Federal Register Vol. 80, No.159,

The FMPP grant program is authorized under the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 3001-3006) (1976 Act) and the amendment to the 1976 Act, the Farmers' Market Promotion Program (7 U.S.C. 3005).

This action withdraws a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3046) to establish a regulation for AMS's FMPP. The FMPP is a competitive grant program that makes funds available to eligible entities for projects to establish, expand, and promote farmers markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing opportunities. The proposed rule would have established eligibility and application requirements, the review and approval process, and grant administration procedures for the FMPP. Additionally, the proposed rule announced AMS's intent to request approval from the OMB for a new information collection for the FMPP.

During the comment period, January 19 through March 21, 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture received 11 timely comments. These comments may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. One comment generally opposed the proposed rule and one duplicated a comment already submitted. Of the remaining nine comments received, seven addressed multiple sections of the proposed rule and the others provided recommendations regarding how to implement the FMPP program which were outside the scope of the proposed rule.

AMS is consolidating the procedures for all of its grant programs, including the FMPP, into one regulation. Thus, a separate regulation for the FMPP is no longer needed and the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3046), is hereby withdrawn.

This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Board for the 2015-16 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0189 to $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts.

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

For the 2013-14 and subsequent marketing years, the Board recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.0189 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts that would continue in effect from year to year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to USDA.

The Board met on June 4, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $22,668,980, and an assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $9,861,810. The assessment rate of $0.0379 is $0.019 per pound higher than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2015-16 marketing year is estimated at 518,000 tons inshell or 466,200,000 kernelweight pounds, which is the five-year average of walnut production. At the recommended higher assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound, the Board should collect approximately $17,668,980 in assessment income. The Board also recommended using $5,000,000 from its monetary reserve to help fund the increase in proposed expenditures. Assessments and funds from the reserve would be adequate to cover its 2015-16 budgeted expenses of $22,668,980.

The Board noted that sales of California walnuts in the domestic market have been declining in recent years, and believes that more market development and promotion would reverse the trend. Thus, they are committed to increasing expenditures on domestic marketing promotion projects and programs.

The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 marketing years:

The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived by dividing anticipated assessment revenue needed by estimated shipments of California walnuts certified as merchantable. The 518,000 ton (inshell) estimate for merchantable shipments is an average of shipments during five prior years, and that volume has routinely been used in recent years to formulate the crop estimate. Pursuant to § 984.51(b) of the order, this figure is converted to a merchantable kernelweight basis using a factor of 0.45 (518,000 tons × 2,000 pounds per ton × 0.45), which yields 466,200,000 kernelweight pounds. At $0.0379 per pound, the new assessment rate should generate $17,668,980 in assessment income. Along with $5,000,000 from the Board's reserve fund, this assessment rate would allow the Board to cover its expenses.

Section 984.69 of the order authorizes the Board to carry over excess funds into subsequent marketing years as a reserve, provided that funds already in the reserve do not exceed approximately two years' budgeted expenses. By using $5,000,000 from their reserve, the Board is ensuring that the funds within the reserve remain within the requirements of the marketing order.

The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information.

Although this assessment rate would be effective for an indefinite period, the Board would continue to meet prior to or during each marketing year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or USDA. Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2015-16 budget and those for subsequent marketing years would be reviewed, and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

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

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

There are approximately 4,500 growers of California walnuts in the production area and approximately 90 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.

According to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS's) 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 89 percent of California's walnut farms were smaller than 100 acres. Further, NASS reports that the average yield for 2014 was 1.95 tons per acre, and the average price received for 2013 was $3,710 per ton. No average price for 2014 has been reported yet.

A 100-acre farm with an average yield of 1.95 tons per acre would therefore have been expected to produce about 195 tons of walnuts during 2010-11. At $3,710 per ton, that farm's production would have had an approximate value of $723,450. Since Census of Agriculture information indicates that the majority of California's walnut farms are smaller than 100 acres, it could be concluded that the majority of the growers had receipts of less than $723,450 in 2014-15, well below the SBA threshold of $750,000. Thus, the majority of California's walnut growers would be considered small growers according to SBA's definition.

According to information supplied by the Board, approximately two-thirds of California's walnut handlers shipped merchantable walnuts valued under $7,000,000 during the 2014-15 marketing year; and would, therefore, be considered small handlers according to the SBA definition.

This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Board and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0189 to $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $22,668,980 and an assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The proposed assessment rate of $0.0379 is $0.019 higher than the 2014-15 rate. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2015-16 marketing year is estimated at 518,000 tons inshell weight, or 466,200,000 kernelweight pounds. Thus, the $0.0379 rate should provide $17,668,980 in assessment income.

The Board also recommended using $5,000,000 from its monetary reserve to augment the assessment income. Thus, assessments plus the $5,000,000 would be adequate to meet this year's expenses. The increased assessment rate is primarily due to increased domestic marketing promotion and programs. The Board has become concerned with the declining sales of California walnuts in the domestic market, and believes that sagging sales can be improved through increased promotional activities. Thus, they recommended an increase in domestic market development from approximately $5.7 million during the 2014-15 marketing year to approximately $18.4 million for the 2015-16 marketing year.

The major expenses for the 2015-16 marketing year include: $1,846,500 for employee expenses; $191,000 for travel, board, and annual audit expenses; $254,000 for office expenses; $10,000 for controlled purchases; $100,000 for the crop acreage survey; $130,000 for the crop estimate; $94,500 for the salary of the Production Research Director; $1,700,000 for production research; $75,000 for a sustainability project; $600,000 for grades and standards research; $18,478,440 for domestic market development projects; and $32,790 for the contingency reserve.

In comparison, these expenditures for the 2014-15 marketing year were: $1,711,000 for employee expenses; $190,000 for travel, board, and annual audit expenses; $241,000 for office expenses; $10,000 for controlled purchases; $126,000 for the crop estimate; $94,500 for the salary of the Production Research Director; $1,600,000 for production research; $75,000 for the sustainability project; $600,000 for grades and standards research; $5,742,000 for domestic market development projects; and $166,310 for the contingency reserve. There was no acreage survey expense in the 2014-15 marketing year.

The Board reviewed and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $22,668,980. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Board considered alternative expenditure levels, such as spending an additional $5,000,000, or $10,000,000 for domestic market development projects, as well as alternate assessment rate levels. They ultimately decided that the recommended expenditure and assessment levels were reasonable and necessary to assist in improving domestic sales, as well as properly administering the order. The assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts was derived by dividing anticipated assessment revenue needed by expected shipments of California walnuts certified as merchantable. Merchantable shipments for the year are estimated at 466,200,000 pounds. It was determined that $17,668,980 in assessment income was needed, and assessment income combined with funds from the monetary reserve would allow the Board to cover its expenses of $22,668,980.

The Board also considered information from various committees who deliberate and formulate their own budgets of expenses and make recommendations to the Board. The committees include the Market Development, Production Research, Budget and Personnel, and Grades and Standards committees.

Unexpended funds may be retained in a financial reserve, provided that funds in the financial reserve do not exceed approximately two years' budgeted expenses.

According to NASS, the season average grower prices for the years 2012 and 2013 were $3,030 and $3,710 per ton, respectively. No prices have yet been reported for 2014. These prices provide a range within which the 2015-16 season average price could fall. Dividing these average grower prices by 2,000 pounds per ton provides an inshell price per pound range of $1.52 to $1.86. Dividing these inshell per pound prices by the 0.45 conversion factor (inshell to kernelweight) established in the order yields a 2015-16 price range estimate of $3.38 to $4.13 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts.

To calculate the percentage of grower revenue represented by the assessment rate, the assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound is divided by the low and high estimates of the price range. The estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 marketing year as a percentage of total grower revenue will thus likely range between 0.92 and 1.11 percent.

This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to growers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California walnut industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 4, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were free to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

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

This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

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

A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015-16 marketing year begins on September 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each marketing year apply to all assessable walnuts handled during the year; (2) the Board needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Board at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is proposed to be amended as follows:

On June 23, 2015, DOE published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of a framework document for potential energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 80 FR 35886. This framework document details the analytical approach and scope of coverage for the rulemaking, and identifies several issues on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments.1 The notice also announced a public meeting to present the framework document, which was held on July 17, 2015. The notice provided for the submission of written comments by August 7, 2015.

On August 6, 2015, DOE received a request from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) requesting an additional two weeks to prepare comment. In this notice, DOE is reopening the public comment period to allow interested parties to provide DOE with comments and data in response to the methodologies presented in the framework document. DOE will consider any comments in response to the framework document received by midnight of September 2, 2015, and deems any comments received by that time to be timely submitted.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these proposed special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The Model GVII-G500 will be a large-cabin business jet with seating for 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines. Avionics will include four primary display units and multiple touchscreen controllers. The flight-control system is a three-axis, fly-by-wire (FBW) system incorporating active control/coupled side sticks.

The Model GVII-G500 will have a wingspan of approximately 87 ft. and a length of just over 91 ft. Maximum takeoff weight will be approximately 76,850 lbs and maximum takeoff thrust will be approximately 15,135 lbs. Maximum range will be approximately 5,000 nm and maximum operating altitude will be 51,000 ft.

The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate a FBW flight-control system, through side-stick controllers, for pitch and roll control. Regulatory requirements, such as the pilot-control forces prescribed in the referenced regulations, are not applicable for the side-stick controller design. In addition, pilot-control authority may be uncertain because the side-stick controllers are not mechanically interconnected to flight controls as are conventional wheel-and-column controls.

Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments 25-1 through 25-137; 14 CFR part 34, as amended by Amendments 34-1 through the most current amendment at time of design approval; and 14 CFR part 36, Amendment 36-29.

In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. Type Certificate no. TC-01-2010-0024 will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this airplane model.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and proposed special conditions, Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Side-stick controllers incorporating fly-by-wire technology for pitch and roll control, in place of conventional wheel-and-column controls.

These proposed special conditions for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane address the unique features of the side-stick controllers. The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate side-stick controllers controlling a FBW flight-control system. The FBW control laws are designed to provide conventional flying qualities such as positive static longitudinal and lateral stability as prescribed in part 25, subpart B. However, the pilot-control forces prescribed in the referenced regulations are not applicable for the side-stick controller design.

Because current FAA regulations do not specifically address the use of side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control, the unique features of the side stick therefore must be demonstrated, through flight and simulator tests, to have suitable handling and control characteristics when considering the following:

• The handling-qualities tasks and requirements of the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Special Conditions and other 14 CFR part 25 requirements for stability, control, and maneuverability, including the effects of turbulence.

• General ergonomics: Armrest comfort and support, local freedom of movement, displacement-angle suitability, and axis harmony.

• Inadvertent pilot input in turbulence.

• Inadvertent pitch and roll crosstalk from pilot inputs on the side-stick controller.

As discussed above, these proposed special conditions apply to Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. Should Gulfstream apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

The current airworthiness regulations pertaining to pilot strength and controllability for conventional-control column-and-wheel designs do not adequately address the side-stick controllers proposed for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane. Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream GVII-G500 airplanes, in lieu of §§ 25.143(d), 25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b), 25.173(c), 25.175(b), and 25.175(d):

Pilot strength: In lieu of the control-force limits shown in § 25.143(d) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of specific pitch-force requirements of §§ 25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b), 25.173(c), 25.175(b), and 25.175(d), Gulfstream must show that the temporary and maximum prolonged-force levels for the side-stick controllers are suitable for all expected operating conditions and configurations, whether normal or non-normal.

Pilot-control authority: The electronic side-stick-controller coupling design must provide for corrective and overriding control inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of the controller status must be provided, and must not be confusing to the flightcrew.

Pilot control: Gulfstream must show by flight tests that the use of side-stick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-loop control characteristics when considering precision path control and tasks, and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal pilot inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs (crossover) on the other.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The Model GVII-G500 airplane will be a large-cabin business jet with seating for 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines. Avionics will include four primary display units and multiple touchscreen controllers. The flight-control system is a three-axis, fly-by-wire system incorporating active control/coupled side sticks.

The Model GVII-G500 will have a wingspan of approximately 87 feet and a length of just over 91 feet. Maximum takeoff weight will be approximately 76,850 pounds and maximum takeoff thrust will be approximately 15,135 pounds. Maximum range will be approximately 5,000 nautical miles, and maximum operating altitude will be 51,000 feet.

Under the provisions ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-137.

In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for Model GVII-G500 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model GVII-G500 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

Gulfstream proposes to reduce the margin between VC/MC and VD/MD, required by 14 CFR 25.335(b), based on the incorporation of a high-speed protection system in the airplane's flight-control laws. The high-speed protection system limits nose-down pilot authority at speeds above VC/MC, and prevents the airplane from performing the maneuver required under § 25.335(b)(1).

These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.335(b)(1) is an analytical envelope condition which was originally adopted in Part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations to provide an acceptable speed margin between design cruise speed and design dive speed. Flutter clearance design speeds and airframe design loads are impacted by the design dive speed. While the initial condition for the upset specified in the rule is 1g level flight, protection is afforded for other inadvertent overspeed conditions as well. Section 25.335(b)(1) is intended as a conservative enveloping condition for potential overspeed conditions, including non-symmetric ones. To establish that potential overspeed conditions are enveloped, Gulfstream must demonstrate that any reduced speed margin based on the high-speed protection system in the Model GVII-G500 airplane will not be exceeded in inadvertent or gust-induced upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes; or that the airplane is protected by the flight-control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. Gulfstream must conduct a demonstration that includes a comprehensive set of conditions as described below.

These special conditions are proposed in lieu of § 25.335(b)(1). Section 25.335(b)(2), which also addresses the design dive speed, is applied separately (Advisory Circular (AC) 25.335-1A provides an acceptable means of compliance to § 25.335(b)(2)).

Special conditions are necessary to address the Model GVII-G500 airplane high-speed protection system.These proposed special conditions identify various symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure that an appropriate design dive speed, VD/MD, is established.

Special Condition 2 of these proposed special conditions references AC 25-7C, section 8, paragraph 32, “Gust Upset,” included here for reference:

In the following three upset tests, the values of displacement should be appropriate to the airplane type and should depend upon airplane stability and inertia characteristics. The lower and upper limits should be used for airplanes with low and high maneuverability, respectively.

(i) With the airplane trimmed in wings-level flight, simulate a transient gust by rapidly rolling to the maximum bank angle appropriate for the airplane, but not less than 45 degrees nor more than 60 degrees. The rudder and longitudinal control should be held fixed during the time that the required bank is being attained. The rolling velocity should be arrested at this bank angle. Following this, the controls should be abandoned for a minimum of 3 seconds after VMO/MMO, or after 10 seconds, whichever occurs first.

(ii) Perform a longitudinal upset from normal cruise. Airplane trim is determined at VMO/MMO using power and thrust required for level flight, but with not more than maximum continuous power and thrust. This is followed by a decrease in speed, after which an attitude of 6 to l2 degrees nose down, as appropriate for the airplane type, is attained with the power, thrust, and trim initially required for VMO/MMO in level flight. The airplane is permitted to accelerate until 3 seconds after VMO/MMO. The force limits of § 25.143(d) for short term application apply.

(iii) Perform a two-axis upset, consisting of combined longitudinal and lateral upsets. Perform the longitudinal upset, as in paragraph (ii) above, and when the pitch attitude is set, but before reaching VMO/MMO, roll the airplane to between 15 and 25 degrees. The established attitude should be maintained until 3 seconds after VMO/MMO.

Special Conditions 3 and 4 of these proposed special conditions indicate that failures of the high-speed protection system must be improbable and must be annunciated to the pilots. If these two criteria are not met, then the probability that the established dive speed will be exceeded, and the resulting risk to the airplane, are too great. On the other hand, if the high-speed protection system is known to be inoperative, then dispatch of the airplane may be acceptable as allowed by proposed Special Condition 5. Dispatch would only be acceptable if appropriate reduced operating speeds, VMO/MMO, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, are provided in both the airplane flight manual and on the flightdeck display, and are equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high-speed protection system operative.

We do not believe that application of the “Interaction of Systems and Structures” Special Conditions (reference GVI Issue Paper A-2), or EASA Certification Specification 25.302, are appropriate in this case, because design dive speed is, in and of itself, part of the design criteria. Stability and control, flight loads, and flutter evaluations all depend on the design dive speed. Therefore, a single design dive speed should be established that will not be exceeded, taking into account the performance of the high-speed protection system as well as its failure modes, failure indications, and accompanying flight-manual instructions.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model GVII-G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

1. In lieu of compliance with § 25.335(b)(1), if the flight-control system includes functions that act automatically to initiate recovery before the end of the 20-second period specified in § 25.335(b)(1), VD/MD must be determined from the greater of the speeds resulting from conditions (a) and (b) of these special cConditions. The speed increase occurring in these maneuvers may be calculated if reliable or conservative aerodynamic data are used.

(a) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at VC/MC, the airplane is upset so as to take up a new flight path 7.5 degrees below the initial path. Control application, up to full authority, is made to try to maintain this new flight path. Twenty seconds after initiating the upset, manual recovery is made at a load factor of 1.5g (0.5 acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Power, as specified in § 25.175(b)(1)(iv), is assumed until recovery is initiated, at which time power reduction, and the use of pilot-controlled drag devices, may be used.

(b) From a speed below VC/MC, with power to maintain stabilized level flight at this speed, the airplane is upset so as to accelerate through VC/MC at a flight path 15 degrees below the initial path (or at the steepest nose-down attitude that the system will permit with full control authority if less than 15 degrees). The pilot's controls may be in the neutral position after reaching VC/MC and before recovery is initiated. Recovery may be initiated 3 seconds after operation of the high-speed warning system by application of a load of 1.5g (0.5 acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Power may be reduced simultaneously. All other means of decelerating the airplane, the use of which is authorized up to the highest speed reached in the maneuver, may be used. The interval between successive pilot actions must not be less than 1 second.

2. The applicant must also demonstrate that the speed margin, established as above, will not be exceeded in inadvertent or gust-induced upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes, unless the airplane is protected by the flight-control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The upset maneuvers described in Advisory Circular 25-7C, “Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,” section 8, paragraph 32, sub-paragraphs c(3)(a), (b), and (c), may be used to comply with this requirement.

3. The probability of any failure of the high-speed protection system, which would result in an airspeed exceeding those determined by Special Conditions 1 and 2, must be less than 10−5 per flight hour.

4. Failures of the system must be annunciated to the pilots. Flight manual instructions must be provided that reduce the maximum operating speeds, VMO/MMO. With the system failed, the operating speed must be reduced to a value that maintains a speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD, and that is consistent with showing compliance with § 25.335(b) without the benefit of the high-speed protection system.

5. The applicant may request that the Master Minimum Equipment List relief for the high-speed protection system be considered by the FAA Flight Operations Evaluation Board, provided that the flight manual instructions indicate reduced maximum operating speeds as described in Special Condition 4. In addition, the flightdeck display of the reduced operating speeds, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, must be equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high-speed protection system operative. Also, the applicant must show that no additional hazards are introduced with the high-speed protection system inoperative.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On January 25, 2012, Cessna Airplane Company applied for an amendment to Type Certificate no. T00012WI to include the new Model 680A airplane. The Cessna 680A airplane, which is a derivative of the Cessna Model 680 airplane currently approved under Type Certificate no. T00012WI, is a new, high-performance, low-wing airplane derived from the Cessna Model 680 beginning with serial no. 680-0501. This airplane will have a maximum takeoff weight of 30,800 pounds with a wingspan of 72 feet, and will have two aft-mounted Pratt & Whitney PW306D1 FADEC-controlled turbofan engines.

The pressurized cabin of the Model 680A airplane is designed to accommodate a crew of two, plus nine passengers in the baseline interior configuration, and will make use of a forward, right-hand-belted, two-place, side-facing seat. An optional seven-passenger interior configuration is also offered, which has a single-place side-facing seat on the forward right-hand side of the airplane. Both the baseline multiple-place and optional single-place side-facing seats are to be occupied for taxi, takeoff, and landing, and will incorporate an integrated, inflatable-airbag occupant-protection system.

Under the provisions of § 21.101, Cessna Airplane Company must show that the Model 680A airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate no. T00012WI, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations listed in T00012WI are as follows:

14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments 25-1 through 25-98, with special conditions, exemptions, and later amended sections.

In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. Type Certificate no. T00012WI will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this airplane model.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Cessna Model 680A airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Cessna Model 680A airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.

The Cessna Model 680A airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Inflatable airbags on multiple-place and single-place side-facing seats of Cessna Model 680A airplanes to reduce the potential for both head and leg injury in the event of an accident.

The FAA policy for side-facing seats at the time of application was provided in Policy Statement ANM-03-115-30. This policy statement describes the performance criteria and procedures to follow to certify single- and multiple-place side-facing seats.

Also at the time of Cessna's application, the FAA indicated that further research would be conducted to define criteria to establish a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulations for forward- and aft-facing seats. Research later conducted by the FAA, as documented in report DOT/FAA/AR-09/41, resulted in new policy issued to identify new certification criteria based on the research findings. Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03 was released on June 8, 2012 (and was subsequently revised and reissued as Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 on November 5, 2012). This new policy statement describes how to certify all side-facing seats to the new performance criteria through the issuance of special conditions.

Along with the general seat-performance criteria, also included in the policy statement are the performance criteria for airbag systems used in shoulder-belt restraint systems. However, the policy statement does not specifically address airbag systems that are integrated into passenger-cabin monuments. Although the application date for the Model 680A airplane preceded Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03, Cessna proposed using the guidance in Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 to develop new special conditions applicable to the Model 680A airplane's side-facing seats.

These proposed special conditions allow installation of an airbag system for a two-place side-facing seat and a single-place side-facing seat to protect the occupant from both head and leg-flail injury in Model 680A airplanes. Cessna's proposed airbag system is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an accident. This will reduce the potential for head injury by reducing the head-injury criteria (HIC) measurement, and will also provide a means for limiting the lower-leg flail of the occupant. The inflatable-airbag system behaves similarly to an automotive inflatable airbag, but in this design, the airbag system is integrated into passenger-cabin monuments; the airbags inflate away from the seated occupants. While inflatable airbags are now standard in the automotive industry, the use of inflatable-airbag systems in commercial aviation is novel and unusual.

14 CFR 25.785 requires that occupants must be protected from head injury by either the elimination of any injurious object within the striking radius of the head, or by padding. Traditionally, this has required a seat setback of 35 inches from any bulkhead or other rigid interior feature or, where such spacing is not practical, the installation of specified types of padding. The relative effectiveness of these means of injury protection was not quantified in the original rule. Amendment 25-64 to § 25.562 established a standard that quantifies required head-injury protection.

Section 25.562 specifies that each seat-type design, approved for crew or passenger occupancy during taxi, takeoff, and landing, must successfully complete dynamic tests, or be shown to be compliant by rational analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type of seat. In particular, the regulations require that persons must not suffer serious head injury under the conditions specified in the tests, and that protection must be provided, or the seat must be designed such that the head impact does not exceed a HIC of 1000 units. While the test conditions described for HIC are detailed and specific, it is the intent of the requirement that an adequate level of head-injury protection must be provided for passengers the event of an airplane accident.

Because §§ 25.562 and 25.785 and associated guidance do not adequately address seats with inflatable-airbag systems, the FAA recognizes that appropriate pass/fail criteria are required to fully address the safety concerns specific to occupants of these seats. Previously issued special conditions addressed airbag systems integral to the shoulder belt for some forward-facing seats. The proposed special conditions for the Model 680A inflatable-airbag systems are based on the shoulder-belt airbag systems.

Although the special conditions are applicable to the inflatable-airbag system as installed, compliance with the special conditions is not an installation approval. Therefore, while the special conditions relate to each such system installed, the overall installation approval is a separate finding, and must consider the combined effects of all such systems installed.

Part 25 states the performance criteria for head-injury protection in objective terms. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning seats with inflatable-airbag systems. In addition to the requirements of part 25, special conditions are needed to address requirements particular to seats equipped with an integrated, inflatable-airbag system.

Part 25, appendix F, part I specifies the flammability requirements for interior materials and components. This rule does not reference inflatable-airbag systems because such devices did not exist at the time the flammability requirements were written. The existing requirements are based on material types as well as material applications, and have been specified in light of the state-of-the-art materials available to perform a given function. In the absence of such a specific reference, the default requirement, per the rule, would apply to the type of material used in constructing the inflatable restraint, which, in the case of the rule, would be a fabric.

In writing special conditions, the FAA must also consider how the material is used within the cabin interior, and whether the default requirement is appropriate. Here, the specialized function of the inflatable-airbag system means that highly specialized materials are required. The standard normally applied to fabrics is a 12-second vertical ignition test. However, materials that meet this standard do not perform adequately as inflatable restraints; and materials used in the construction of inflatable-airbag systems do not perform well in this test.

Because the safety benefit of the inflatable-airbag system is very significant, the FAA has determined that the flammability standard appropriate for these devices should not prohibit suitable inflatable-airbag system materials; disqualifying these materials would effectively not allow the use of inflatable-airbag systems. The FAA therefore is required to establish a balance between the safety benefit of the inflatable-airbag system and its flammability performance. At this time, the 2.5-inches-per-minute horizontal burn test provides that necessary balance. As the technology in materials progresses, the FAA may change this standard in subsequent special conditions to account for improved materials.

From the standpoint of a passenger-safety system, the inflatable-airbag system is unique in that it is both an active and entirely autonomous device. While the automotive industry has good experience with inflatable airbags, the conditions of use and reliance on the inflatable-airbag system as the sole means of injury protection are quite different. In automobile installations, the airbag is a supplemental system and works in conjunction with an upper-torso restraint. In addition, the crash event is more definable and of typically shorter duration, which can simplify the activation logic. The airplane-operating environment is quite different from automobiles, and includes the potential for greater wear and tear, and unanticipated abuse conditions (due to galley loading, passenger baggage, etc.); airplanes also operate where exposure to high-intensity electromagnetic fields could affect the activation system.

The inflatable-airbag system has two potential advantages over other means of head-impact protection. First, it can provide significantly greater protection than would be expected with energy-absorbing pads, and second, it can provide essentially equivalent protection for occupants of all stature. These are significant advantages from a safety standpoint because such devices will likely provide a level of safety that exceeds the minimum standards of the Federal aviation regulations. Conversely, inflatable-airbag systems are, in general, active systems and must be relied upon to activate properly when needed, as opposed to an energy-absorbing pad or upper torso restraint that is passive and always available. Therefore, the potential advantages must be balanced against this and other potential disadvantages in developing standards for this design feature.

The FAA considers the installation of inflatable-airbag systems to have two primary safety concerns: First, that they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions, and second, that they do not perform in a manner or at such times as would constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants. This latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements, owing to the active nature of the system.

The inflatable-airbag system will rely on electronic sensors for signaling, and a stored gas canister for inflation. The sensors and canister could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing a potentially unsafe deployment. The consequences of inadvertent deployment, as well as a failure to deploy in a timely manner, must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. Cessna must substantiate that an inadvertent deployment in-flight either would not cause injuries to occupants, or that the probability of such a deployment meets the requirements of § 25.1309(b). The effect of an inadvertent deployment on a passenger or crewmember, who could be positioned close to an airbag, should also be considered. The person could be either standing or sitting. A minimum reliability level must be established for this case, depending upon the consequences, even if the effect on the airplane is negligible.

The potential for an inadvertent deployment could increase as a result of conditions in service. The installation must take into account wear and tear so that the likelihood of an inadvertent deployment is not increased to an unacceptable level. In this context, an appropriate inspection interval and self-test capability are considered necessary. In addition, outside influences, such as lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF), may also contribute to or cause inadvertent deployment. Existing regulations regarding lightning, § 25.1316, and HIRF, § 25.1317, are applicable to the Model 680A airplane.

The applicant must verify that electromagnetic interference (EMI) present, under foreseeable operating conditions, will not affect the function of the inflatable-airbag system or cause inadvertent deployment. Finally, the inflatable-airbag system installation must be protected from the effects of fire, so that an additional hazard is not created by, for example, a rupture of the pyrotechnic squib.

To be an effective safety system, the inflatable-airbag system must function properly and must not introduce any additional hazards to occupants or the airplane as a result of its functioning. The inflatable-airbag system differs from traditional occupant-protection systems in several ways, requiring special conditions to ensure adequate performance.

Because the inflatable-airbag system is a single-use device, it potentially could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently severe as to require injury protection from the inflatable-airbag system. Because an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could render the inflatable-airbag system useless if a larger impact follows the initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy absorbing pads or upper-torso restraints, which tend to provide continuous protection regardless of severity or number of impacts in a crash event. Therefore, the inflatable-airbag system installation should provide protection, when it is required, and not expend its protection when it is not required. And while several large impact events may occur during the course of a crash, there are no requirements for the inflatable-airbag system to provide protection for multiple impacts.

Each occupant's restraint system provides protection for that occupant only. Likewise, the installation must address seats that are unoccupied. The applicant must show that the required protection is provided for each occupant regardless of the number of occupied seats, considering that unoccupied seats may have airbag systems that are active.

The inflatable-airbag system should be effective for a wide range of occupants. The FAA has historically considered the range from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male as the range of occupants that must be taken into account. In this case, the FAA is proposing consideration of a broader range of occupants, i.e., a two-year-old child to a 95th percentile male, plus pregnant females. This is due to the nature of the inflatable-airbag system installation and its close proximity to the occupant. In a similar vein, these persons could assume the brace position for those accidents where an impact is anticipated. Test data indicate that occupants in the brace position do not require supplemental protection, and so it would not be necessary to show that the inflatable-airbag system will enhance the brace position. However, the inflatable-airbag system must not introduce a hazard in the case of deploying into the seated, braced occupant.

Another area of concern is the use of seats so equipped, by children, whether lap-held, in approved child-safety seats, or occupying the seat directly. Similarly, if the seat is occupied by a pregnant woman, the installation should address such use, either by demonstrating that it will function properly, or by adding appropriate limitation on persons allowed to occupy the seat.

Given that the airbag system will be electrically powered, the possibility exists that the system could fail due to a separation in the fuselage. And because this system is intended as a means of crash/post-crash protection, failure to deploy due to fuselage separation is not acceptable. As with emergency lighting, the system should function properly if such a separation occurs at any point in the fuselage. As required by § 25.1353(a), operation of the existing airplane electrical equipment should not adversely impact the function of the inflatable-airbag system under all foreseeable conditions.

The inflatable-airbag system is likely to have a large volume displacement, and, likewise, the inflated airbag could potentially impede egress of passengers. Because the airbag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that an inflatable-airbag system would be deflated at the time that persons would be trying to leave their seats. Nonetheless, the FAA considers it appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable-airbag system may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds is indicated as a reasonable time because this corresponds to the maximum time allowed for an exit to be openable (reference: § 25.809).

The FAA position is provided in Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 “Technical Criteria for Approving Side Facing Seats.” This policy statement refers to airbag systems in the shoulder belts, while Cessna's design configuration has airbag systems integrated into the side-facing seats. The FAA genericized these proposed special conditions to be applicable to the Cessna design configuration.

These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Cessna Model 680A airplane. Should Cessna apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

On March 12, 2015, OWCP published a notice of proposed rulemaking revising 20 CFR parts 702 and 703 to broaden the acceptable methods by which claimants, employers, and insurers can communicate with OWCP and each other regarding claims arising under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and its extensions. (80 FR 12957). On the same date, OWCP published a direct final rule containing identical revisions because it believed that the proposed revisions were non-controversial and unlikely to generate significant adverse comment. (80 FR 12917). OWCP indicated that if it did not receive any significant adverse comments on either rule by May 11, 2015, the direct final rule would take effect and there would be no further need to proceed with the notice of proposed rulemaking. (See 80 FR 12918, 12957-58).

OWCP received two public comments that were not significant adverse comments. One expressed support for the proposed rule and the other did not substantively address the rule. Because OWCP did not receive any significant adverse comments within the specified comment period, it is withdrawing the notice of proposed rulemaking with this notice. For the same reason, OWCP is also confirming that the direct final rule took effect on June 10, 2015.

I. Background II. Purpose of Today's Proposed Rule III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule IV. Tribal Consultation Sessions V. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Takings (E.O. 12630) F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. National Environmental Policy Act K. Information Quality Act L. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) M. Clarity of This Regulation N. Public Availability of Comments I. Background

The TCCUA authorizes grants for operating and improving tribally controlled colleges and universities to insure [sic] continued and expanded educational opportunities for Indian students and to allow for the improvement and expansion of the physical resources of such institutions. See, 25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The TCCUA also authorizes grants for the encouragement of endowment funds for the operation and improvement of tribally controlled colleges and universities. The NCCA authorizes grants to the Navajo Nation to assist in the construction, maintenance, and operation of Diné College. See 25 U.S.C. 640a et seq.

In 1968, the Navajo Nation created the first tribally controlled college, now called Diné College—and other tribal colleges quickly followed in California, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Today, there are 37 tribally controlled colleges in 17 states. The tribally controlled institutions were chartered by one or more tribes and are locally managed.

Tribally controlled colleges generally serve geographically isolated populations. In a relatively brief period of time, they have become essential to educational opportunity for American Indian students. Tribally controlled colleges are unique institutions that combine personal attention with cultural relevance, in such a way as to encourage American Indians—especially those living on reservations—to overcome barriers to higher education.

The regulations at 25 CFR part 41 were originally published in 1979. See, 44 FR 67042 dated November 21, 1979. Since the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-471, Title I) was enacted on October 17, 1978, over 30 years of amendments to the Act have been made. These include Public Law 98-192 (December 1, 1983), Public Law 99-428 (September 30, 1996), Public Law 105-244 (October 7, 1998), and Public Law 110-315 (August 14, 2008). Similarly, the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-471, Title II) was amended by Public Law 110-315 (August 14, 2008). The revisions to the TCCUA and the NCCA have rendered areas of the current rule obsolete. Therefore, the proposed rule updates the regulations and:

• Makes changes required by Executive Order 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write in plain language;

• Updates institutional names (e.g., changing “Director, Office of Indian Education Programs” to “Director of the Bureau of Indian Education”);

• Adds statutory authorities and makes accompanying statutory updates; and

• Combines the purpose, scope, and definitions into a new subpart A.

Significant changes include emphasizing that the calculation of an Indian Student Count (ISC) shall only include students making satisfactory progress, as defined by the tribally controlled college, towards a degree or certificate; no credit hours earned by a high school student that will be used towards the student's high school degree or its equivalent shall be included in the ISC; and grantees may exclude high school students for the purpose of calculating the total number of full-time equivalent students. Changes clarify often misunderstood requirements for an ISC and when high school students cannot be counted towards an ISC. The proposed rule updates definitions per amended legislation; reorganizes and clarifies institutional grant eligibility, grant application procedures, the Department of the Interior (DOI) grant reporting requirements, and essential information for determining Indian student eligibility. Presently, information is embedded in extended definitions and is difficult to find, the proposed changes increase accessibility and correct out of date language and requirements.

The proposed rule makes several terminology changes throughout to reflect statutory language. These include replacing “tribally controlled community colleges” with “tribally controlled colleges and universities,” replacing “Navajo Community College” with “Diné College,” and replacing “feasibility” with “eligibility” in appropriate places. The following table lists additional changes.

BIE will be hosting two tribal consultation sessions by webex and teleconference on this proposed rule:

• Monday, September 21, 2015, 3 p.m. EDT. To register for this session, go to this link: https://dcma100.webex.com/dcma100/k2/j.php?MTID=t23a171402a9f5518f3b863039378065a. Once the host approves your registration, you will receive a confirmation email with instructions for joining the session. To join by teleconference, please call: 1-866-704-9181, Passcode: 10469100.

• Wednesday, September 23, 2015, 3 p.m. EDT. To register for this session go to this link: https://dcma100.webex.com/dcma100/k2/j.php?MTID=tdf898f2b05e77536907260a8a358a52c. Once you are approved by the host, you will receive a confirmation email with instructions for joining the session. To join by teleconference, please call: 1-866-704-9181, Passcode: 10469100.

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

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

The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It does not change current funding requirements or regulate small entities.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Because this proposed rule is limited to the tribally controlled colleges or universities within tribal communities, it will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involve a compensable “taking”. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule implements provisions within the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-471 enacted on October 17, 1978) that authorizes grants for operating and improving tribally controlled colleges or universities to ensure continued and expanded educational opportunities for Indian students by providing financial assistance to be used for the operating expenses of education programs.

Because the rule does not affect the Federal government's relationship to the States or the balance of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, it will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.

This rule will directly affect all those tribes planning to apply for or now receiving grants under the TCCUA and the NCCA. In accordance with Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), the Bureau of Indian Education conducted consultation on the following dates in 2014: October 16, Anchorage, Alaska; October 20, Webinar; October 22, Gallup, New Mexico; October 27, Billings, Montana; and October 29, Bloomington, Minnesota. To develop the proposed rule, the Department collaborated with the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), which represents tribally controlled colleges and universities that will be affected by the rule. Presidents of tribally-controlled colleges and universities provided the initial comments and draft of the rule. AIHEC formally presented the draft for the proposed rule to the BIE via drafting sessions. The current proposed rule is the result of those drafting sessions, BIE input and recommendations, and comments provided at the consultations.

This rule contains the following information collections, which are currently approved by OMB: Tribal Colleges and University Grant Application Form, which is approved under OMB Control Number 1076-0018; and Tribal Colleges and University Annual Report Form, which is approved under OMB Control Number 1076-0105. Both of these information collections expire on November 30, 2015. The proposed rule does not add any new information collection burden beyond that covered by these existing OMB approvals; therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required for this rulemaking.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

In developing this rule we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the “COMMENTS” section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior proposes to amend title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising part 41 to read as follows:

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 667, provides that States that desire to assume responsibility for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards may do so by submitting, and obtaining federal approval of, a State plan. States may obtain approval for plans that cover private-sector employers and State and local government employers (comprehensive plans) or for plans that only cover State and local government employers.

From time to time changes are made to these State plans, particularly with respect to the issues which they cover. Procedures for approval of and changes to comprehensive State plans are set forth in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1902 and 29 CFR part 1953. A description of each comprehensive State plan has previously been set forth in 29 CFR part 1952, subparts C-FF. These descriptions have contained the following sections: Description of the plan, Developmental schedule, Completion of developmental steps and certifications, Staffing benchmarks, Final approval determination (if applicable), Level of Federal enforcement, Location where the State plan may be physically inspected, and Changes to approved plan.

Procedures for approval of a State plan covering State and local government employees only are set forth in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1956, subparts A-C. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1956.21, procedures for changes to these State plans are also governed by 29 CFR part 1953. A description of each State plan for State and local government employees only has previously been set forth in 29 CFR part 1956, subparts E-I. These subparts have contained the following sections: Description of the plan as certified (or as initially approved), Developmental schedule, Completed developmental steps and certification (if applicable), and Location of basic State plan documentation.

The area of coverage of each State plan has previously been codified at 29 CFR part 1952 under each State's subpart within the sections entitled “Final approval determination” and “Level of Federal enforcement,” and in 29 CFR part 1956 within the section on the description of the plan. Therefore, any change to a State plan's coverage or other part of the State plan description contained in 29 CFR part 1952 or 29 CFR part 1956 has thus far necessitated an amendment to the language of the CFR, which has required the expenditure of additional time and resources, such as those needed for printing. Furthermore, reprinting parts 1952 and 1956 in the annual CFR publication has necessitated the expenditure of additional time and resources. The individual descriptions of the State plans consisted of 103 pages in the July 1, 2013 revision of title 29, part 1927 to end, of the CFR. For these reasons, OSHA proposes to streamline parts 1952 and 1956 to delete the detailed descriptions of State plan coverage, purely historical data, and other unnecessarily codified information, thus saving time and funds currently expended in publishing changes to these parts of the CFR.

There is no legal statutory requirement that individual State plans be described in the CFR. The CFR is a codification of the documents of each agency of the Government having general applicability and legal effect, issued or promulgated by the agency in the Federal Register. 44 U.S.C. 1510(a) and (b). The description of a State plan is not a document of general applicability; it only applies to a particular State. Nevertheless, in this document, OSHA sets forth brief descriptions of each State plan that will be retained in the CFR in part 1952 in order to make this information readily available to those conducting legal research and relying on the CFR. Brief descriptions of comprehensive plans are included in subpart A of part 1952 and brief descriptions of State plans covering State and local government employees only are included in subpart B of part 1952. Any significant changes that would make these descriptions outdated, such as a withdrawal or grant of final approval, will continue to be codified in the CFR.

The proposed partial deletions of the State plan descriptions from the CFR will not decrease transparency. Each section of part 1952 would continue to note each State plan, the date of its initial approval, and, where applicable, the date of final approval, the existence of an operational status agreement, and the approval of staffing requirements (“benchmarks”). Each section would have a general statement of coverage indicating whether the plan covers all private-sector and State and local government employers, with some exceptions, or State and local government employers only. Each section would also note that current information about these coverage exceptions and additional details about the State plan could be obtained from the Web page on the OSHA public Web site describing the particular State plan (a link would be referenced). The OSHA Web page for each State plan would also be updated to include the latest information on coverage and other important changes. Furthermore, the other information about the State plan that is currently in the CFR would still be available in the Federal Register, and could be searched electronically at https://www.federalregister.gov and would also be available in printed form. The Federal Register could also be searched electronically on commercially available legal databases. When changes are made to State plan coverage, all of the information on coverage would be reprinted in the Federal Register along with the change, so that readers would not have to search through many Federal Register notices to obtain a comprehensive description of coverage.

In addition to changing the individual descriptions of all State plans within part 1952, OSHA proposes to make several other housekeeping changes. First, OSHA proposes to move the provisions of subpart A of part 1952 that pertain to the required criteria for State plans, to part 1902. (The following provisions would be moved to part 1902: 29 CFR 1952.4, Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements; 29 CFR 1952.6, Partial approval of State plans; 29 CFR 1952.8, Variations, tolerances, and exemptions affecting the national defense; 29 CFR1952.9, Variances affecting multi-state employers; 29 CFR 1952.10, Requirements for approval of State posters; and 29 CFR 1952.11, State and local government employee programs.) As a result, the complete criteria for State plans would be located within part 1902.

OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.1 (Purpose and scope) and 29 CFR 1952.2 (Definitions) because the changes described above and the restructuring of part 1952 would make these provisions unnecessary. OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.3 (Developmental plans) because that material is covered by 29 CFR 1902.2(b). The text of 29 CFR 1952.5 (Availability of State plans) requires complete copies of each State plan, including supplements thereto, to be kept at OSHA's National Office, the office of the nearest OSHA Regional Administrator, and the office of the State plan agency listed in part 1952. OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.5 because with the widespread use of electronic document storage and the Internet, it is no longer necessary to physically store such information in order to make it available to the public. Information about State plans can now be found on each State's Web site, as well as on OSHA's Web site. For the same reasons, OSHA proposes to delete the language in 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan supplement availability) which discusses making State plan documents available for public inspection and photocopying in designated offices. OSHA proposes to delete the text of 29 CFR 1952.7(a), which deals with product standards, because the explanation of section 18(c)(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2), on product standards is already covered by 29 CFR 1902.3(c)(2). However, OSHA proposes to move § 1952.7(b) to the end of § 1902.3(c)(2) because that material was not previously included. In addition, OSHA proposes to delete references to part 1952 from several other parts of the regulations, such as parts 1903, 1904, 1953, 1954 and 1955, because these references would no longer be accurate due to the proposed changes. Where appropriate, OSHA proposes to insert references to the newly numbered part 1902.

Finally, OSHA proposes to make some further minor changes to part 1902. The text of 29 CFR 1902.3(j), which briefly describes State plans covering State and local government employees, would be deleted because a more detailed description of State plan coverage of State and local government employees, formerly set forth in 29 CFR 1952.11, would be incorporated into 29 CFR part 1902 as § 1902.4(d). This change would necessitate the re-designation of paragraphs in § 1902.3. Also, OSHA proposes to change 29 CFR 1902.10(a) to reduce the number of copies a State agency must submit in order to obtain approval of a State plan. With the advent of computer technology, the submission of extra paper copies is not necessary. OSHA also proposes to delete outdated references to an address in 29 CFR 1902.11(c) and (d).

The notice and comment rulemaking procedures of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do not apply “to interpretive rules, general statements of policy or, rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” or when the agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (B). The proposed revisions set forth in this document would not implement any substantive change in the development, operation or monitoring of State plans. Nor would these revisions change the coverage or other enforcement responsibilities of the State plans or federal OSHA. The compliance obligations of employers and the rights of employees remain unaffected. Therefore, OSHA for good cause finds that notice and comment is unnecessary. In addition, the proposed elimination of the requirement to make paper copies of State plan documents available in certain federal and State offices and the reduction of the number of copies of a proposed State plan which a State agency must submit would be purely procedural changes. Future alterations to State plan coverage would only require a simple, easily searchable notice to be published in the Federal Register and an update to OSHA's State plan Web page.

Although neither the Act nor the APA requires notice and comment rulemaking here, OSHA, as a matter of policy, is providing interested persons 30 days to submit comments. OSHA believes a 30-day timeframe for submitting comments is appropriate because the proposal is primarily a set of non-substantive technical changes.

OSHA is publishing a companion direct final rule along with this proposed rule in the “Final Rules” section of this Federal Register. An agency uses direct final rulemaking when it anticipates that a rule will not be controversial. OSHA does not consider this proposed rule to be such because it primarily consists of changes in the organization of State plan information housed within the CFR, and the resultant re-numbering and updates to cross-references throughout the CFR.

In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will become effective unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within a specified period. The agency may publish an identical proposed rule at the same time. If the agency receives no significant adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, the agency typically confirms the effective date of a direct final rule through a separate Federal Register document. If the agency receives a significant adverse comment, the agency withdraws the direct final rule and treats such comment as a response to the proposed rule. For purposes of this proposed rule and the companion direct final rule, a significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate.

The comment period for the direct final rule runs concurrently with that of this proposed rule. OSHA will treat comments received on the companion direct final rule as comments regarding the proposed rule. OSHA also will consider significant adverse comment submitted to this proposed rule as comment to the companion direct final rule. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment to either this proposal or the companion direct final rule, OSHA will publish a Federal Register document confirming the effective date of the direct final rule and withdrawing this companion proposed rule. Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical changes to the document. If OSHA receives a significant adverse comment on either the direct final rule or this proposed rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the companion direct final rule and proceed with this proposed rule. In the event that OSHA withdraws the direct final rule because of significant adverse comment, OSHA will consider all timely comments received in response to the direct final rule when it continues with the proposed rule. After carefully considering all comments to the direct final rule and the proposal, OSHA will decide whether to publish a new final rule.

This proposed rule revises “collection of information” (paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA-95”), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act defines a “collection of information” as “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). OMB approved the collection of information requirements currently contained in the regulations associated with OSHA-approved State Plans (29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956) under OMB Control Number 1218-0247.

Through emergency processing procedures, OSHA submitted a request that OMB revise the collection of information requirements contained in these regulations within 45 days of publication. The proposed rule would not impose new collection of information requirements for purposes of PRA-95; therefore, the Agency does not believe that this rule will impact burden hours or costs. The proposed rule would move the current collection of information requirement provisions of subpart A of part 1952, pertaining to required criteria for State plans, to part 1902. The proposed rule would delete the text of current 29 CFR 1952.5 (Availability of State plans) requiring complete copies of each State plan, including supplements thereto, to be kept at OSHA's National Office, the nearest OSHA Regional Office, and the office of the State plan agency. The rule would also delete the language in current 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan supplement availability) which discusses making State plan documents available for public inspection and photocopying in designated offices. The rule would also reduce from ten to one the number of copies of the State Plan which a State agency must submit under 29 CFR 1902.10(a) in order to obtain approval of the State plan. Finally, the proposed rule would revise regulations containing current collection of information requirements at 29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956 to delete or update cross-references, remove duplicative provisions, and re-designate paragraphs.

OSHA has submitted an ICR addressing the collection of information requirements identified in this rule to OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA solicits comments on the proposed extension and revision of the collection of information requirements and the estimated burden hours associated with the regulations associated with OSHA-approved State Plans, including comments on the following:

Whether the proposed collection of information requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

Minimizing the burden on employers who must comply, for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for collecting and transmitting information.

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv), OSHA provides the following summary of the Occupational Safety and Health State Plans Information Collection Request (ICR):

1. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

2. Title: Occupational Safety and Health State Plans

3. OMB Control Number: 1218-0247.

4. Description of Collection of Information Requirements: The proposed collection of information requirements, contained in the regulations associated with this rule are set forth below. The citations reflect the changes in this notice of proposed rulemaking and the accompanying direct final rule.

5. Affected Public: Designated state government agencies that are seeking or have submitted and obtained approval for State Plans for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards.

6. Number of Respondents: 28.

7. Frequency: On occasion; quarterly; annually.

8. Average Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes (.5 hour) to respond to an information inquiry to 80 hours to document state annual performance goals.

9. Estimated Total Burden Hours: The Agency does not believe that this rule will impact burden hours or costs. However, based on updated data and estimates, the Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 173 burden hours, from 11,196 to 11,369 burden hours. This burden hour increase is the result of the anticipated increase in the submission of state plan changes associated with one state (Maine) actively implementing a new State Plan. The burden hour increase was partially offset by the decrease in the estimated number of state-initiated state plan changes.

10. Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): There are no capital costs for this collection of information.

Submitting comments. In addition to having an opportunity to file comments with the Department, the PRA provides that an interested party may file comments on the collection of information requirements contained in the rule directly with the Office of Management and Budget, at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected]. Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments to the Department. See ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives within forty-five (45) days of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB control number 1218-0247. Comments submitted in response to this document are public records; therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and date of birth.

Docket and inquiries. To access the docket to read or download comments and other materials related to this paperwork determination, including the complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork determinations in detail), use the procedures described under the section of this document titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting the Web page, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, select “Department of Labor” under “Currently Under Review” to view all of DOL's ICRs, including the ICR related to this rulemaking. To make inquiries, or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

OSHA notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the public is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the provisions of the proposal to determine whether it would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since no employer of any size would have any new compliance obligations, the Agency certifies that the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA also reviewed this proposal in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Because this proposal would impose no new compliance obligations, it would require no additional expenditures by either private employers or State, local, or tribal governments.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the States on policies not required by statute which have federalism implications, i.e., policies, such as regulations, which have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, or which impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. This proposal has no federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments.

OSHA has reviewed this proposal in accordance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) and determined that the proposal would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of this proposal. OSHA is issuing this proposal under the authority specified by Sections 8(c)(1), 8(c)(2), and 8(g)(2) and 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1), (c)(2), and (g)(2) and 667) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this proposal, OSHA proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 as follows:

The revision reads as follows:

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

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

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0011) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

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

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0011) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

The “Ironman Chattanooga” is a second year event being held on September 27, 2015. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley has determined that additional safety measures are necessary to protect race participants, spectators, and waterway users during this event. Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0. This proposed regulation would provide safety for the approximately 2,500 swimmers that will be racing in the “Ironman Chattanooga.”

The legal basis and authorities for this proposed rulemaking establishing a special local regulation are found in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations for regattas under 33 CFR 100.

The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is proposing a special local regulated area for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0. Vessels or persons would not be permitted to enter into, depart from, or move within this area without permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or designated representative. Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the proposed special local regulated area will be required to request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley, or designated representative. They would be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. This proposed rule would be enforced from 5:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2015. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley would inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulated area as well if any changes in the planned schedule.

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

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit mile marker 463.0 to mile marker 467.0 on the Tennessee River, from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2015. This proposed special local regulated area will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as it will be enforced for only hours. Additionally, although the proposed special local regulated area will apply to the entire width of the river, traffic will be allowed to pass through the area with the permission of the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley establishing a special local regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0 to provide safety for the approximately 2,500 swimmers that will be racing in the “Ironman Chattanooga.” This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

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

In 1979, under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979). Primary standards are set to protect human health while secondary standards are set to protect public welfare. In 1997 we revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997).1 In 2008 we further revised the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). Ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of their ozone levels based on the area's “design value” (77 FR 30088, 30091, May 21, 2012). The design value represents air quality in the area for the most recent 3 years. The possible classifications are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme. Nonattainment areas with a “lower” classification have ozone levels that are closer to the NAAQS than areas with a “higher” classification.

In 2004 we published a first phase rule governing implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). The Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and provided that 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas are required to adopt and implement “applicable requirements” according to the area's classification under the 1-hour ozone standard for anti-backsliding purposes (40 CFR 51.905(a)(i)). In a revision to the Phase 1 Rule, we determined that an area's 1-hour designation and classification as of June 15, 2005 would dictate what 1-hour obligations constitute “applicable requirements” (40 CFR 51.900(f), May 26, 2005, 70 FR 30592).2 Applicable anti-backsliding requirements ensure continued momentum toward reducing ozone levels (80 FR 12264, 12297, March 6, 2015). The rules governing ongoing implementation of revoked ozone standards, including revisions to applicable requirements, was further revised effective April 6, 2015 (40 CFR 51.1100, March 6, 2015, 80 FR 12264). This final rule also contains provisions addressing a redesignation substitute for a revoked ozone standard. See 40 CFR 51.1105(b).

The final rule for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides that an area will be subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for a revoked NAAQS until we approve (1) a redesignation to attainment for the area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or (2) a demonstration for the area in a redesignation substitute procedure for a revoked NAAQS (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1)). As explained more fully in the preambles to the proposed and final rules, the redesignation substitute demonstration must show that the area (1) has attained that revoked NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions and (2) will maintain that revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of EPA's approval of the showing. The rule also provides that if, after notice and comment rulemaking, we approve a redesignation substitute for a revoked NAAQS, the state may request that provisions for nonattainment new source review (NSR) for that revoked NAAQS be removed, and that other anti-backsliding obligations for that revoked NAAQS be shifted to contingency measures provided that such action is consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(2)).

The HGB area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties in Texas. Under the 1990 CAA Amendments the area was classified as a Severe ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (November 6, 1991, 56 FR 56694 and CAA section 181(a)(1)). We approved a 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the area (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006). However, the EPA subsequently determined that the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date of November 15, 2007 (June 19, 2012, 77 FR 36400). As discussed below, ambient air quality monitoring data for ozone indicates that the area is now attaining the 1-hour ozone standard.

Texas provided the “Redesignation Substitute Report for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria One-Hour Standard Nonattainment Area” (redesignation substitute report) to EPA on July 22, 2014. This report was developed consistent with the redesignation substitute option we proposed to create in our June 6, 2013 proposal (which was subsequently adopted in the March 6, 2015 final rule). The report is available through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259).

To determine whether we should approve the 1-hour ozone redesignation substitute for the HGB area we evaluated the redesignation substitute report provided by Texas and the ambient ozone data for the area in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. To evaluate the report we used the applicable portions of our September 4, 1992 memo “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” (www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/redesignmem090492.pdf). A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action. The TSD can be accessed through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259).

Ambient air quality found in the AQS database shows that the HGB area attained the 1-hour ozone standard at the end of 2013 and maintained the standard the following year (Table 1). The area continues to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard so far in 2015 based on available data.

In 2013, all monitors in the HGB area had expected exceedances less than the threshold of 1.0 per year and only one monitor in the HGB area, the Houston East monitor (C1), had more than 1.0 expected exceedance in 2011 and 2012. A more detailed table of expected 1-hour ozone exceedances for the HGB monitors based on ozone data can be found in the TSD.

The HGB area redesignation substitute report provides information on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and regulations that reduced these emissions. NOX and VOCs are ozone precursors. Texas identified control measures for both the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP and the 1997 ozone attainment demonstration SIP that led to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP was approved on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52670). The 1997 ozone attainment demonstration SIP was approved on January 2, 2014 (79 FR 57). Additionally, we have approved SIPs for the HGB area that document continuous emissions reductions due to permanent and enforceable measures for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards (70 FR 7407, February 14, 2005; 74 FR 18298, April 22, 2009; 79 FR 51, January 2, 2014). Given our previous actions approving Texas SIPs pertaining to permanent and enforceable measures, we agree with Texas' conclusion that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. More detail on our review can be found in the TSD.

To demonstrate that the HGB area will maintain the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years from the date of our approval of the redesignation substitute, the Texas report provided information on projected emissions of ozone precursors (Tables 2 and 3). The emission projections show that (1) NOx emissions will continue to decrease through 2026 and (2) VOC emissions will decrease through 2023 and increase by 2.71 tons per year (tpy) from 2023 to 2026 (514.49 tpy in 2023 to 517.20 tpy in 2026, an increase of 0.5%). We reviewed this information and agree with the conclusion that the area will maintain the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years from the date of our approval. Based on photochemical modeling analyses showing that the formation of ozone in the HGB area is more sensitive to NOX than to VOC emissions, the small increase in VOC emissions during the 10-year maintenance period is expected to be more than offset by the 18% decrease in NOX emissions during this same period. More detail on our review can be found in the TSD.

In FR Doc. 2015-16790, published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39839), there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document.

On page 39898, in our discussion of collection of OASIS data, we inadvertently provided an incorrect Web address for a Web site.

On page 39898, in our discussion concerning the specifications and data for NQF #0678, we inadvertently provided an incorrect Web address for a Web site.

In proposed rule FR Doc. 2015-16790, beginning on page 39840 in the issue of July 10, 2015, make the following corrections in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. On page 39898, in the first column, in the second full paragraph, the reference to the Web site beginning on line 25, “OASIS Manual http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/” is corrected to read “downloads section https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HomeHealthQualityInits/HHQIQualityMeasures.html”.

2. On page 39898, in the second column, in the first full paragraph, the Web site in line 11, “http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Post-Acute-Care-Quality-Initiatives/PAC-Quality-Initiatives.html” is corrected to read “https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HomeHealthQualityInits/HHQIQualityMeasures.html”.

Background

The Atlantic commercial shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. For the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments established, among other things, commercial shark retention limits, commercial quotas for species and management groups, accounting measures for under- and overharvests for the shark fisheries, and adaptive management measures such as flexible opening dates for the fishing season and inseason adjustments to shark trip limits, which provide management flexibility in furtherance of equitable fishing opportunities, to the extent practicable, for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas.

This proposed rule would establish quotas and opening dates for the 2016 Atlantic shark commercial fishing season based in part on the management measures in the recently published final rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. In Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS established, among other things, an adjusted commercial shark retention limit for large coastal sharks (LCS) other than sandbar sharks, revised sandbar shark quota within the shark research fishery, sub-regional quotas in the Gulf of Mexico region for LCS, revised total allowable catches (TACs) and commercial quotas for the non-blacknose small coastal shark (SCS) fisheries in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, and revised management measures for blacknose sharks.

This proposed rule would adjust the quota levels for the different shark stocks and management groups for the 2016 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season based on over- and underharvests that occurred during 2015 and previous fishing seasons, consistent with existing regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(b)(2). Over- and underharvests are accounted for in the same region, sub-region, and/or fishery in which they occurred the following year, except that large overharvests may be spread over a number of subsequent fishing years to a maximum of 5 years. Shark stocks or management groups that contain one or more stocks that are overfished, have overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, will not have underharvest carried over in the following year. Stocks that are not overfished and have no overfishing occurring may have any underharvest carried over in the following year, up to 50 percent of the base quota.

The quotas in this proposed rule are based on dealer reports received as of July 17, 2015. In the final rule, NMFS will adjust the quotas based on dealer reports received as of a date in mid-October or mid-November 2015. For prior shark quota rules, NMFS has used information from dealer reports received as of October 15 through November 26, depending on the timing of the final rule. Thus, all of the 2016 proposed quotas for the respective stocks and management groups will be subject to further adjustment after NMFS considers the October/November dealer reports. All dealer reports that are received after the October or November date will be used to adjust the 2017 quotas, as appropriate.

For the sandbar shark, aggregated LCS, hammerhead shark, non-blacknose SCS, blacknose shark, blue shark, porbeagle shark, and pelagic shark (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) management groups, the 2015 underharvests cannot be carried over to the 2016 fishing season because those stocks or management groups have been determined to be overfished, overfished with overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status. Thus, for all of these management groups, the 2016 proposed quotas would be equal to the applicable base quota minus any overharvests that occurred in 2015 and previous fishing seasons, as applicable.

For the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group, which has been determined not to be overfished and to have no overfishing occurring, available underharvest (up to 50 percent of the base quota) from the 2015 fishing season may be applied to the 2016 quota, and NMFS proposes to do so.

Regarding the blacknose shark management group, in the final rule establishing quotas for the 2014 shark season (78 FR 70500; November 26, 2013), NMFS decided to spread out the 2012 overharvest of the blacknose shark quota across 5 years (2014 through 2018) in both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. In the final rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS modified the regulations for blacknose shark fisheries in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. In the Gulf of Mexico region and north of 34° N. latitude in the Atlantic region, NMFS has prohibited the retention of blacknose sharks. Thus, in this proposed rule, NMFS is not proposing any quotas for blacknose sharks in those areas. However, NMFS is proposing to reduce the blacknose shark quota for fishermen operating south of 34° N. latitude in the Atlantic region by 0.5 mt dw to account for the 2012 overharvest. Thus, before accounting for any landings from 2015, the 2016 adjusted annual quota for the Atlantic blacknose shark management group would be 16.7 mt dw (36,818 lb dw).

Based on current landings, the 2015 blacknose shark management group in the Atlantic region was overharvested by 2.9 mt dw (6,328 lb dw). NMFS is proposing to spread out the overharvest accounting over 3 years from 2016 through 2018, the same time period remaining for accounting for the 2012 overharvest, and NMFS is specifically requesting comments on whether NMFS should adjust the quotas over three or more (four or five) years or simply account for the entire overharvest in 2016. In the Atlantic region, accounting for the overharvest over 3 years would result in an overharvest reduction of 1.0 mt dw for 2016 and 2017, and 0.9 mt dw for 2018. This reduction combined with the 0.5 mt dw 2012 overharvest reduction represents 9 percent of the Atlantic region blacknose quota and thus would have both minimal economic impacts on the fishermen and minimal ecological impacts on the stocks. If NMFS reduced the 2016 quota by the full overharvest amount combined with the 2012 overharvest reduction (3.4 mt dw) in one year, this would result in a 20 percent reduction from the base quota, which could negatively impact fishermen and data collection, since the reduced quota would be below regional landings from past fishing seasons and could result in closing the non-blacknose SCS fishery in the Atlantic region south of 34° N. latitude earlier than it has in recent years. NMFS does not believe that accounting for the overharvests over time (1.0 mt dw for 2016 and 2017, and 0.9 mt dw for 2018) would affect the status of the Atlantic blacknose stock because fishing mortality levels would be maintained below levels established in the rebuilding plan. Thus, NMFS is proposing to reduce the 2016 base annual quota for the blacknose shark management group in the Atlantic region based on overharvests from 2012 and 2015.

The proposed 2016 quotas by species and management group are summarized in Table 1; the description of the calculations for each stock and management group can be found below.