January 6, 2016 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

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.

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.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858); December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75122); and on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809). A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the Federal Register during the first week of each month. If any laboratory or IITF certification is suspended or revoked, the laboratory or IITF will be omitted from subsequent lists until such time as it is restored to full certification under the Mandatory Guidelines. If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter. This notice is also available on the Internet at https:// www.samhsa.gov/workplace.

On December 29, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, in the lawsuit entitled United States and State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. AC Products, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 2:15- cv-09931. The United States and the State of California filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA'') against the following Defendants for recovery of response costs which each incurred to address environmental contamination at the Cooper Drum Company Superfund Site located in Los Angeles County, California (``the Site''): AC Products, Inc.; A. G. Layne, Inc.; Alpha Corporation of Tennessee Inc.; Ashland Inc.; Atlantic Richfield Company; Baker Petrolite LLC; Cargill, Incorporated; Castrol Industrial North America Inc.; Chemcentral Corp.; Chemical Waste Management, Inc.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; Coral Chemical Company; D.A. Stuart Company; Dunn-Edwards Corporation; Engineered Polymer Solutions, Inc.; ExxonMobil Oil Corporation; Gallade Chemical, Inc.; Hasco Oil Company, Inc.; Houghton International, Inc.; J.H. Mitchell & Sons Distributors, Inc.; Lockheed-Martin Corporation; Lonza Inc.; Lubricating Specialties Company; Mathisen Oil Co., Inc.; Pennzoil- Quaker State Company; Penreco; PolyOne Corporation; PPG Industries, Inc.; PTM&W Industries Inc.; Quaker Chemical Corporation; Rathon Corp.; Shell Chemical LP; Shell Oil Company; SOCO West, Inc.; Southern California Edison; Southern Counties Oil Co.; Sta-Lube LLC f/k/a Sta- Lube, Inc.; Stuarts' Petroleum; Texaco Downstream Properties Inc.; The Boeing Company; The Valspar Corporation; Union Oil Company of California; and Univar USA Inc. The complaint names the above-listed companies as Defendants based on their business relationship with the Cooper Drum Company which operated a drum reconditioning business at the Site and which accepted drums from each Defendant that contained residues of hazardous substances. The Complaint also seeks declaratory relief for all future costs to be incurred. The Consent Decree resolves these claims through the payment of $5,539,266 to the United States and $53,599 to the State of California in partial recovery of response costs. In addition, the Defendants are obligated under the Consent Decree to reimburse the United States and the State of California for all future response costs and to perform the remedial action that EPA selected for the Site. In return, the United States and the State of California agree not to sue the Defendants under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States and State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. AC Products, Inc., et al. D.J. Ref. No. 90- 11-2-09084. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

The Postal Service has filed an Annual Compliance Report on the costs, revenues, rates, and quality of service associated with its products in fiscal year 2015. Within 90 days, the Commission must evaluate that information and issue its determination as to whether rates were in compliance with title 39, chapter 36, and whether service standards in effect were met. To assist in this, the Commission seeks public comments on the Postal Service's Annual Compliance Report.

HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

Notice is hereby given that Robert Hardy, 100 8th Avenue Southeast Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish & Wildlife Research Institute, St Petersburg, FL 33701, has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing changes to the regulations governing small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits to respond to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Environmental Defense Center, et al. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003). In that decision, the court determined that the regulations for providing coverage under small MS4 general permits did not provide for adequate public notice and opportunity to request a hearing. Additionally, the court found that EPA failed to require permitting authority review of the best management practices (BMPs) to be used at a particular MS4 to ensure that the small MS4 permittee reduces pollutants in the discharge from their systems to the ``maximum extent practicable'' (MEP), the standard established by the Clean Water Act for such permits. EPA's proposal would revise the small MS4 regulations to ensure that the permitting authority determines the adequacy of BMPs and other requirements and provides public notice and the opportunity to request a public hearing on the requirements for each MS4. The proposal would not establish any new substantive requirements for small MS4s.

Under Section 7(h)(9) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended (the Act), States have the option to require that a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card contains a photo of one or more household members. The Act and existing program regulations further provide that a State that implements a photo on the EBT card shall establish procedures to ensure that any other appropriate member of the household or any authorized representative of the household may use the card. This proposed rule would provide clear parameters on these requirements. In addition, this rule proposes to amend program regulations to codify guidance that was issued December 29, 2014, requiring States that intend to implement the photo EBT card option to submit a comprehensive Implementation Plan that addresses certain operational issues to ensure State implementation is consistent with all Federal requirements and that program access is protected for participating households. In this proposed rule, the United States Department of Agriculture (the Department or USDA) would clarify that the State option to place a photo on an EBT card is a function of issuance. Pursuant to this, State agencies would be prohibited from having photo EBT card requirements affect the eligibility process. This includes ensuring that the option is appropriately implemented in a manner that does not impose additional conditions of eligibility or adversely impact the ability of appropriate household members to access the nutrition assistance they need. Failure to cooperate may result in penalties, including loss of federal financial participation. The proposed rule would also codify other program updates to reflect the current operations of the program.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) as an endangered or threatened species and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The petitioners provided three listing options for consideration by the Service: Listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf throughout its range; listing Prince of Wales Island (POW) as a significant portion of its range; or listing the population on Prince of Wales Island as a distinct population segment (DPS). After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not warranted at this time throughout all or a significant portion of its range, including POW. We also find that the Alexander Archipelago wolf population on POW does not not meet the criteria of the Service's DPS policy, and, therefore, it does not constitute a listable entity under the Act. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the threats to the Alexander Archipelago wolf or its habitat at any time.