Federal Register Vol. 80, No.112,

Background

Lm is a bacterium that is found in moist environments, soil, and decaying vegetation and can persist along the food continuum. Transfer of the bacterium from the environment (e.g., deli cases, slicers, and utensils), employees, or contaminated food products is a particular hazard of concern in RTE foods, including meat and poultry products, because they generally receive no further processing for food safety before consumption. Listeriosis is a serious infection usually caused by eating food contaminated with Lm.

On April 21, 2014, FSIS announced the availability of its “Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in Retail Delicatessens” and requested comment on the guidance (79 FR 22082). As explained in the 2014 Federal Register notice, FSIS used the key findings from the FSIS and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “Interagency Risk Assessment—Listeria monocytogenes in Retail Delicatessens” available on FSIS's Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/science/risk-assessments, the available scientific knowledge, the 2013 FDA Food Code,1 and lessons learned from controlling Lm in FSIS-inspected meat and poultry processing establishments to develop the Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Lm in Retail Delis. The guidance provides practical recommendations that retailers can use to control Lm contamination and outgrowth in the deli. Retailers can use the best-practices guidance to help ensure that RTE meat and poultry products in the deli area are handled under sanitary conditions and are not adulterated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) (see 21 U.S.C. 623(d) and 464(e)). While these practices are specifically designed to control Lm, they also may help control other foodborne pathogens that may be introduced into the retail deli environment and other facilities where consumers take possession of food.

The final guidance is posted at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/compliance-guides-index.

FSIS updated the guidance to replace the previous version of the document which was issued and announced in the Federal Register (79 FR 22082, April 21, 2014). FSIS updated this guidance based on comments received during the public comment period which closed on June 20, 2014. FSIS made the following changes to the guidance in response to comments: Clarified that food processing equipment should be disassembled during cleaning and sanitizing, added a recommendation that retailers scrub surfaces during cleaning to prevent biofilm formation, and clarified that retailers should rotate (change) sanitizers to help prevent Lm from establishing niches in the environment and forming biofilms. The response to comments section below contains a more detailed summary of the comments and FSIS's responses to those comments. Although comments will no longer be accepted through www.regulations.gov on this guidance document, FSIS will update this document as necessary should new information become available.

FSIS received six comments on the “FSIS Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Lm in Retail Delicatessens” (FSIS Retail Lm Guideline). The comments were from a meat-processing company, a trade organization that represents retail stores, two companies that provide sanitation services, one company that produces antimicrobial agents, and one trade organization that represents meat-processing companies. The following is a summary of the comments that were received and FSIS's responses to the comments.

Comment: Several commenters supported FSIS issuing the Retail Lm Guideline and recommended that FSIS issue other guidelines that retailers and food service operators can use. One commenter stated that the hazard of Lm does not change with production at a smaller facility and recommended that delis use the FSIS Compliance Guideline: “Controlling Lm in Post-lethality Exposed Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Products” (FSIS Listeria Guideline). The FSIS Listeria Guideline is posted at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/d3373299-50e6-47d6-a577-e74a1e549fde/Controlling-Lm-RTE-Guideline.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

Response: FSIS agrees that it is important to provide guidance for retailers and may issue additional guidelines as needed. While the FSIS Listeria Guideline for industry discussed in the preceding paragraph provides useful information about controlling Lm in federally inspected establishments, it does not provide information for deli operators. Because the requirements, processing conditions, and practices are different at retail than in processing facilities, issuing this separate guideline provides the specific information retailers can use to control Lm in the deli area.

Comment: Three commenters questioned whether the recommendation to rotate sanitizers to help prevent Lm from developing resistance to sanitizers and forming biofilms was necessary. One commenter stated that there is no scientific evidence that Lm develops resistance to sanitizers. The commenters recommended that retailers focus on removing the biofilm during the washing step and not the sanitizing step.

Response: Research has shown that Lm may become resistant to chlorine and other sanitizers,2 and several industry guidelines recommend rotating sanitizers.3 4 5 6 Therefore, in the guidance, FSIS continues to recommend this practice to help prevent Lm from establishing niches in the environment and forming biofilms. FSIS agrees with the commenters that biofilm formation is a concern in the deli environment and should be addressed during the cleaning step. To address this concern, FSIS has added a new recommendation to scrub surfaces during cleaning to prevent biofilm formation.

Comment: One commenter recommended that FSIS compliance investigators treat the best practices as guidance and not regulatory requirements when performing in-commerce surveillance at retail. The commenter requested that FSIS instruct its compliance investigators that the best practices are recommendations and not requirements. The commenter also recommended that compliance investigators provide the retail store management with FSIS guidance and other guidance documents that are available if they determine that store management is not aware of Listeria control actions.

Response: FSIS agrees that the guidance represents FSIS's best practices recommendations and does not represent requirements that retailers must meet. FSIS issued instructions to its compliance investigators to make them aware that this guidance did not include requirements. FSIS is not aware of any instance in which compliance investigators have enforced FSIS guidance as though it were a regulatory requirement. FSIS is instructing its compliance investigators through training materials that they should inform retailers that the guidance is available on the FSIS Web site. Retailers are required by the FMIA and PPIA to maintain sanitary conditions and otherwise not produce adulterated or misbranded product. The guidance provides actions retailers can take to help ensure that they are meeting the requirements of the FMIA and PPIA. Retailers also should be aware that the recommendations in the guideline, especially those based on the 2013 FDA Food Code, may be requirements in State, local, or Tribal regulations.

Comment: One commenter stated that it is important to disassemble equipment when cleaning to find hard-to-reach areas where Lm can hide. The commenter stated that FSIS should amend the recommendation to clean and sanitize RTE food-processing equipment every four hours to include recommendations to disassemble the equipment during cleaning.

Response: FSIS agrees that it is important to disassemble equipment (e.g., slicers) when cleaning every four hours as recommended by the 2013 FDA Food Code and has clarified this information in the guidance.

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).

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.

Background

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established on January 1, 1995, as the common international institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). United States membership in the WTO was approved and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Uruguay Round Agreements) was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994, Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809. The Uruguay Round Agreements became effective, with respect to the United States, on January 1, 1995. The Uruguay Round Agreements amended the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. Pursuant to section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, the President is required to designate an agency to be “responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization.” (19 U.S. C. 2578) The main international standard-setting organizations are Codex, the World Organisation for Animal Health, and the International Plant Protection Convention. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated to the Office of Food Safety the responsibility to inform the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex. The Office of Food Safety has, in turn, assigned the responsibility for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex to the U.S. Codex Office.

Codex was created in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the principal international organization for establishing standards for food. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair practices in the food trade, and promote coordination of food standards work undertaken by international governmental and nongovernmental organizations. In the United States, U.S. Codex activities are managed and carried out by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC); and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, the Office of Food Safety publishes this notice in the Federal Register annually. Attachment 1 (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Activities of Codex) sets forth the following information:

1. The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration; and

2. For each SPS standard specified:

a. A description of the consideration or planned consideration of the standard;

b. Whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of the standard;

c. The agenda for United States participation, if any; and

d. The agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to the standard.

TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE STANDARDS LISTED IN ATTACHMENT 1, PLEASE CONTACT THE CODEX DELEGATE OR THE U.S. CODEX OFFICE.

This notice also solicits public comment on standards that are currently under consideration or planned for consideration and recommendations for new standards. The delegate, in conjunction with the responsible agency, will take the comments received into account in participating in the consideration of the standards and in proposing matters to be considered by Codex.

The U.S. delegate will facilitate public participation in the United States Government's activities relating to Codex Alimentarius. The U.S. delegate will maintain a list of individuals, groups, and organizations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the Codex committees and will disseminate information regarding U.S. delegation activities to interested parties. This information will include the status of each agenda item; the U.S. Government's position or preliminary position on the agenda items; and the time and place of planning meetings and debriefing meetings following Codex committee sessions. In addition, the U.S. Codex Office makes much of the same information available through its Web page, http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/us-codex-alimentarius. If you would like to access or receive information about specific committees, please visit the Web page or notify the appropriate U.S. delegate or the U.S. Codex Office, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700 ([email protected]).

The information provided in Attachment 1 describes the status of Codex standard-setting activities by the Codex Committees for the time periods from June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2015, and June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2016. Attachment 2 provides a list of U.S. Codex Officials (including U.S. delegates and alternate delegates). A list of forthcoming Codex sessions may be found at: http://www.codexalimentarius.org/meetings-reports/en/.

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.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission will convene for its 38th Session July 6-11, 2015, in Geneva, Switzerland. At that time, it will consider standards, codes of practice, and related matters forwarded to the Commission by the general subject committees, commodity committees, and regional coordinating committees for adoption as Codex standards and guidance. The Commission will also consider the implementation status of the Codex Strategic Plan, the management of the Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Transition in the work of the Codex Alimentarius and a proposal for a successor initiative to the Trust Fund, papers prepared by the Secretariat on Codex Work Management and Functioning of the Executive Committee and Revitalization of the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees, as well as financial and budgetary issues.

Prior to the Commission meeting, the Executive Committee will meet at its 17th Session, June 30-July 3, 2015. It is composed of the chairperson; vice-chairpersons; seven members elected from the Commission from each of the following geographic regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, North America, and South-West Pacific; and regional coordinators from the six regional committees. Canada is the elected representative from North America; the United States will participate as an advisor. The Executive Committee will conduct a critical review of the elaboration of Codex standards and will consider the implementation status of the Codex Strategic Plan, the management of the Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Transition in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius and a proposal for a successor initiative to the Trust Fund, papers prepared by the Secretariat on Codex Work Management and Functioning of the Executive Committee and Revitalization of the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees, as well as financial and budgetary issues.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) determines priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods and recommends Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for veterinary drugs. The Committee also develops codes of practice, as may be required, and considers methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of veterinary drug residues in food. A veterinary drug is defined as any substance applied or administered to any food producing animal, such as meat or milk producing animals, poultry, fish or bees, whether used for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic purposes, or for modification of physiological functions or behavior.

A Codex Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for residues of veterinary drugs is the maximum concentration of residue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug (expressed in mg/kg or ug/kg on a fresh weight basis) that is recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be permitted or recognized as acceptable in or on a food. Residues of a veterinary drug include the parent compounds or their metabolites in any edible portion of the animal product, and include residues of associated impurities of the veterinary drug concerned. An MRL is based on the type and amount of residue considered to be without any toxicological hazard for human health as expressed by the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) or on the basis of a temporary ADI that utilizes an additional safety factor. The MRL also takes into account other relative public health risks as well as food technological aspects.

When establishing an MRL, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin or the environment. Furthermore, the MRL may be reduced to be consistent with official recommended or authorized usage, approved by national authorities, of the veterinary drugs under practical conditions.

An Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is an estimate made by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the amount of a veterinary drug, expressed on a body weight basis, which can be ingested daily in food over a lifetime without appreciable health risk.

The Committee met for its 22nd Session in San José, Costa Rica, from April 27-May 1, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/RVDF. The following items are to be considered for adoption by the 38th Session of the Commission in July 2015:

To be considered for approval:

To be considered at Step 5/8:

The Committee will continue working on:

The Committee recommended that work on the following items be considered for discontinuation:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA/Center for Veterinary Medicine; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) establishes or endorses permitted maximum levels (ML) and, where necessary, revises existing guidelines levels for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; prepares priority lists of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; considers and elaborates methods of analysis and sampling for the determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; considers and elaborates standards or codes of practice for related subjects; and considers other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed.

The Committee convened for its 9th Session in New Delhi, India, March 16-20, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/CF. The following items are to be considered for adoption by the 38th Session of the Commission in July 2015:

To be considered for approval:

To be considered for adoption at Step 8 and 5/8:

To be considered for adoption at Step 8:

To be considered for adoption at Step 5:

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) establishes or endorses acceptable maximum levels (MLs) for individual food additives; prepares a priority list of food additives for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); assigns functional classes to individual food additives; recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission; considers methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and considers and elaborates standards or codes of practice for related subjects such as the labeling of food additives when sold as such. The 47th Session of the Committee met in Xi'an, China, March 23-27, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/FA. Immediately prior to the Plenary Session, there was a two-day physical Working Group on the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) chaired by the United States. The following items will be considered by the 38th Session of the Commission in July 2015:

To be considered for approval:

To be considered for adoption:

To be considered at Step 8 and 5/8:

To be considered at Step 5/8:

The Committee will continue working on:

The Committee also agreed to convene a physical Working Group on the GSFA immediately preceding the 48th session of CCFA to be chaired by the United States that will discuss:

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) is responsible for establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food; establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues in certain animal feeding stuffs moving in international trade where this is justified for reasons of protection of human health; preparing priority lists of pesticides for evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR); considering methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of pesticide residues in food and feed; considering other matters in relation to the safety of food and feed containing pesticide residues; and establishing maximum limits for environmental and industrial contaminants showing chemical or other similarity to pesticides in specific food items or groups of food.

The 47th Session of the Committee met in Beijing, China, April 13-18, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/PR. The following items will be considered at the 38th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8:

To be considered for adoption at Step 5:

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agencies: EPA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) defines the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling; serves as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working on methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories; specifies, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the bodies referred to above, reference methods of analysis and sampling appropriate to Codex standards which are generally applicable to a number of foods; considers, amends if necessary, and endorses as appropriate, methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex commodity committees, except for methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives; elaborates sampling plans and procedures, as may be required; considers specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and defines procedures, protocols, guidelines or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories.

The 36th Session of the Committee met in Budapest, Hungary, February 23-27, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/MAS. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8:

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

The Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems is responsible for developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems, with a view to harmonizing methods and procedures that protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trading practices, and facilitate international trade in foodstuffs; developing principles and guidelines for the application of measures by the competent authorities of exporting and importing countries to provide assurance, where necessary, that foodstuffs comply with requirements, especially statutory health requirements; developing guidelines for the utilization, as and when appropriate, of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform with requirements and promote the recognition of these systems in facilitating trade in food products under bilateral/multilateral arrangements by countries; developing guidelines and criteria with respect to format, declarations, and language of such official certificates as countries may require with a view towards international harmonization; making recommendations for information exchange in relation to food import/export control; consulting as necessary with other international groups working on matters related to food inspection and certification systems; and considering other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to food inspection and certification systems.

The 21st Session of the Committee convened in Brisbane, Australia, October 13-17, 2014. The relevant document is REP15/FICS. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015. The Committee will continue working on the following items:

Responsible Agencies: USDA/FSIS; HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Food Labelling drafts provisions on labeling applicable to all foods; considers, amends, and endorses draft specific provisions on labeling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice, and guidelines; and studies specific labeling problems assigned by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also studies problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions.

The Committee met for its 42nd Session in Rome, Italy, October 21-24, 2014. The relevant document is REP15/FL. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session (July 2015). The Committee plans to continue work on the following items:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene:

The Committee convened for its 46th Session in Lima, Peru, November 17-21, 2014. The relevant document is REP 15/FH. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

To be considered for adoption at Step 8:

To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8:

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CCFFV) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards and codes of practice as may be appropriate for fresh fruits and vegetables; for consulting as necessary, with other international organizations in the standards development process to avoid duplication.

The 19th Session of the Committee will meet in Mexico, October 5-9, 2015. The Committee will continue discussing the following items:

Responsible Agencies: USDA/AMS; HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) is responsible for studying nutrition issues referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also drafts general provisions, as appropriate, on nutritional aspects of all foods and develops standards, guidelines, or related texts for foods for special dietary uses in cooperation with other committees where necessary; considers, amends if necessary, and endorses provisions on nutritional aspects proposed for inclusion in Codex standards, guidelines, and related texts.

The Committee convened for its 36th Session in Bali, Indonesia, November 24-28, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/NFSDU. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

To be considered for adoption at Step 8:

To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8:

To be recommended for discontinuation:

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/Agricultural Research Service (ARS).

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Fish and Fishery Products Committee (CCFFP) is responsible for elaborating standards for fresh, frozen and otherwise processed fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. The Committee will convene its 34th Session in Alesund, Norway, October 19-24, 2015. The Committee will continue working on the following agenda items:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDC/NOAA/NMFS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable, and marine origin, including margarine and olive oil.

The 24th session of the Committee convened in Melaka, Malaysia, February 9-13, 2015. The reference document is REP 15/FO. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

To be considered for adoption at Step 5:

The Committee will continue working on:

To be recommended for discontinuation:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/ARS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables (CCPFV) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards and related texts for all types of processed fruits and vegetables including but not limited to canned, dried, and frozen products, as well as fruit and vegetable juices and nectars.

The Committee convened its 27th Session in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 8-12, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/PFV. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

To be considered for adoption at Step 8:

To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8:

The Committee will continue working on:

The Committee also agreed to forward the following items to the 47th session of CCFA for endorsement:

Responsible Agencies: USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service; HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products (CCMMP) establishes international codes and standards concerning milk and milk products.

The Committee has been reactivated electronically to work on a standard for processed cheese. The Committee held a physical Working Group (pWG) in Brussels January 20-22, 2015.

The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

To be considered for adoption at Step 5:

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agencies: USDA/AMS HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Sugars (CCS) elaborates worldwide standards for all types of sugars and sugar products.

The Committee has been reactivated electronically to work on a standard for Non-Centrifugated Dehydrated Sugar Cane Juice.

The following item will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

To be considered for adoption:

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Several Codex Alimentarius Commodity Committees have adjourned sine die. The following Committees fall into this category:

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Responsible Agency: USDA/ARS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committees define the problems and needs of the regions concerning food standards and food control; promote within the Committee contacts for the mutual exchange of information on proposed regulatory initiatives and problems arising from food control and stimulate the strengthening of food control infrastructures; recommend to the Commission the development of worldwide standards for products of interest to the region, including products considered by the Committees to have an international market potential in the future; develop regional standards for food products moving exclusively or almost exclusively in intra-regional trade; draw the attention of the Commission to any aspects of the Commission's work of particular significance to the region; promote coordination of all regional food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations within each region; exercise a general coordinating role for the region and such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Commission; and promote the use of Codex standards and related texts by members.

There are six regional coordinating committees:

The Committee (CCAfrica) met for its 21st Session in Yaoundé, Cameroon, January 27-30, 2015. The reference document is REP 15/AFRICA. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes (as observer).

The Committee (CCAsia) met for its 19th Session in Tokyo, Japan, November 3-7, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/ASIA. The following items are to be considered for adoption by the 38th Session of the Commission in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption at Step 8:

To be considered for adoption:

To be recommended for discontinuation:

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes (as observer).

The Committee (CCEurope) convened its 29th Session in The Hague, the Netherlands, September 30-October 04, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/EURO. There are no items for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee will continue working on:

To be recommended for discontinuation:

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes (as observer).

The Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean (CCLAC) convened its 19th Session in San José, Costa Rica, from November 10-14, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/LAC. There are no items for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee will continue working on:

• Proposed draft Regional Standard for Yacon.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes (as observer).

The Committee (CCNEA) convened its 8th Session in Rome, Italy, June 1-5, 2015. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: No.

The Committee (CCNASWP) convened its 13th Session in Kokopo, Papua New Guinea, September 23-26, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/NASWP. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee will continue working on:

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Delegate Note: A member of the Steering Committee heads the delegation to meetings of the General Principles Committee.

Title III, Subtitle B, Section 321 through Section 328 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) [Pub. L. 112-42] implements the textile and apparel safeguard provisions, provided for in Article 3.1 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”). This safeguard mechanism applies when, as a result of the elimination of a customs duty under the Agreement, a Colombian textile or apparel article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof to a U.S. industry producing a like or directly competitive article. In these circumstances, Article 3.1 permits the United States to increase duties on the imported article from Colombia to a level that does not exceed the lesser of the prevailing U.S. normal trade relations (NTR)/most-favored-nation (MFN) duty rate for the article or the U.S. NTR/MFN duty rate in effect on the day before the Agreement entered into force.

The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Act provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under Section 322(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under section 322(b) of the Act.

In Proclamation No. 8818 (77 FR 29519, May 18, 2012), the President delegated to CITA his authority under Subtitle B of Title III of the Act with respect to textile and apparel safeguard measures.

CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Colombia, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile industry, subject to section 322(b) of the Act.

Pursuant to Section 321(a) of the Act and Section (9) of Presidential Proclamation 8818, an interested party in the U.S. domestic textile and apparel industry may file a request for a textile and apparel safeguard action with CITA. Consistent with longstanding CITA practice in considering textile safeguard actions, CITA will consider an interested party to be an entity (which may be a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers) that is representative of either: (A) A domestic producer or producers of an article that is like or directly competitive with the subject Colombian textile or apparel article; or (B) a domestic producer or producers of a component used in the production of an article that is like or directly competitive with the subject Colombian textile or apparel article.

In order for a request to be considered, the requester must provide the following information in support of a claim that a textile or apparel article from Colombia is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof, to a U.S. industry producing an article that is like, or directly competitive with, the imported article: (1) Name and description of the imported article concerned; (2) import data demonstrating that imports of a Colombian origin textile or apparel article that are like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the domestic industry concerned are increasing in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article; (3) U.S. domestic production of the like or directly competitive articles of U.S. origin indicating the nature and extent of the serious damage or actual threat thereof, along with an affirmation that to the best of the requester's knowledge, the data represent substantially all of the domestic production of the like or directly competitive article(s) of U.S. origin; (4) imports from Colombia as a percentage of the domestic market of the like or directly competitive article; and (5) all data available to the requester showing changes in productivity, utilization of capacity, inventories, exports, wages, employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, and any other information, relating to the existence of serious damage or actual threat thereof caused by imports from Colombia to the industry producing the like or directly competitive article that is the subject of the request. To the extent that such information is not available, the requester should provide best estimates and the basis therefore.

If CITA determines that the request provides the information necessary for it to be considered, CITA will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments regarding the request. The comment period shall be 30 calendar days. The notice will include a summary of the request. Any interested party may submit information to rebut, clarify, or correct public comments submitted by any interested party.

CITA will make a determination on any request it considers within 60 calendar days of the close of the comment period. If CITA is unable to make a determination within 60 calendar days, it will publish a notice in the Federal Register, including the date it will make a determination.

If a determination under Section 322(b) of the Act is affirmative, CITA may provide tariff relief to a U.S. industry to the extent necessary to remedy or prevent serious damage or actual threat thereof and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to import competition. The import tariff relief is effective beginning on the date that CITA's affirmative determination is published in the Federal Register.

Entities submitting requests, responses or rebuttals to CITA may submit both a public and confidential version of their submissions. If the request is accepted, the public version will be posted on the dedicated Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement textile safeguards section of the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) Web site. The confidential version of the requests, responses or rebuttals will not be shared with the public as it may contain business confidential information. Entities submitting responses or rebuttals may use the public version of the request as a basis for responses.

When an interested party files a request for a textile and apparel safeguard action with CITA, ten copies of any such request must be provided in a paper format. If business confidential information is provided, two copies of a non-confidential version must also be provided.

OMB Control Number: 0625-0271.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6 (1 for Request; 5 for Comments).

Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours for a Request; and 4 hours for each Comment.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 24.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $960.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Title II, Section 203(o) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) [Public Law 112-42] implements the commercial availability provision provided for in Article 3.3 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement entered into force on May 15, 2012. Subject to the rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, pursuant to the textile provisions of the Agreement, fabric, yarn, and fiber produced in Colombia or the United States and traded between the two countries are entitled to duty-free tariff treatment. Annex 3-B of the Agreement also lists specific fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the two countries agreed are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in Colombia or the United States. The fabrics listed are commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers, which are also entitled to duty-free treatment despite not being produced in Colombia or the United States.

The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 3, Article 3.3, Paragraphs 5-7 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from Colombia or the United States have the right to request that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3-B of the Agreement.

Chapter 3, Article 3.3, paragraph 7 of the Agreement requires that the President “promptly” publish procedures for parties to exercise the right to make these requests. Section 203(o)(4) of the Act authorizes the President to establish procedures to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Colombia as set out in Annex 3-B of the Agreement. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) (See Proclamation No. 8818, 77 FR 29519, May 18, 2012).

The intent of the U.S.-Colombia TPA Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and regional products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. The procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission of requests; allow the market to indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and the public, information regarding the requests for products and offers received for those products; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; allow for careful review and consideration of information provided to substantiate requests, responses and rebuttals; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.

CITA must collect certain information about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical specifications and the production capabilities of Colombian and U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Colombia, subject to Section 203(o) of the Act.

Participants in a commercial availability proceeding must submit public versions of their Requests, Responses or Rebuttals electronically (via email) for posting on OTEXA's Web site. Confidential versions of those submissions which contain business confidential information must be delivered in hard copy to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

OMB Control Number: 0625-0272.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 16.

Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours per Request, 2 hours per Response, and 1 hour per Rebuttal.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 89.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $5,340.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

On March 28, 1996, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce identified Italy pursuant to the U.S. High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, 16 U.S.C. 1826a-1826c, as a nation for which there was reason to believe its nationals or vessels were conducting large-scale high seas driftnet fishing in contravention to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/215. The identification invoked, among other things, the provision of the DPCIA, 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(F) that requires that an exporting nation whose fishing vessels engage in high seas driftnet fishing provide documentary evidence that certain fish and fish products (specified in regulations at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)) it wishes to export to the United States were not harvested with large-scale driftnets anywhere on the high seas. Effective May 29, 1996, all shipments from Italy containing the specified fish and fish products became subject to this driftnet reporting requirement.

The reporting requirement has persisted to the present day as a deterrent to large-scale high seas driftnet fishing by Italy. The United States has not received any reports of Italian fishing vessels employing large-scale driftnets on the high seas since 2008. On April 2, 2015, the Government of Italy sent notification which certified that no Italian vessel is involved in the use of large-scale driftnets on the high seas. Italy will no longer be required to provide documentary evidence that certain fish and fish products (specified in U.S. regulations at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)(i) and (ii)) it wishes to export to the United States were not harvested with large-scale driftnets on the high seas. Furthermore, fish and fish products exported from Italy, and imported into the United States under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) numbers specified in U.S. regulations at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)(iii), will no longer need to be accompanied by a Fisheries Certificate of Origin (NOAA Form 370).

The HSDFEA furthers the purposes of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/215, which called for a worldwide ban on large-scale high seas driftnet fishing beginning December 31, 1992.

The DPCIA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(F)) requires that an exporting nation whose fishing vessels engage in high seas driftnet fishing provide documentary evidence that certain fish or fish products it wishes to export to the United States were not harvested with a large-scale driftnet on the high seas. As required by 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2), the NOAA Form 370 must accompany all imported shipments of an item with an HTS number listed in that section harvested by or imported from a large-scale driftnet nation.

As of the effective date of this notice, a certification by an Italian Government representative attesting that the fish or fish products were not harvested by a large-scale driftnet on the high seas will no longer be required in Section 7 of the NOAA Form 370 for the HTS numbers specified in 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)(i) and (ii). Furthermore, a NOAA Form 370 will no longer be required for any importation from Italy for the non-tuna fish and fish products classified with the HTS numbers specified at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)(iii).

Background

On September 8, 2014, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the 2012-2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. On October 8, 2014, Cosco Home and Office Products (Cosco), a U.S. importer, submitted a case brief. No other comments were submitted to the Department.

The merchandise subject to the order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.50.90 and 8716.90.50.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.3

All issues raised by parties in this administrative review are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is electronically available via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).4 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Shunhe submitted certifications of no shipments. Because Shunhe was, at the outset of this administrative review, and continues to be part of the PRC-wide entity in this administrative review, the Department did not make a determination of no shipments.5 Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, the Department did not receive any information that indicated anything to the contrary. The Department therefore finds for these final results that Shunhe continues to remain part of the PRC-wide entity.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department noted that it would rescind the review with respect to Full Merit in the final results if the PRC-wide entity did not come under review in this administrative review. Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, the Department did not receive any comments or information which indicated that Full Merit or the PRC-wide entity should be reviewed. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to this company.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from an interested party regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain revisions to the margin calculations for New-Tec. Specifically, the Department adjusted financial ratio calculations for surrogate values and adjusted the surrogate values for energy.6

In our Preliminary Results, we determined that New-Tec met the criteria for separate rate status. We have not received any information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsidering this preliminary finding. Therefore, the Department continues to find that New-Tec meets the criteria for a separate rate.

The Department determines that the following final dumping margin exists for the period December 1, 2012, through November 30, 2013:

The Department will disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed within five days after the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department determines, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise and deposits of estimated duties, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Because we have calculated a zero margin for New-Tec in the final results of this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases.7 Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.8

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by New-Tec, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review, except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC and non-PRC exporter not listed above that received a separate rate in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 383.60 percent); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing this final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

CPSC has submitted the following currently approved collection of information to OMB for extension:

Title: Safety Standard for Portable Bed Rails.

OMB Number: 3041-0149.

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of portable bed rails.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 17 firms supplying portable bed rails to the United States Market have been identified with an estimated 2 models/firm annually.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour/model associated with marking, labeling, and instructional requirements.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 34 hours (17 firms × 2 models × 1 hour).

General Description of Collection: The Commission issued a safety standard for portable bed rails (16 CFR part 1224) on February 29, 2012 (77 FR 12182). The standard is intended to address hazards to children from use of portable bed rails. Among other requirements, the standard requires manufacturers, including importers, to meet the collection of information requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature for portable bed rails.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of this Board is to make recommendation to DOE-SC with respect to the basic energy sciences research program.

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Katie Runkles at (301) 903-6594 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 45 days by contacting Katie Runkles at the address above.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee (EM&R): The EM&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EM&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.

Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The NNMCAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/.

Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA), as amended, establishes requirements for building energy conservation standards, administered by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.) Section 304(a), as amended, of ECPA provides that whenever the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) must make a determination, not later than 12 months after such revision, whether the revised code would improve energy efficiency in residential buildings, and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) The Secretary may determine that the revision of the 1992 MEC, or any successor thereof, improves the level of energy efficiency in residential buildings. If so, then not later than two years after the date of the publication of such affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it has reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency, and made a determination as to whether it is appropriate to revise its code to meet or exceed the provisions of the successor code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) State determinations are to be made: (1) After public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon findings included in such determination and upon evidence presented at the hearing; and (4) available to the public. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(2)) In addition, if a State determines that it is not appropriate to revise its residential building code, the State is required to submit to the Secretary, in writing, the reasons, which are to be made available to the public. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(4))

ECPA requires the Secretary to permit extensions of the deadlines for the State certification if a State can demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of section 304(a) of ECPA, and that it has made significant progress in doing so. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) DOE is also directed to provide technical assistance to States to support implementation of State residential and commercial building energy efficiency codes. (42 U.S.C. 6833(d))

The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is the national model code establishing energy efficiency requirements for residential buildings. The IECC is revised every 3 years through a code development and consensus process administered by the International Code Council (ICC) 1 . Code change proposals may be submitted by any interested party, and are evaluated through a series of public hearings. As part of the ICC process, any interested party may submit proposals, as well as written comments or suggested changes to any proposal, and make arguments before a committee of experts assembled by the ICC. At the final public hearing, arguments are presented to and voted upon by the ICC Governmental Member Representatives, with the collection of accepted proposals forming the revised edition of the IECC. The ICC published the 2015 edition of the IECC (2015 IECC or 2015 edition) on June 3, 2014, which forms the basis of this determination notice.

In arriving at its determination, DOE reviewed all changes between the 2012 and 2015 editions of the IECC with respect to residential buildings. Accordingly, DOE published a Notice of Preliminary Determination regarding the 2015 IECC in the Federal Register on September 26, 2014 (79 FR 57915).

DOE accepted public comments on the Notice of Preliminary Determination for the 2015 IECC until October 27, 2014. DOE received timely submissions from a total of five submitters.

ICC's first comment offers general support for DOE's preliminary determination. (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2) 2 In its second comment, ICC suggests DOE accompany its 2015 IECC determination with “previously released information regarding the increased efficiency of the 2012 IECC over the 2009 version, and the increased efficiency of the 2009 version over the 2006 version, in order to make it abundantly clear that the efficiency of the 2015 IECC is much higher than versions of the IECC in use in many states and jurisdictions around the nation.” (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2-3) DOE agrees with ICC's assessment that the provisions of the 2015 edition of the IECC are much more energy efficient than several earlier editions of the model code. In performing its determination, DOE evaluates the expected national impact of the new edition of the model code, in this case the 2015 IECC, against the most recent previous edition receiving an affirmative determination of energy savings, in this case the 2012 IECC (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)). However, DOE recognizes that the updated code represents a significant savings opportunity—in many cases up to 30 percent savings relative to codes currently adopted by U.S. states.3 In response, DOE has added references to earlier determinations, as well as the associated energy savings estimates, in Section V of this notice. In its third comment, ICC suggests DOE “emphasize that states are to compare the provisions of their current codes with the provisions and requirements of the 2015 IECC, and not assume that the percentage increase in efficiency for their respective state will be the same as the 1% increase measured by DOE over the provisions in the 2012 IECC.” (ICC, No. 2 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges that States and localities should indeed consider the impact of updated model codes relative to the specific requirements in effect within the state or locality. In performing its determination, DOE evaluates the updated model code relative to the previous model code, and estimates the aggregate impact on national energy consumption. As many adopting states and localities make modifications to the model code, these entities should evaluate the impacts of the updated code relative to their own provisions. ICC further offers suggested communication options for DOE to consider: “(1) DOE should transmit, with a cover letter offering assistance and cooperation, a copy of the final determination to the governor of each state, with a copy to the State Energy Office, and post a copy of the cover letter template on the DOE Building Energy Codes Web site. (2) DOE should provide, along with the cover letter and determination, a simple form response `state determination form' in a format that allows the state officials charged with complying with the law the ability to check off whether the state (a) has reviewed its code, (b) has provided notice and an opportunity for comment in the state, (c) has made findings, (d) has published such findings, and (e) if the state has determined to revise its code a description of the new code, and if it has decided not to revise its residential building energy code, a space to provide the reasons for such decision. (3) The cover letter, as well as the proposed form for response to DOE, should prominently note the date on which the response to DOE is due. (4) DOE should publish on its Building Energy Codes Web site the response received from each state, as well as a list of states from which a response has not been received, updated on a regular basis. (5) Publishing the information on each state, and its response or non-response would allow citizens to become involved and ask questions of their public officials, and otherwise determine whether their state is in compliance with the law.” (ICC, No. 2 at p. 3) DOE is currently evaluating the means by which it tracks the national implementation of building energy codes, and will consider the communication options proposed by ICC.

NAHB's first comment suggests that “DOE's analysis of the pipe insulation was not properly calculated” and noted that the actual net change made by this proposal was to increase the length of 3/4-inch pipe requiring insulation by including runs shorter than 10 feet, while eliminating insulation requirements on smaller diameter piping. NAHB suggests “by properly applying the new hot water pipe insulation requirements, the resulting energy savings will change.” (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 1) DOE agrees with NAHB's comments relative to the net energy savings surrounding this particular proposal, and has revised its analysis accordingly. The revised estimated total energy cost savings compared to the 2012 IECC are now 0.73% compared to the preliminary estimate of 0.90% (see Section III of this notice). NAHB's second comment notes that the “International Code Council (ICC) originally had proposal RE112-13 listed as being approved to be included in the 2015 edition of the IECC. This proposal, however, was actually withdrawn by the proponent before it was approved on the consent agenda. As a result, the changes were not included in the 2015 IECC and thus, any reference to RE112-13 should be removed from the analysis.” (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 2) DOE agrees with NAHB's comment and acknowledges that the subject proposal is not included in the 2015 IECC. DOE notes that the original documentation published by the ICC following the public hearing process inadvertently included this proposal, and it has since been confirmed that the proposal was withdrawn from consideration during the hearing process. DOE has revised this notice and supporting documentation accordingly. (Note that RECA offered a similar comment on RE112-13; see RECA, No. 4 at p. 3.)

RECA's first comment expresses general support for DOE's Preliminary Determination on the 2015 edition of IECC, DOE's evaluation methodology in both its quantitative and qualitative aspects, and DOE's conclusion that the 2015 IECC's weakening amendments are outweighed by its strengthening amendments. (RECA No. 4 at p. 1) In its second comment, RECA “urges the Department to move ahead to finalize its Determination endorsing the 2015 IECC for state adoption”; “to continue to provide materials to states and localities that will facilitate the adoption of, and compliance with, this latest edition of the IECC”; “to expeditiously make training and compliance software available to states that adopt the 2015 IECC”; and “to provide additional funding to those states that are early adopters of the 2015 IECC.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 1, and 3) DOE acknowledges the need for materials that can assist in facilitating the adoption of the latest editions of the model code. While these activities are not directly within the scope of the DOE determination analysis, DOE is directed to provide technical assistance to states implementing building energy codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)), and does so through a variety of activities, such as state-specific energy and cost analysis, code compliance software, and a collection of technical resources. DOE intends to continue to provide such resources to assist states in implementing updated model codes, including adoption of such codes by states and localities, and increasing compliance with building energy codes to ensure intended consumer energy and cost savings. In its third comment, RECA agrees with DOE that, “proposal RE68-13 slightly weakens sunroom fenestration requirements”, “the impact should be very small”, and it, “does not affect SHGC requirements”, but notes that “the impact is on climate zones 2-3, not climate zone 1.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 2) DOE agrees with RECA's comment and assessment of the subject proposal, and has revised the determination notice and supporting analysis accordingly. In its fourth comment, RECA disagrees with DOE that duct tightness levels tend to always be a “zero sum trade-off” as claimed in the Preliminary Determination, and suggests that “the Department explicitly and correctly recognize the value of mandatory measures, and that removal of this mandatory backstop is a reduction in stringency in some cases, albeit likely modest, depending on the measure that replaces duct efficiency.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 2-3) DOE agrees in principle with RECA's comment that energy neutrality depends on a variety of factors, including impacts over the useful life of alternative energy measures. In the case of building energy efficiency tradeoffs, the impact on longer-term energy savings can vary significantly between the measures being traded and the chosen alternative designs. In addition, DOE understands the purpose of mandatory requirements within the code, and while the subject proposal cannot directly be captured within the DOE quantitative analysis, DOE indeed acknowledges the potential effect on building energy efficiency in application. In its fifth comment, RECA notes that proposal RE112-13 “was withdrawn prior to final consideration, and is thus not part of the 2015 IECC.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 3) DOE agrees with this comment, as detailed above in response to NAHB's similar comment. In its sixth comment, RECA suggests that DOE should “continue to assess the potential impact of changes to the IECC for compliance paths outside the prescriptive path” averring that expanding the Department's ability to further assess such changes is in the public interest. (RECA No. 4 at p. 3) With specific reference to DOE's evaluation of the new ERI compliance path, RECA agrees with DOE's use of the prescriptive compliance path as the generally predominant path, but recommends “this emphasis on the prescriptive path for the numerical analysis should not be read as limiting the overall assessment of all changes in the code, nor should it suggest that an edition of the code will receive a positive or negative determination solely on the basis of this quantitative analysis.” RECA notes that in previous determinations, DOE has not historically limited itself to analyzing only changes to the prescriptive path, and encourages DOE not to limit itself to only considering changes to the prescriptive path in the future. RECA “urges the Department to clarify in its Determination that it will continue to assess any changes made to the performance path, and any new compliance options (like ERI) that are added to the IECC going forward in future Determinations.” DOE agrees with RECA's comment in principle, and acknowledges that changes in the 2015 IECC, as well as potential future changes to the IECC, are likely to require increasingly nuanced analyses of the changes' impacts. As stated in the preliminary notice, DOE plans to collect data specifically on the ERI path, and will consider means to broaden the scope of that commitment, as necessary, in the future. In addition, while the DOE Determination has typically focused on the mandatory and prescriptive requirements of the IECC, the Department reserves the right to evaluate other means of compliance when adequate information is available. In its seventh comment, RECA agrees with DOE that “it is difficult to assess the impact of the new Energy Rating Index in the context of a Determination,” but argues that “DOE could reasonably conclude, based on the results of a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study, that the new compliance path is reasonably likely to save energy as compared to compliance with the 2012 IECC prescriptive requirements on average, even if some individual homes could be weaker than those built to the 2012 IECC.” 4 (RECA No. 4 at p. 5) DOE appreciates the comment and agrees, based on the referenced PNNL analysis, that most homes built using the ERI path, as specified in the 2015 IECC, are likely to be at least as efficient as the homes built to meet the prescriptive requirements of the IECC or the traditional performance path. In its eighth comment, RECA urges DOE to “promote the proper adoption and implementation of the ERI as contained in the 2015 IECC, without any weakening amendments, including monitoring its deployment in states and cities going forward.” RECA also recommends “DOE develop and/or fund comprehensive support materials and training to help to ensure that the ERI is properly implemented,” and that “DOE should also consider how it can help to ensure that the ERI process produces consistent, repeatable, and credible results for code compliance.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 5-7) DOE acknowledges the importance of the new ERI path in the 2015 IECC and its potential impact on energy as the code is implemented. While code implementation activities are outside the direct scope of the DOE determination, DOE does provide technical assistance to states implementing building energy codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)). DOE recognizes the need for continued analysis and support for states adopting the 2015 IECC, and will consider the requested activities, as able and appropriate, through the Building Energy Codes Program. In its ninth comment, RECA supports the “Department's stated plan to collect data relevant to the ERI, as well as all compliance options allowed in the IECC.” RECA further encourages the Department to “reach out to industry and nonprofit partners to aggregate the data already available, and to explore new methods for collecting and analyzing data on the various compliance options and tools used across the country.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 7) DOE acknowledges and appreciates RECA's support, and plans to work with the industry and stakeholders in evaluating the new ERI path and associated energy impact. As previously stated, DOE intends to collect relevant data and track the implementation of the ERI path relative to the traditional compliance options provided by the IECC. DOE will continue to communicate with interested and affected parties as the 2015 IECC is implemented and as further data and resulting analysis becomes available.

NRDC's first two comments offer general support for DOE's determination that the 2015 IECC saves energy compared to the 2012 IECC, for DOE's quantitative finding of energy savings, and for DOE's qualitative assessment of the specific code changes that will result in energy savings. (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 1-2) In its third comment NRDC suggests that “actual energy savings from the 2015 IECC are likely to be much larger than indicated by DOE's analysis”, specifically suggesting that the “new Energy Rating Index (ERI) pathway created by RE188-13 is likely to result in significant energy savings.” (NRDC, No.5 at p.2) NRDC acknowledges that it is not knowable exactly how many homes will comply using the ERI pathway, but suggests it is certainly not zero. NRDC suggests that “currently about half of new homes constructed in the U.S. are rated using the RESNET HERS rating”, and that “it is likely a large percentage of these homes will choose to comply with the code via the ERI pathway, since this will likely be the simplest method of compliance.” (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) NRDC further notes that a “Pacific Northwest National Laboratory analysis of the HERS index's relationship to the 2012 IECC performance path found that for all climate zones the ERI values adopted in the 2015 IECC ranged from at least as efficient to substantially more efficient than the 2012 IECC, indicating that homes complying with the ERI path will on average achieve large energy savings compared to the 2012 IECC.” (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) DOE agrees that the new alternative ERI compliance path, including the associated thresholds as published in the 2015 IECC, is reasonably likely to result in energy savings compared to the 2012 IECC and the majority of current state codes. However, DOE remains unaware of any current data source that would allow for adequate evaluation of the newly created path. DOE continues to base its evaluation of the new path on the recent analysis conducted by PNNL, as referenced in the preliminary determination notice. In its fourth comment, NRDC appreciates DOE's indication in the preliminary determination that “it will attempt to collect data on the utilization of the various compliance pathways and evaluate whether it can quantify savings from compliance pathways other than the prescriptive path in future determinations”, and urges DOE to “evaluate energy savings from the ERI pathway in future determinations, as currently the analysis leaves out this potential source of significant energy savings.” (NRDC, No. 5 at p.2) DOE acknowledges the importance of evaluating the energy impact of the ERI alternative, but remains unaware of any current data source that would allow for adequate evaluation of the newly created path. DOE, therefore, maintains its intentions to track the adoption of the ERI path relative to traditional application of the IECC, and may further evaluate this path in future analyses.

One comment was received from an individual submitter, Craig Conner, who indicated that “DOE made errors in estimating the residential energy savings for the change that included a new tropical option for residential construction (CE66-13 Part II, or CE66-II).” (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner suggests that “DOE modeling was not done in accordance with the IECC standard reference design, and therefore is not as required for a determination.” He further suggests that “several major energy saving requirements provided by this new option were ignored or underestimated”, and argues that “the definition of the Tropical Zone, which is a subset of existing IECC Climate Zone 1, does not by itself increase or decrease energy”, but that “it is the associated requirements that would potentially affect energy use.” (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner cites three aspects of proposal CE66-13 Part II that should have been considered new energy-saving requirements rather than conditions under which other requirements may be lessened, as DOE interpreted them: The restriction that the home not be heated and that 50% of the home be uncooled, the restriction that 80% of domestic water heating be by solar or other renewable sources, and the restriction that natural ventilation be facilitated by operable windows. (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) In response, DOE appreciates Mr. Conner's comments, but does not agree with his assessment regarding the particular proposal. The IECC Standard Reference Design (SRD) is intended for demonstrating compliance of individual buildings, which differs from the aggregate national analysis applied in DOE determinations. Although the DOE building modeling prototypes and simulation methodology occasionally draw on SRD assumptions, where appropriate, they are also informed by additional sources that may better represent typical construction practices, and to estimate an expected impact of code changes. In this case, DOE considered typical construction affected by the newly defined Tropical Zone, and acknowledges the modified criteria associated with partially-conditioned homes (e.g., with solar water heating systems and operable windows). However, it is not clear that these changes will encourage additional use of energy-saving features, and DOE has maintained its original assessment.

In arriving at a determination, DOE reviewed all changes between the 2015 and 2012 editions of the IECC. The IECC covers a broad spectrum of the energy-related components and systems in buildings, ranging from simpler residential buildings to more complex multifamily facilities. For the purposes of its determination, DOE focused only on low-rise residential buildings, defined in a manner consistent with the ICC and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Low-rise residential buildings include one- and two-family detached and attached buildings, and low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories), such as condominiums and garden apartments. The 2015 IECC was developed through the same approach as the previous 2012 edition with approval through the ICC consensus process. The 2015 edition contains no significant changes to the overall scope or the structure of the prescriptive and mandatory provisions of the code, which form the basis of the DOE determination analyses. As a result, DOE determined that the methodology used for the analysis of the 2012 IECC should again be utilized for the analysis of the 2015 IECC.

The analysis methodology used by DOE contains both qualitative and quantitative components. A qualitative comparison is undertaken to identify textual changes between requirements in the 2015 and 2012 editions of the IECC, followed by a quantitative assessment of energy savings conducted through whole-building simulations of buildings constructed to meet the minimum requirements of each code over a range of U.S. climates. The analysis methodology, which was previously developed through a public comment process, is available on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site.5

Consistent with its previous determinations, DOE compared overall editions of the IECC, and did not issue determinations for individual code changes. DOE interprets the language in section 304(a) of ECPA to mean that when a comprehensive revision of the 1992 MEC, or its successor (which in this case is the 2015 IECC), is published, then that revised or successor code triggers the Secretary's obligation to issue a determination as to whether the revised code improves energy efficiency in residential buildings. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) This determination is made by comparing the revised or successor code to the last predecessor code.

Section 304(a) of ECPA states that the Secretary is required to make a determination as to whether any successor standard to the 1992 MEC will improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) Section 304 of ECPA does not include any reference to economic justification, although such criteria are considered directly by the ICC code development and consensus process, as applicable. Each proposal submitted to the ICC code development process also requires a declaration of whether the proposed code change will increase the cost of construction.

Separate from the Secretary's determination under section 304(a), section 307 of ECPA requires DOE to periodically review the technical and economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes, and participate in the industry process for review and modification, including seeking adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)) In fulfillment of this directive, DOE evaluates its code change proposals submitted to the ICC, analyzing energy savings and cost-effectiveness, as applicable, and otherwise participates in the ICC process. In addition, DOE performs independent technical and economic analysis of the IECC as part of its direction to provide assistance to States implementing building energy codes. This approach allows DOE to meet its statutory obligation to participate in the industry process for review and modification of the IECC, and to seek adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)).

In preparation for technical assistance activities, DOE previously developed a standardized methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness of code changes through a public process. (78 FR 47677) This methodology is published on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site, and has been applied by DOE in the development of code change proposals for the IECC, as well as assessing the cost-effectiveness of published editions of the IECC. DOE expects to update this methodology periodically to ensure its assumptions and economic criteria remain valid and adequate for the analysis of potential code change proposals, and for States considering adoption of model building energy codes. DOE will continue to use the currently established methodology and parameters for developing materials for the technical assistance of the 2015 IECC.

In performing its determination, DOE performed both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the prescriptive and mandatory requirements contained in the 2015 IECC. The chosen methodology for these analyses is consistent with actions of recent determinations, and provides a reasonable assessment of how the code will affect energy savings in residential buildings. A summary of the analyses supporting DOE's determination is outlined in the following sections.

DOE performed a comparative analysis of the textual requirements of the 2015 IECC, examining the specific changes (approved code changes) made between the 2012 and the 2015 editions. The ICC Code Hearing process considers individual code changes for approval, and then bundles all the approved code changes together to form the next published edition. In creating the 2015 IECC, ICC processed 76 approved code change proposals. DOE evaluated each of these code change proposals in preparing its determination. In conducting the revised analysis, DOE also took into consideration NAHB's comment about DOE's analysis of pipe insulation requirements (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 1).

Overall, DOE found that the vast majority of changes in the 2015 IECC appear to be neutral (i.e., have no direct impact on energy savings) within the context of the determination analysis. DOE also found that beneficial changes (i.e., increased energy savings) outweigh any changes with a detrimental effect on energy efficiency in residential buildings. Of the 76 total changes:

• 6 were considered beneficial;

• 62 were considered neutral;

• 5 were considered negligible;

• 2 were considered detrimental; and

• 1 was considered to have an unquantifiable impact.

Table III.1 presents the findings resulting from the qualitative analysis, along with a description of the change, as well as an assessment of the anticipated impact on energy savings in residential buildings. Additional details pertaining to the qualitative analysis are presented in a technical support document.6