Repair and Painting opt-out and recordkeeping final rule) covering the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for individuals or firms conducting lead-based paint activities or renovation in or on houses, apartments, or child-occupied facilities built before 1978, under the authority of sections 402 and 404 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U. S. C. 2682, 2684).

    Sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of TSCA require EPA to develop and administer a training and certification program as well as work practice standards for persons who perform lead-based paint activities and/or renovations. The current regulations in 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, cover work practice standards, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, individual and firm certification, and enforcement for renovations done in target housing or child-occupied facilities. The current regulations in 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, cover inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatement activities (referred to as “lead-based paint activities”) done in target housing and child-occupied facilities. The current regulations in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, establish the requirements that state or tribal programs must meet for authorization to administer the standards, regulations, or other requirements established under TSCA section 402. (See Attachment 2 for 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L and Q.) Section 401 of TSCA defines target housing as any housing constructed before 1978 except housing for the elderly or disabled or 0-bedroom dwellings.

    Sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of TSCA require reporting and/or recordkeeping from four entities: Firms engaged in lead-based paint activities or renovations in target housing and child-occupied facilities; individuals who perform lead-based paint activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities; training providers; and states/territories/tribes/Alaskan native villages.

    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory. Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

    Form Numbers: 8500-25; 8500-27.

    Respondents/affected entities: Persons who provide training in lead-based paint activities and/or renovation, persons who are engaged in lead-based paint activities and/or renovation, and state agencies that administer lead-based paint activities and/or renovation programs.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L and Q).

    Estimated number of respondents: 367,815 (total).

    Frequency of response: Annual.

    Total estimated burden: 3,312,524 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $151,077,143 per year, includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11934 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0567; FRL 9926-57-OEI] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Pesticide Program Public Sector Collections (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): Pesticide Program Public Sector Collections (FIFRA Sections 18 & 24(c)), identified by EPA ICR No. 2311.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0182. The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is briefly summarized in this document. EPA did not receive any comments in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the Federal Register on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55791). With this submission, EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public review.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0567, to both EPA and OMB as follows:

    • To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    • To OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rame Cromwell, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-9068; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in detail the information collection activities and the related burden and cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31, 2015. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

    Under PRA, 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 currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

    Abstract: This ICR covers the paperwork burden associated with two types of pesticide registration requests made by states, U.S. Territories, or Federal agencies under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136a et seq.: (1) Emergency exemption requests, which allow for an unregistered use of a pesticide; and (2) Requests by states to register a pesticide use to meet a special local need (SLN).

    FIFRA section 18 allows EPA to grant emergency exemptions to states, U.S. Territories, and Federal agencies to allow an unregistered use of a pesticide for a limited time if EPA determines that emergency conditions exist. Section 18 requests include unregistered pesticide use exemptions for specific agricultural, public health, and quarantine purposes. FIFRA section 24(c) allows EPA to grant permission to a particular state to register additional uses of a federally registered pesticide for distribution and use within that state to meet a SLN.

    Form numbers: EPA Form No. 8570-25; EPA Form No. 8570-4.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are pesticides registrants, which may be identified by North American Classification System (NAICS) codes 325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing), and 9241 (governments that administer environmental quality programs).

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory. Required to obtain EPA permission under FIFRA sections 18 and 24(c).

    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 980 (total).

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Estimated total burden: 34,175 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Estimated total costs: $2,332,954 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

    Changes in the estimates: There is no change in the number of burden hours estimated per respondent, as compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. However, the total burden is being adjusted to reflect a change in the estimated number of applications EPA projects might be submitted in the next three years. Although submitting a request under FIFRA section 18 and 24(c) is not mandatory, making it difficult to provide a precise estimate of how many submissions will be received in the future, EPA used the submissions received in recent years to help estimate the potential number of future submissions. The result is a slight increase in the average number of FIFRA section 18 submissions projected per year, from 128 to 185; and a small decrease in the average number of FIFRA section 24(c) petitions projected for annual submissions, from about 325 to 305. The increased burden is the total annual respondent burden for FIFRA section 18 submissions increased from 12,672 hours to 18,315 hours; while the total annual respondent burden for FIFRA section 24(c) submissions decreased from 16,900 to 15,860 hours. The net result is an increase of 4,603 hours in the total burden (i.e., from 29,572 to 34,175).

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11935 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1057 and 3060-1133] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 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 17, 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:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1057.

    Title: Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an International Broadcast Station.

    Form No.: FCC Form 420-IB.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 10 respondents; 10 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 6 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.

    Total Annual Burden: 60 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $46,050.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: This collection will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as an extension following the 60-day comment period in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from OMB.

    The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) received approval from the OMB to develop a new application titled, “Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an International Broadcast Station (FCC Form 420-IB)” to request authority from the Commission to construct or make changes in an international broadcast station. This application has not been implemented and released to the public yet due to a lack of budget resources and technical staff. After the FCC Form 420-IB has been implemented and the Commission has obtained final approval from the OMB, it will be completed by international broadcasters in lieu of the “Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an International, Experimental Television, Experimental Facsimile, or a Developmental Broadcast Station,” (FCC Form 309). In the interim, applicants will continue to file the FCC Form 309 with the Commission. (Note: The OMB approved the FCC Form 309 under OMB Control No. 3060-1035.

    The information collected pursuant to the rules set forth in 47 CFR part 73, subpart F, is used by the Commission to assign frequencies for use by international broadcast stations, to grant authority to operate such stations and to determine if interference or adverse propagation conditions exist that may impact the operation of such stations. If the Commission did not collect this information, it would not be in a position to effectively coordinate spectrum for international broadcasters or to act for entities in times of frequency interference or adverse propagation conditions. The orderly nature of the provision of international broadcast service would be in jeopardy without the Commission's involvement.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1133

    Title: Application for Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations (FCC Form 308); 47 CFR Section 73.3545 and 73.3580.

    Form No.: FCC Form 308.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents/Responses: 26 respondents; 70 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-2 hours.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 325(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 73 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $26,451.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the establishment of a new information collection titled, “Application for Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations (FCC Form 308).” Applicants use the FCC Form 308 to apply, under Section 325(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for authority to locate, use, or maintain a studio in the United States for the purpose of supplying program material to a foreign radio or TV broadcast station whose signals are consistently received in the United States, or for extension of existing authority.

    Currently, the FCC Form 308 is only available to the public in paper form. The Commission obtained OMB approval of a revised FCC Form 308, in Excel format, that will be made available to the public on the FCC Forms page of the FCC's Web site, www.fcc.gov. The form was revised to make it more user friendly and to include questions to obtain only the legal and technical information that is essential to grant authority to U.S. broadcasters to supply program material to a foreign radio or TV broadcast station whose signals are consistently received in the U.S. or to extend the current authority. After the applicant completes the form, it is mailed to the U.S. Bank along with the application fee. Then, it is forwarded to the International Bureau with the exception of fee exempt applications which are filed directly with the FCC Secretary's Office and then forwarded to the Bureau.

    FCC Form 308 applicants now have the option to file their applicants in the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) and make their payment of their application filing fees electronically in the FCC Fee Filer System. Please note that this method is optional rather than mandatory. We believe that the availability of this option will substantially decrease or eliminate paper filings of FCC Form 308's with the Commission. This option will save time for the applicant and Commission staff. There are no other changes to the information collection, including burden estimates.

    Without this collection of information, the Commission would not be able to ascertain whether the main studio owner in the U.S. meets various legal requirements or the foreign broadcast facility, which receives and retransmits programming from the main studio in the U.S., meets various technical requirements that prevent harmful interference to other broadcast stations or telecommunications facilities.

    Federal Communications Commission.

    Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office the of Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11867 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-1204] Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Timothy May, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-1463, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on April 20, 2015, OMB approved the information collection requirements relating to the text-to-911 rules contained in the Commission's Second Report and Order, FCC 14-118, published at 79 FR 55367, September 16, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1204. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1204, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected]

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1204.

    OMB Approval Date: April 20, 2015.

    OMB Expiration Date: April 30, 2018.

    Title: Deployment of Text-to-911.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not for profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,370 respondents; 58,012 responses.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 1-8 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One time reporting requirements.

    Total Annual Burden: 76,237 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: None.

    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 251(e), 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, and 403.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This information collection does not affect individuals or households, and therefore a privacy impact assessment is not required.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission will work with respondents to ensure that their concerns regarding the confidentiality of any proprietary or business-sensitive information are resolved in a manner consistent with the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: On August 13, 2014, the Commission released the Order, FCC 14-118, published at 79 FR 55367, September 16, 2014, adopting final rules—containing information collection requirements—to enable the Commission to implement text-to-911 service, providing enhanced access to emergency services for people with disabilities and fulfilling a crucial role as an alternative means of emergency communication for the general public in situations where sending a text message to 911 as opposed to placing a voice call could be vital to the caller's safety. The Second Report and Order adopts new rules to commence the implementation of text-to-911 service with an initial deadline of December 31, 2014 for all covered text providers to be capable of supporting text-to-911 service. The Second Report and Order also provides that covered text providers then have a six-month implementation period—they must begin routing all 911 text messages to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) by June 30, 2015 or within six months of a valid PSAP request for text-to-911 service, whichever is later. To implement these requirements, the Commission seeks to collect information primarily for a database in which PSAPs will voluntarily register that they are technically ready to receive text messages to 911. As PSAPs become text-ready, they may either register in the PSAP database (or, if the database is not yet available, submit a notification to PS Docket Nos. 10-255 and 11-153), or provide other written notification reasonably acceptable to a covered text messaging provider. Either measure taken by the PSAP shall constitute sufficient notification pursuant to the adopted rules in the Second Report and Order. PSAPs and covered text providers may mutually agree to an alternative implementation timeframe (other than six months). Covered text providers must notify the FCC of the dates and terms of the alternate timeframe that they have mutually agreed on with PSAPs within 30 days of the parties' agreement.

    Additionally, the rules adopted by the Second Report and Order include other information collections for third party notifications that need to be effective in order to implement text-to-911, including necessary notifications to consumers, covered text providers, and the Commission. These notifications are essential to ensure that all of the affected parties are aware of the limitations, capabilities, and status of text-to-911 services. These information collections will enable the Commission to meet the objectives for the implementation of text-to-911 service as of December 31, 2014 and for compliance by covered text providers with the six-month implementation period in furtherance of the Commission's core mission to ensure the public's safety.

    Federal Communications Commission.

    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11944 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-xxxx] 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 the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 17, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Public Safety Access Point (PSAP) Performance Questionnaire.

    Form No.: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; and State, local, or tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 50 respondents; 50 responses.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion requirement; recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Section 1 and 4(i) of the Communications Act.

    Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission has compiled and maintains a database of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) throughout the nation as part of its effort to support the expeditious implementation of E911 across the nation. The information sought in this information collection is needed to enable the Commission to ensure that the American public can report to the Commission directly problems associated with the use of 911 services. While we expect such reports to be few in number, examples of potential problems using 911 services include, but are not limited to: 911 service outages, Phase1/Phase 2 deployments, location accuracy, text-to-911 service, fraudulent and harassing 911 calls, PSAP-carrier lines of demarcation and requests for an update of master PSAP registry.

    The Commission has established a web portal that allows citizens to file complaints or inquiries online. The simple questionnaire will ask the filer to type in the following information: (1) Name of PSAP; (2) PSAP ID (enables a link to the Master PSAP Registry); (3) PSAP Physical Address (number, street, city, state, zip code); (4) PSAP County of Operation; (5) Complainant's Name; (6) Complainant's Title; (7) Complainant's Organization; (8) Complainant's Phone Number; (9) Complainant's Email; (10) Nature of Inquiry—a. Complaint; b. Inquiry; (11) Complaint/Inquiry Type—a. 911 Service Outage; b. Phase1/Phase 2 Deployments; c. Location Accuracy; d. Text-to-911 Service; e. Fraudulent 911 Calls; f. PSAP—Carrier Lines of Demarcation; g. Request for Update of Master PSAP Registry; (12) Description of complaint/inquiry (Max. 1500 words); and (13) Attachments—Upload tool (should support Word Suite, PDF, Text). The questionnaire will also provide filers with the ability to upload documents and files to complete their complaints and inquiries.

    Federal Communications Commission.

    Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11874 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE & TIME:

    Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC

    STATUS:

    This meeting was closed to the public.

    ITEMS DISCUSSED:

    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shelley E. Garr, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-12064 Filed 5-14-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHRAC, NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 9:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m. EDT, June 8, 2015.

    Place: Teleconference and Webinar.

    Status: Open to public, limited only by the space available on the webinar system, which accommodates a maximum of 100 people. If you wish to attend by phone or webinar, please contact Marie Chovanec by email at [email protected] or by phone at 412-386-5302 at least 3 days in advance.

    Purpose: This committee is charged with providing advice to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NIOSH, on priorities in mine safety and health research, including grants and contracts for such research, 30 U.S.C. 812(b)(2), Section 102(b)(2).

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will focus on mining safety and health research projects and outcomes, including refuge alternatives, rock dust, silica exposures, metal mine ground control, and mining survey. The meeting will also include updates from the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory and the Division of Respiratory Disease Studies; and committee discussion on the program portfolio.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Jeffrey H. Welsh, Executive Secretary, MSHRAC, NIOSH, CDC, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, telephone (412) 386-4040, fax (412) 386-6614.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11889 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement Number, (FOA) DP15-008, Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers: Special Interest Project Competitive Supplements (SIPS).

    Time and Date: 11:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m., EDT, June 11, 2015 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters For Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers: Special Interest Project Competitive Supplements (SIPS)”, FOA DP15-008.

    Contact Person For More Information: Brenda Colley Gilbert, Ph.D., M.S.P.H., Director, Extramural Research Program Operations and Services, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6295, [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11888 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Notice of Intent To Award a Single Source Non-Competing Continuation Cooperative Agreement for Two National Activities Grant Projects Under Section 6 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as Amended (AT Act) AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is transitioning the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) Catalyst Project Assistive Technology Technical Assistance Center (AT TA Center) and the University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability Assistive Technology Public Internet Site (National AT Web site) to ACL as a result of the Workforce Opportunity Improvement Act (Pub. L. 113-128) signed by President Obama in July 2014.

    The RESNA Catalyst Project is a national training and technical assistance center for assistive technology programs that provides comprehensive information and state-specific, regional and national resources to entities funded under Sections 4 and 5 of the AT Act to improve the implementation and effectiveness of their programs, and to provide appropriate technical assistance and training to entities not funded under the AT Act to improve awareness of and access to assistive technology.

    The University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability supports the renovation, updating, and maintenance of an accessible National AT Web site that provides the public comprehensive, up-to-date information on accommodating individuals with disabilities and resources related to assistive technology, including but not limited to programs under the AT Act.

    The RESNA Catalyst Project and New Hampshire National AT Web site previously operated through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration. The Department of Health and Human Services is currently transitioning programs under the AT Act to ACL.

    DATES:

    Estimated Project Period—September 30, 2015 through September 30, 2016

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Program Name: Assistive Technology National Activities.

    Award Amount: $640,000 to Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America; $100,000 to University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability.

    Project Period: 9/30/2015 to 9/30/2016.

    Award Type: Cooperative Agreement.

    Statutory Authority:

    This program is authorized under Section 6 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended (29 U.S.C. 3005)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.464 Discretionary Projects Program Description

    The purpose of the National Activities cooperative agreements with RESNA and the University of New Hampshire is to continue existing activities designed to support and improve the administration of the AT Act. The grantees will continue to use both traditional and innovative approaches that will assist individuals and entities through information dissemination and provide state-specific, regional and national training and technical assistance concerning assistive technology.

    Justification: ACL is currently working on transitioning the Assistive Technology National Activities program to ACL. To ensure uninterrupted continuation of the grant goals and objectives, ACL plans to issue a one year non-competing award to both RESNA and the University of New Hampshire.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or comments regarding this action, contact Lori Gerhard, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Center for Consumer Access and Self-Determination, Office of Integrated Programs, One Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001; telephone (202) 357-3443; fax (202) 357-3469; email [email protected]

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11961 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0012] Cooperative Agreement to International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of grant funds for the support of the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The goal of the ICH is to bring together leading global drug regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical manufacturer associations to achieve greater harmonization of technical standards to ensure that safe, effective, and high-quality medicines are developed and registered in the most resource-efficient manner.

    DATES:

    The application due date is September 30, 2015. The expiration date is October 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic applications to: http://www.grants.gov. For more information, see section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tracy Porter, Office of Strategic Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1173, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-7789, [email protected]; or Lisa Ko, Office of Acquisitions and Grants Services, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 2037, Rockville, MD 20857, 240-402-7592, [email protected]

    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA located at http://www.grants.gov. Search by Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-FD-15-014.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Funding Opportunity Description RFA-FD-15-014 93.103 A. Background 1. Authority

    FDA activities to increase the harmonization of regulatory requirements to ensure that safe, effective, and high quality medicines are developed and registered in the most resource-efficient manner are authorized by 21 U.S.C. 383(c) and 393(b).

    2. Program Background

    The ICH is a globally unique venue with the capability of bringing together the regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical industry to discuss scientific and technical aspects of drug registration. ICH is a programmatic global priority for FDA to achieve its identified strategic priority of globalization. Working through its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA has played a leading role in ICH since its inception in 1990. ICH, founded to harmonize drug regulatory standards between three regions, the United States, the European Union, and Japan, has gradually evolved to respond to the increasingly global face of drug development, so that the benefits of international harmonization for better global health can be realized worldwide. ICH's mission is to achieve greater harmonization to ensure that safe, effective, and high-quality medicines are developed and registered in the most resource-efficient manner.

    Over the past 2 years, FDA played a leadership role in transforming ICH to meet the challenges of 21st century standards development while firmly positioning ICH future work to continue the focus on technical standards harmonization informed by relevant expertise from regulatory agencies and regulated industry. This effort has included: (1) Establishing ICH as a formal legal entity in the form of a nonprofit association under Swiss law; (2) expanding the opportunities for formal participation of other drug regulatory authorities beyond the three founding regions via the ICH Assembly; and (3) ensuring adequate and predictable funding for the ICH harmonization work (which is also critical to FDA's mission).

    FDA remains an ICH founding member and completely committed to ICH success as a science-based standards development venue to ensure harmonization globally for safe, effective, and high-quality medicines. As exemplified in the past 25 years, FDA leadership and participation is an absolutely essential element for ICH success.

    B. Research Objectives

    The program's grant funds will support the ICH to develop a series of international guidelines for implementation according to each region's requirements aimed at achieving the following: (1) Develop and register safe, effective, and high quality medicines in the most efficient and cost effective manner; (2) prevent unnecessary duplication of clinical trials and minimize the use of animal testing without compromising safety and effectiveness, and (3) provide public assurance that the rights, safety, and well-being of subjects are protected during clinical trials.

    The ICH aims to make information readily available on ICH, ICH activities, and ICH guidelines to any country or company that requests the information. Additionally, the organization promotes a mutual understanding of regional initiatives in order to facilitate harmonization processes related to ICH guidelines regionally and globally, and to strengthen the capacity of drug regulatory authorities and industry to utilize the guidelines. These objectives will be accomplished by bringing together representatives from both regulatory agencies and pharmaceutic industries from the three founding regions to establish guidelines.

    C. Eligibility Information

    The following organization is eligible to apply: ICH. Within the ICH, the mission is to make recommendations towards achieving greater harmonization in the interpretation and application of technical guidelines and requirements for pharmaceutical product registration, thereby reducing or obviating duplication of testing carried out during the research and development of new human medicines. Leveraging its status as a neutral nonprofit entity focused on technical standards harmonization, the ICH aims to promote international harmonization of drug regulatory standards by bringing together representatives from both regulatory agencies and pharmaceutic industry to discuss and establish common guidelines.

    II. Award Information/Funds Available A. Award Amount

    FDA intends to fund one award, corresponding to a total of up to $500,000, for fiscal year (FY) 2016. Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations, availability of funding, and awardee performance. CDER anticipates providing four additional years of support up to the following amounts:

    FY 2017: $500,000 FY 2018: $500,000 FY 2019: $500,000 FY 2020: $500,000 B. Length of Support

    The support will be 1 year with the possibility of an additional 4 years of noncompetitive support. Continuation beyond the first year will be based on satisfactory performance during the preceding year, receipt of a noncompeting continuation application and available Federal FY appropriations.

    III. Electronic Application, Registration, and Submission

    Only electronic applications will be accepted. To submit an electronic application in response to this FOA, applicants should first review the full announcement located at http://www.grants.gov. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout this document, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.) Search by Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-FD-15-014.

    For all electronically submitted applications, the following steps are required.

    • Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number • Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM) • Step 3: Obtain Username & Password • Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) Authorization • Step 5: Track AOR Status • Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons

    Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 6, in detail, can be found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed these steps, submit electronic applications to: http://www.grants.gov.

    Dated: May 11, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11847 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1377] Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Study Data Standardization Plan Recommendations AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of draft recommendations for preparing a Study Data Standardization Plan (Standardization Plan). The Standardization Plan is referenced in the Study Data Technical Conformance Guide (Guide). The Guide supplements the guidance for industry “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data” and provides specifications, recommendations, and general considerations on submitting standardized study data using FDA-supported data standards. The Guide recommends that, for clinical and nonclinical studies, sponsors include a plan that describes the submission of standardized study data to FDA. The proposed recommendations describe the information that should be included in the Standardization Plan. The proposed recommendations for creating a Standardization Plan are posted on FDA's Study Data Standards Resources Web page at http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on these recommendations at any time, to ensure that the Agency considers your comments, please submit either electronic or written comments by July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the recommendations to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 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.

    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. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft recommendations for preparing the Standardization Plan.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993-002, 301-796-5333, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of draft recommendations for preparing the Standardization Plan. The Standardization Plan is referenced in the Guide. The Guide supplements the guidance for industry “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data” and provides specifications, recommendations, and general considerations on submitting standardized study data using FDA-supported data standards; it is posted on FDA's Study Data Standards Resources Web page at http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm.

    The Guide recommends that, for clinical and nonclinical studies, sponsors include a plan that describes the submission of standardized study data to FDA. The Standardization Plan will assist FDA in identifying potential data standardization issues early in the development program (e.g., pre-investigational new drug application stage). The draft recommendations describe the information that should be included in the Standardization Plan. The recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) General sponsor information, (2) product information, (3) list of completed studies and standards, and (4) list of planned studies and standards.

    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. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the proposed recommendations at either http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 11, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11846 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1439] Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” This guidance provides sponsors and FDA staff with guidance on how to plan and implement adaptive designs for clinical studies when used in medical device development programs. An adaptive design for a medical device clinical study is defined as a clinical trial design that allows for prospectively planned modifications based on accumulating study data without undermining the trial's integrity and validity. Adaptive designs, when properly implemented, can reduce resource requirements and/or increase the chance of study success. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    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 of 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 August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled “Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    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:

    Greg Campbell, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2110, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5750.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    This guidance provides sponsors and FDA staff with guidance on how to plan and implement adaptive designs for clinical studies when used in medical device development programs. This document addresses adaptive designs for medical device clinical trials and is applicable to premarket medical device submissions including premarket approval applications, premarket notification (510(k)) submissions, de novo submissions (evaluation of automatic class III designation), humanitarian device exemption applications, and investigational device exemption submissions. This guidance can be applied throughout the clinical development program of a medical device, from feasibility studies to pivotal clinical trials. This guidance does not apply to clinical studies of combination products or codevelopment of a pharmaceutical product with an unapproved diagnostic test.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    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 the adaptive design of clinical studies for medical devices. 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 statute and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number GUD1500005 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft 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 807, subpart E, which have been approved under 0910-0120; 21 CFR part 812, which have been approved under 0910-0078; 21 CFR part 814, subparts A, B, and C, which have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and 21 CFR part 814, subpart H, which have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332.

    V. 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.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11820 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1580] Patient Preference Information—Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling; Draft Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders; 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 “Patient Preference Information—Submission, Review in PMAs, HDE Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling.” This document provides guidance on collecting and submitting patient preference information that may be used by FDA staff in decisionmaking relating to premarket approval applications (PMAs), Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) applications, and de novo requests. This draft guidance also outlines considerations for including patient preference information in labeling for patients and health care professionals. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    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 August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled “Patient Preference Information—Submission, Review in PMAs, HDE Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 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 request.

    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:

    Anindita Saha, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5414, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2537, [email protected]; 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, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Patient Preference Information—Submission, Review in PMAs, HDE Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling.” FDA believes that patients can and should bring their own experiences to bear in helping the Agency to evaluate the risk-benefit profile of certain devices. This document provides guidance on collecting and submitting patient preference information that may be used by FDA staff in decision-making relating to PMAs, HDE applications, and de novo requests. The objectives of this draft guidance are: (1) To encourage voluntary submission of patient preference information by sponsors or other stakeholders in certain circumstances; (2) to outline recommended qualities of patient preference studies, which may result in valid scientific evidence; (3) to provide recommendations for collecting and submitting patient preference information to FDA; and (4) to outline considerations for including patient preference information in labeling for patients and health care professionals. This draft guidance includes examples that illustrate how patient preference information may inform FDA's regulatory decisionmaking. The guidance applies to both diagnostic and therapeutic devices that are subject to these review processes. Additionally, this guidance may apply to other stakeholders such as patient groups and academia who may wish to conduct patient preference studies.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    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 Patient Preference Information—Submission, Review in PMAs, HDE Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling. 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. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov or from CBER at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Patient Preference Information—Submission, Review in PMAs, HDE Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500006 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to currently 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 812.25(c) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 subparts B and E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 subpart H have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    V. 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.

    Specifically the Agency would like comments on the following questions:

    1. Section IV of the draft guidance recommends qualities for patient preference studies. Do you believe these recommended qualities are clear and understandable? If not, what should be reworded or edited? Is there anything missing? If so, what needs to be added?

    2. Under what conditions should health care professional or patient labeling include information about patient preference studies?

    3. How should sponsors present patient preference information in the health care professional and patient labeling?

    4. How should labeling indicate that only a subset of patients in a patient preference study were willing to accept certain risks in order to achieve probable benefits?

    5. How should sponsors and the FDA ensure that patients receive and understand patient preference information?

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11819 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0545] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Infant Formula Requirements AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled, “Infant Formula Requirements” 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 March 4, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Infant Formula Requirements” 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 0910-0256. The approval expires on April 30, 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 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11821 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings.

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.

    Date: June 9, 2015.

    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 8F100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Raymond R. Schleef, Ph.D., Senior Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 20892, 240-669-5019, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project (P01).

    Date: June 10, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3F100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Brenda Lange-Gustafson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Scientific Review Program, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G13 Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5047, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01).

    Date: June 11, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3G31B, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: James T. Snyder, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Room # 3G31B, Rockville, MD 20892, 240-669-5060, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 12, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11853 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed 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: Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Committee.

    Date: June 11-12, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Frank S. De Silva, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID 5601 Fishers Lane MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 20892-9823, 240-669-5023, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 12, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11852 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, June 09, 2015, 4:30 p.m. to June 10, 2015, 06:00 p.m., Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formally Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2015, 80FR22540.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the title from Exploratory/Development Research Grant Program Omnibus SEP-6 to NCI Omnibus R03 & R21 SEP-6. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11823 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, June 29, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to June 30, 2015, 05:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2015, 80 FR 22540.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the title from Exploratory/Development Research Grant Program Omnibus SEP-3 to NCI Omnibus R03 & R21 SEP-3. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11824 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Division of Intramural Research Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Division of Intramural Research Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.

    Date: June 8-10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Kathryn C. Zoon, Ph.D., Director, Division of Intramural Research National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, Building 31, Room 4A30, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-3006, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 12, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11854 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting scheduled by the Deputy Director for Intramural Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with the Chairpersons of the Boards of Scientific Counselors. The Boards of Scientific Counselors are advisory groups to the Scientific Directors of the Intramural Research Programs at the NIH. This meeting will take place on June 15, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., at the NIH, 1 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, Building 31, 6th Floor, Room 6. The agenda for the meeting is a discussion of policies and procedures that apply to the regular review of NIH intramural scientists and their work.

    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 contact Ms. Margaret McBurney at the Office of Intramural Research, NIH, Building 1, Room 160, Telephone: (301) 496-1921, FAX Number: (301) 402-4273, or email [email protected] in advance of the meeting.

    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.

    Dated: May 12, 2015. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11822 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of 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 open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The 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 Initial Review Group; Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases D Subcommittee.

    Date: June 17-18, 2015.

    Open: June 17, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

    Agenda: To review policy and procedures.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Closed: June 17, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Closed: June 18, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 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: BARBARA A. WOYNAROWSKA, Ph.D., SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ADMINISTRATOR, REVIEW BRANCH, DEA, NIDDK, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, ROOM 754, 6707 DEMOCRACY BOULEVARD, BETHESDA, MD 20892-5452, (301) 402-7172, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Initial Review Group; Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases B Subcommittee.

    Date: June 18-19, 2015.

    Open: June 18, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

    Agenda: To review policy and procedures.

    Place: Residence Inn Arlington Capital View, 2850 South Potomac Avenue, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Closed: June 18, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Arlington Capital View, 2850 South Potomac Avenue, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Closed: June 19, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Arlington Capital View, 2850 South Potomac Avenue, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: JOHN F. CONNAUGHTON, Ph.D. CHIEF, CHARTERED COMMITTEES SECTION, REVIEW BRANCH, DEA, NIDDK, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, ROOM 753, 6707 DEMOCRACY BOULEVARD, BETHESDA, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7797, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Initial Review Group; Digestive Diseases and Nutrition C Subcommittee.

    Date: June 25-26, 2015.

    Open: June 25, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

    Agenda: To review policy and procedures.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Closed: June 25, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Closed: June 26, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 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: ROBERT WELLNER, Ph.D., SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICER, REVIEW BRANCH, DEA, NIDDK, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, ROOM 706, 6707 DEMOCRACY BOULEVARD, BETHESDA, MD 20892-5452, [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 12, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-11851 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.