Federal Register Vol. 80, No.181,

This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 959, as amended (7 CFR part 959), regulating the handling of onions grown in South Texas, 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, South Texas onion 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 onions beginning on August 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 Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions.

The South Texas onion marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of South Texas onions. They are familiar with the Committee'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 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on June 25, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Budgeted expenditures for 2014-15 were the same. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.02 higher than the rate currently in effect. With the 2015-16 crop estimated to be four million 50-pound equivalents, one million less than last year's estimate, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. Further, due to a crop failure during the 2014-15 season, the Committee has depleted its reserve funds. With the Committee's recommended $0.02 increase, assessment income should be approximately $200,000. This would provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated 2015-16 expenses and add funds to the Committee's authorized reserve.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 year include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same in 2014-15.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of South Texas onions, and the level of funds in reserve. As mentioned earlier, onion shipments for the year are estimated at four million 50-pound equivalents which should provide $200,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments at the proposed rate, along with interest income, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $23,906) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (approximately two fiscal periods' expenses as authorized in § 959.43).

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

Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015-16 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods 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 60 producers of onions in the production area and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to Committee data and information from the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), the average price paid for South Texas onions during the 2013-2014 season was around $12.00 per 50-pound equivalents and total shipments were approximately 4.4 million 50-pound equivalents. Based on this information and data on acreage and yield, the majority of South Texas onion producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. In addition, based on available information, more than 50 percent of South Texas onion handlers could be considered small business under SBA's definition. Thus, the majority of South Texas onion producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This proposal would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of Texas onions. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent. The proposed assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.02 higher than the 2012-13 rate. The quantity of assessable onions for the 2015-16 fiscal period is estimated at four million 50-pound equivalents. Thus, the $0.05 rate should provide $200,000 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 fiscal period include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same in 2014-15.

With the 2015-16 crop estimated to be four million 50-pound equivalents, one million less than last year's estimate, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. Further, due to a crop failure during the 2014-15 season, the Committee has depleted its reserve funds. The Committee recommended the $0.02 increase to provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated 2015-16 expenses and add funds to the Committee's authorized reserve.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by this group, based upon the relative value of various activities to the South Texas onion industry. The Committee ultimately determined that 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rate, along with interest income, would generate sufficient revenue to meet its expenses.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming season indicates that the grower price for the 2015-16 season should average around $9.55 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue would be approximately .52 percent for the season.

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. Additionally, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the South Texas onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able 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 (Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this proposed action. 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 South Texas onion 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/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously-mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 fiscal period begins on August 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable onions handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 959 is proposed to be amended as follows:

FSIS is proposing to amend its meat products inspection regulations to add Namibia to the list of countries eligible to export meat products to the United States (9 CFR 327.2(b)). Namibia is not currently listed as eligible to export such products to the United States.

Under the FMIA and the regulations that implement it, meat and meat products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy that are equivalent to those of the United States (21 U.S.C. 620). The FMIA also requires that the livestock from which such imports are produced be slaughtered and handled in connection with slaughter in a manner that is consistent with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901-1906). Section 327.2 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets out the procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States.

Paragraph 327.2(a) of 9 CFR requires that a foreign country's meat inspection system provide standards equivalent to those of the United States and provide legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations that is equivalent to that of the United States. Specifically, a country's legal authority and regulations must impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Ante-mortem inspection, humane methods of slaughter and handling, and post-mortem inspection by, or under the direct supervision of, a veterinarian; (2) official controls by the national government over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) direct and continuous official supervision of slaughtering and preparation of product by inspectors to ensure that product is not adulterated or misbranded; (4) complete separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; (6) requirements for sanitation and for sanitary handling of product at establishments certified to export; (7) official controls over condemned product; (8) a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system; and (9) any other requirements found in the FMIA and its implementing regulations (9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(ii)).

The country's inspection system must also impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Organizational structure and staffing to ensure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all certified establishments; (2) national government control and supervision over the official activities of employees or licensees; (3) qualified inspectors; (4) enforcement and certification authority; (5) administrative and technical support; (6) inspection, sanitation, quality, species verification, and residue standards; and (7) any other inspection requirements (9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(i)).

A foreign country's inspection system must be evaluated by FSIS before eligibility to export meat and meat products to the United States can be granted. This evaluation consists of two processes: A document review and an on-site review. The document review is an evaluation of the laws, regulations, and other written materials used by the country to effect its inspection program. FSIS requests that countries provide information about their inspection systems through its self-reporting tool (SRT). The SRT is a standardized questionnaire that FSIS provides to foreign governments to gather information that characterizes foreign inspection systems. Through the SRT, FSIS collects information on practices and procedures in six areas, known as equivalence components: (1) Government Oversight, (2) Statutory Authority and Food Safety Regulations, (3) Sanitation, (4) HACCP Systems, (5) Chemical Residue Testing Programs, and (6) Microbiological Testing Programs. FSIS evaluates the information submitted to verify that the critical points in the six equivalence components are addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement. If the document review is satisfactory, an onsite review is scheduled using a multidisciplinary team to evaluate all aspects of the country's inspection program. This comprehensive process is described more fully on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/equivalence/equivalence-process-overview.

The FMIA and implementing regulations require that foreign countries be listed in the CFR as eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States. FSIS must engage in rulemaking to list a country as eligible. Countries found eligible to export meat or meat products to the United States are listed in the meat inspection regulations at 9 CFR 327.2(b). Once listed, the government of an eligible country must certify to FSIS that establishments that wish to export meat products to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States (9 CFR 327.2(a)(3)). Countries must renew certifications of establishments annually (9 CFR 327.2(a)(3)).

Section 20 of the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 620) prohibits the importation into the United States of adulterated or misbranded carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, or meat products of amenable species that are capable of use as human food. To verify that products imported into the United States are not adulterated or misbranded, FSIS reinspects and randomly samples those products at ports of entry, before they enter U.S. commerce.

In 2002 and again in 2005, the government of Namibia requested approval to export meat (beef) products to the United States. Namibia stated that, if approved, its immediate intent was to export boneless (not ground) raw beef products such as primal cuts, chuck, blade, and beef trimmings to the United States.

In 2006, FSIS conducted a document review of Namibia's meat (slaughter and processing) inspection system to determine whether that system is equivalent to the United States' meat inspection system. FSIS concluded, on the basis of that review, that Namibia's laws, regulations, control programs, and procedures were sufficient to achieve the level of public health protection required by FSIS.

Accordingly, FSIS proceeded with an on-site audit of Namibia's meat inspection system from September 25 to October 11, 2006, to verify whether Namibia's central competent authority (CCA) in charge of food inspection effectively implemented a meat inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. FSIS concluded that Namibia's meat inspection system did not meet the equivalence components for government oversight, statutory authority and food safety regulations, sanitation, HACCP, and chemical residue and microbiological testing programs. For example, FSIS found that the CCA did not have adequate administrative controls over the inspection system and lacked a training program to maintain the competency of the inspection personnel and laboratory analysts. Namibia did not provide direct and continuous inspection by the assigned government inspectors. Additionally, the sanitation programs at the establishments visited by the audit team lacked measures to prevent recurring deficiencies that could result in direct product contamination or adulteration, and inspectors did not identify the problems.

Following the 2006 on-site audit, Namibia provided a corrective action plan that addressed FSIS's findings. Namibia also implemented comprehensive inspection training programs on requirements consistent with FSIS requirements for all its inspection and laboratory personnel.

From September 2 to 9, 2009, FSIS conducted a follow-up on-site audit to determine whether the outstanding issues identified during the previous on-site audit had been resolved. The 2009 audit identified new systemic deficiencies within the equivalence components for government oversight, sanitation, HACCP, chemical residue, and microbiological testing programs. Specifically, the 2009 audit found that Namibia did not have a plan to continuously analyze and implement staffing requirements in order to provide relief staff assignments during planned and unplanned field inspection personnel absences. In addition, Namibia did not effectively require that establishments maintain sanitation programs to prevent insanitary conditions and product contamination. Namibia also did not provide effective verification to ensure HACCP plans were effectively implemented and did not provide adequate control over laboratory quality systems.

Following the 2009 on-site audit, Namibia again provided a comprehensive corrective action plan that addressed the findings identified. FSIS reviewed the corrective action plan and concluded that Namibia had satisfactorily addressed all the 2009 audit findings. In addition, FSIS concluded that Namibia's corrective action plan satisfactorily addressed all the previous 2006 audit findings.

In 2013, FSIS conducted an initial equivalence follow-up on-site audit of Namibia's meat inspection system and verified that Namibia had satisfactorily implemented the corrective action plans proffered in response to the 2009 on-site audit. In 2013, the FSIS audit identified new findings within the equivalence components of government oversight, statutory authority and food safety regulations, sanitation, and chemical residue testing programs. The audit found that although the CCA had implemented all corrective action plans related to government oversight, it was unable to provide any record to demonstrate that the inspection personnel at the local establishments were properly implementing and documenting inspection procedures. Additionally, inspection personnel were including non-compliance findings on the Inspection Verification Activities Sheet instead of using a separate non-compliance record (NR) form to document non-compliance findings. Regarding statutory authority and food safety regulations, Namibia had implemented all related corrective action plans but could not demonstrate that it had adequate records to verify that establishments met Specified Risk Materials (SRM) requirements, to enforce SRM requirements, and to prevent potential SRM contamination from cattle 30 months of age or older. The CCA also had not effectively implemented its verification procedures for sanitation performance standards and was unable to demonstrate how it assessed its residue plan results. Namibia's National Residue Program did not have sampling plan procedures or strategies for dealing with residue violators.

In response to the 2013 audit findings, Namibia implemented immediate corrective actions and submitted another corrective action plan that addressed the findings identified during the audit of its food safety system. FSIS reviewed Namibia's corrective action plan and concluded that Namibia had satisfactorily addressed 2013 audit findings. FSIS conducted another audit in 2014 to verify that Namibia had effectively implemented those corrective actions.

On the basis of the 2014 follow-up on-site audit, FSIS has concluded that Namibia has fully implemented the corrective action plan that it had submitted in response to the 2013 audit. FSIS did not find any significant problems during the audit. Furthermore, through the audit, FSIS found that Namibia has implemented a sampling and testing program for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) that is equivalent to FSIS's program. Therefore, FSIS has determined that the CCA has adequately addressed all previous audit findings and met FSIS equivalence criteria related to all six components.

In summary, FSIS has completed the document review, on-site audits, and verification of corrective actions as part of the equivalence process, and all outstanding issues have been resolved. FSIS has determined that, as implemented, Namibia's inspection system (slaughter and processing) with respect to beef is equivalent to the United States' meat inspection system. The final 2009, 2013, and 2014 audit reports on Namibia's meat inspection system (slaughter and processing) can all be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-products-foreign-establishments/foreign-audit-reports.

Should this rule become final, Namibia will be eligible to export to the U.S. boneless (not ground) beef raw products such as primal cuts, chucks, blade, and beef trimmings. The government of Namibia will need to certify to FSIS that those establishments that wish to export beef or beef products to the United States are operating in accordance with requirements equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS will verify that the establishments certified by Namibia's government meet the United States requirements through periodic and regularly scheduled audits of Namibia's meat inspection system.

If this proposed rule is adopted, the beef products that Namibia exports to the United States will be subject to re-inspection at the U.S. ports-of-entry for, but not limited to, transportation damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. Moreover, even though a foreign country may be listed in FSIS regulations as eligible to export to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of APHIS' regulations, which also regulate the export of meat products from foreign countries to the United States.

In the future, if Namibia wants to export other meat products to the U.S. (e.g., pork products), it will need to notify FSIS and submit information about its requirements and inspection program for these products. FSIS would then review the information and determine whether the Agency needs to audit the operations in Namibia producing these products to determine whether the requirements and inspection program for these products is equivalent to those in the U.S. Namibia would not be allowed to export additional products to the U.S. until FSIS determines that the country's requirements and inspection program for the products are equivalent to FSIS's system.

In addition, FSIS will conduct other types of re-inspection activities, such as incubation of canned products to ensure product safety and taking product samples for laboratory analysis for the detections of drug and chemical residues, pathogens, species, and product composition. Products that pass re-inspection will be stamped with the official United States mark of inspection and allowed to enter United States commerce. If they do not meet United States requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days must be exported to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to animal food (subject to approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), depending on the violation. The import re-inspection activities can be found on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/phis-import-component/phis-implementation-letter-to-importers/ct_index.

This proposed rule has been designated a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.

This proposed rule would add Namibia to the list of countries eligible to export meat products into the United States. The government of Namibia intends to certify only one Namibian establishment as eligible to export boneless raw beef products to the United States. Given this establishment's beef production capacity and the projected export volume, FSIS projects that this rule, if implemented, will not have an impact on the United States economy. The annual boneless beef production of this establishment averaged 21.4 million pounds from 2008 to 2014. The projected volume of export to the United States is about 1.9 million pounds in 2015, increasing to about 12.5 million pounds in 2019.1 The average annual United States domestic beef production in 2012-2014 was 25.3 billion pounds, projected to be 24.2 billion pounds in 2015.2 The total United States import of beef averages 2.47 billion pounds per year for 2012-2014, projected to be 2.91 billion pounds in 2015.3 Therefore, the projected Namibia beef imports in 2015 would only be about 0.007% of total U.S. production and 0.07% of total U.S. imports. If Namibia achieves the projected export goal in 2019 and assuming that United States beef production and import volume stay about the same, the projected beef imports from Namibia would still only be about 0.05% of total U.S. production, and 0.5% of total U.S. imports.

Although Namibia indicates that, for now, it is seeking to export boneless beef products only, this would not preclude it from exporting other meat products in the future, provided that the products meet all FSIS and APHIS requirements and any additional requirements that FSIS might have in place with regard to the products. Therefore, the long-term economic impact could be larger than what we can assess right now.

The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). As mentioned above, the expected trade volume is very small. Therefore, the proposed action should have no significant impact on small entities that produce beef products domestically.

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

No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export meat and meat products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection system provides standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the system and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS provided Namibia with questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures to assist that country in organizing its materials. This information collection was approved under OMB number 0583-0094. The proposed rule contains no other paperwork requirements.

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

FSIS will officially notify the World Trade Organization's Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO/SPS Committee) in Geneva, Switzerland, of this proposal and will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Proposed_Rules/index.asp.

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

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

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

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410. Fax: (202) 690-7442. Email: [email protected].

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

For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 327 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3631; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-060-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0037, dated March 2, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3631.

Airbus has issued the following service information.

• Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.

• Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.

• Service Bulletin A340-25-5212, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The procedures and tests identified as Required for Compliance (RC) in any service information have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 70 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 27 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,620 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $344,050, or $4,915 per product.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0774; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-154-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006). AD 2006-22-15 applies to all Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2014 (79 FR 68388). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the panel webs and stiffeners of the NWW found prior to the inspection threshold of AD 2006-22-15. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking of certain panel webs and stiffeners of the NWW, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to continue to require replacing certain panels with new panels, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. The NPRM proposed to reduce a compliance time and add certain inspections and applicable repair.

Since we issued the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014), we have determined that it is necessary to revise the NPRM by specifying a certain repetitive inspection interval for Area 2 for airplanes with less than 15,000 total flight cycles. This interval is not clearly indicated in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, and was not specifically stated in the NPRM.

We reviewed the following Boeing service information. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, which describes procedures for inspections for cracks of certain top and sidewall panel webs and stiffeners of the NWW; and repairs.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013. This service bulletin describes procedures for replacement of the side and top panel webs and certain stiffeners of the NWW; an inspection for cracks in attaching structural elements that are common to the removed top panel and side panels; repetitive post-modification inspections for cracks in the top and side panel webs and stiffeners; and contacting Boeing for repairs.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012. This service bulletin describes procedures for replacement of the side and top panel webs, support beams, and stiffeners of the NWW; an inspection for cracks of the attaching structural elements that are common to the removed top and side panels of the NWW; repetitive post-modification inspections for cracks in the top and side panel webs and stiffeners; and contacting Boeing for repairs.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines (UAL) and United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we specify the repetitive inspection interval for Area 2 for airplanes with less than 15,000 total flight cycles. The commenters point out that this is not clearly indicated in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, and was not specifically stated in the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). The commenters stated that Boeing has issued a service bulletin information notice to inform operators that the repetitive inspection interval for Area 2 should be 1,000 flight cycles.

We agree with the commenters' requests to specify the repeat interval for Area 2. We have revised paragraph (g) of this SNPRM to specify this interval.

UAL asked whether paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) should be revised to specify repair requirements for each area, instead of contacting the FAA or the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) for repair instructions for any cracking or damage found during the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. UAL explained that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, specifies repairing web cracks in Area 1 or 2 per the “747 Structural Repair Manuals.”

We agree to provide clarification. The intent of paragraph (h)(3) of this SNPRM is to make sure that for those conditions for which Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, specifies that the operator is to contact Boeing for repair data, the operator would be required to use a repair method approved by the FAA or Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

UAL requested clarification of why the footnotes in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, reverted back to 6,000 flight cycles for Area 3 inspections for cracks of the sidewall panel and top panel stiffeners. UAL also asked why the 6,000-flight-cycle time is just for the first repeat inspection and then Area 3 has to be reinspected every 1,500 flight cycles thereafter.

We agree that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), specifies the 6,000-flight-cycle and 1,500-flight-cycle inspection times. Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, states that inspections and corrective actions defined therein are an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of AD 2006-22-15. In order to be approved as an AMOC to certain requirements of AD 2006-22-15, Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, must state the compliance times required by AD 2006-22-15 to address the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

Boeing requested that we revise the heading of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) to either change “Repetitive Inspections” to “Initial and Repetitive Inspections” or delete “Repetitive.” Boeing stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD contains both initial and repetitive inspections.

Boeing requested that we delete “Repetitive” from the headings of paragraphs (j) and (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). Boeing stated that paragraphs (j) and (m) of the proposed AD specify not only repetitive inspections, but also the initial post-modification inspections.

We agree that clarification is necessary. We do not consider that the term “repetitive” necessarily excludes the initial action. An action cannot be repeated without accomplishment of the initial action. Many existing ADs refer to “repetitive” actions, which we intend as including the initial action. In addition, changing “Repetitive Inspections” to simply “Inspections” could result in the misinterpretation that multiple different inspections are required. We have not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Boeing requested that, at the end of paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014), we add “of the NWW (specified as Area 1 and Area 2 in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013)” for the ultrasonic inspection.

We agree with the commenter's request. This revision will make the wording in paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD consistent with the wording of each of the areas specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this proposed AD. We have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD accordingly.

Boeing requested that we add a new paragraph (p)(6) to the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014), which would state that “New provisions (inspection threshold and interval) in this AD must be complied with as given in this AD.” Boeing stated that this statement will make it clear that prior AMOCs do not exempt the operators from compliance with new requirements added by this new proposed AD. Boeing also stated that the wording of “corresponding provisions” in paragraph (p)(4) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) might not be precise enough, when ADs get superseded and paragraphs change. Boeing explained that adding this statement will reduce the ambiguity of paragraphs (o) and (p) of the proposed AD.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph (p)(4) of this proposed AD to state that AMOC actions approved previously for AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding actions of this AD. The compliance times in AMOCs approved previously for AD 2006-22-15 are not approved for the corresponding actions and compliance times in this AD. We have removed paragraph (p)(5) of this proposed AD as it is no longer necessary. We consider this language to be sufficiently clear. Adding the commenter's requested language would be redundant to the language specified in revised paragraph (p)(4) of this proposed AD.

Boeing noted that paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) incorrectly referred to paragraphs “(l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3).” Boeing asked that we change these references to “(m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3).”

Boeing requested that we correct the AD citation in paragraph (o)(1)(i) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). Boeing stated that the identified effective date of January 27, 2005, is for AD 2004-25-23, Amendment 39-13911 (69 FR 76839, December 23, 2004); not AD 2005-09-02, Amendment 39-14070 (70 FR 21141, April 25, 2005; corrected May 25, 2005, 70 FR 29940)); as stated in the NPRM.

Boeing requested that we correct the date of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 4, from February 25, 2004, to February 24, 2005, in paragraph (o)(2) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014).

UPS requested that we revise paragraph (p)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) to correct the paragraph identifier for the contact person, which should be paragraph “(q)(1).”

We agree with the requests and have revised this SNPRM accordingly.

We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate certain requirements of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2006-22-15.

The requirements specified in paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (l) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), are referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraphs (g) and (h)(3) of this proposed AD.

The requirement specified in paragraph (n) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), is referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD.

For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2005, and certain airplanes not identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2005, the requirement specified in paragraph (o) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), to accomplish a repair using a method approved by the FAA is now specified in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD. However, for these airplanes, one method of compliance for accomplishing the replacement is Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013. Therefore, we have referred to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD. Operators may still request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures provided in paragraph (p) of this AD.

For certain other airplanes not identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2005, the requirement specified in paragraph (o) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), to accomplish a repair using a method approved by the FAA is now specified in paragraph (l) of this proposed AD. However, for these airplanes, one method of compliance for accomplishing the replacement is Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012. Therefore, we have referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012, in paragraph (l) of this proposed AD. Operators may still request an AMOC using the procedures provided in paragraph (p) of this AD.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.” Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times.

The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

For airplanes with fewer than 15,000 total flight cycles, Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, recommends, in part, accomplishing a detailed inspection before the accumulation of 13,000 total flight cycles. However, we have determined that the 13,000-total-flight-cycle compliance time is insufficient to address the identified unsafe condition soon enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. Instead, we are proposing a compliance time of 10,000 total flight cycles. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this detailed inspection, we considered the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and the fact that we have received a report of a 13-inch crack adjacent to a 2-inch crack in the NWW right-hand side panel on an airplane with 11,428 total flight cycles. This difference has been coordinated with The Boeing Company.

Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013; Boeing Service Bulletin 747 53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012; specify to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA whom we have authorized to make those findings.

The compliance time for the modification specified in paragraphs (i) and (l) of this proposed AD for addressing widespread fatigue damage (WFD) was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 255 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3633; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-097-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0100, dated April 30, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions also include revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3633.

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.

We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Fokker Services B.V. has issued F27 Proforma Service Bulletin SBF27-28-072, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2014, including Fokker F27 Service Bulletin Appendix SBF27-28-072/APP01, including List of Drawings/Part Lists, dated July 17, 2014; and Fokker Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Documentation (MCNM) F27-027 dated September 9, 2014. The service information describes procedures for installing additional bonding provisions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design.

This proposed AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, an operator might not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (j) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $10,200, or $680 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Background and Explanation of Provisions

Final and temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register contain amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) which provide rules for determining when a payment made pursuant to certain financial products will be treated as a dividend equivalent for purposes of section 871(m). These proposed regulations provide guidance relating to the substantial equivalence test, which is used to determine whether a complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction. These proposed regulations also provide guidance to qualified derivatives dealers. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the final and temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. The regulations affect nonresident alien individuals, foreign corporations, and withholding agents.

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

A public hearing has been scheduled for January 15, 2016, beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by December 17, 2015. Submit a signed paper or electronic copy of the outline as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

The principal authors of these regulations are D. Peter Merkel and Karen Walny of the Office of Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

I. Public Meeting

MSHA invites coal mine operators, coal miners, equipment manufacturers, academia, and the public to provide information on the current state of refuge alternatives, particularly on the challenges related to the use of built-in-place refuges, and enhancing voice communication when using escape breathing devices. MSHA especially invites coal miners and operators of small underground coal mines to participate.

The information from this meeting will supplement comments to the Agency's Request for Information and research from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This meeting will focus on four primary issues: Challenges related to built-in-place refuges; miners communicating while using breathing devices during escape; advantages and disadvantages of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with refill stations as an escape strategy; and the scope and status of new technology or recent research related to the installation and use of built-in-place refuges.

The public meeting will be held in the auditorium at MSHA's National Mine Health and Safety Academy on October 19, 2015, beginning with Registration at 1 p.m. and concluding at 5 p.m. or when the last speaker has spoken.

The meeting will be conducted in an informal manner. Presenters and attendees may provide written information to the court reporter for inclusion in the rulemaking record. MSHA will make the transcript of the meeting available on www.regulations.gov and on the Agency's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/tscripts.htm and include it in the rulemaking record.

Continued development of refuge equipment and technology is expected to enhance the effectiveness of refuges and improve miners' chances of surviving a mine emergency when escape is impossible. Since the refuge alternatives rule became effective on March 2, 2009, stakeholders have gained experience, and research has led to some technological advancements and innovations. To benefit from this experience and research, on August 8, 2013, MSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register (78 FR 48593) asking for data, comments, and information on issues and options that may present alternative or even more effective solutions for miners' survival during underground coal mine emergencies than the protections provided by the existing rule.

In response to requests, MSHA extended the comment period four times to give interested parties additional time to review research reports from NIOSH and other relevant information and provide substantive comments. The comment period closed on April 2, 2015.

In its report, “Facilitating the Use of Built-In-Place Refuge Alternatives in Mines,” RI 9698, NIOSH makes recommendations on the use of built-in-place shelters, as a type of refuge with a superior environment when compared to tent and steel pre-fabricated structures. The report addresses three issues: (1) Locating built-in-place refuges further from the face than the 1,000-foot limit required under the existing standard; (2) providing a consistent process for the design and approval of refuge stoppings; and (3) delivering a reliable supply of clean, breathable air to a built-in-place refuge. NIOSH recommends allowing operators to locate built-in-place refuges further than 1,000 feet from the face, but only if the refuges:

• Provide a constant supply of air into the refuge via either a protected compressed air line or a borehole from the surface.

• Provide a minimum of 85 cubic feet of space per occupant.

• Maintain the interior of the refuge under positive pressure when not in use to ensure that the refuge contains breathable air immediately on entry and to keep contaminated air from entering the refuge when miners enter.

1. How would MSHA's acceptance of built-in-place refuges located further from the face and meeting the above criteria affect your decision on whether or not to install a built-in-place refuge? Discuss the relative merits of location versus design and performance. Please comment on the advantages and disadvantages of NIOSH's recommended approach for built-in-place refuges; the feasibility of installing built-in-place shelters in different mine settings; the risks related to a refuge location that is further away from the working face; and the benefits of a built-in-place refuge's environment and performance characteristics.

2. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the following methods of providing breathable air in refuges: Using supplied air from the surface versus using air from cylinders stored underground; or delivering surface-supplied air through a borehole directly into a built-in-place refuge versus compressed air lines run through the mine.

3. Discuss options for piping air over several miles through a mine to provide a clean air supply and sufficient air pressure to a built-in-place refuge when a borehole directly into the refuge is unavailable. What issues remain to be addressed for the protection of piping used to provide compressed air to a refuge?

4. What are the risks and benefits to miners' safety, if any, if a constant air supply from the surface is provided to a refuge and exhausted from the refuge into the mine, as opposed to exhausting to the surface?

5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using SCBAs with refill stations as compared to using SCSRs with caches in escapeways?

6. Discuss and describe new and improved technology for built-in-place refuges' designs. What is the impact of these designs on the cost of built-in-place refuges? For example, would a moveable wall or other modular design make the use of a built-in-place refuge more feasible and economical?

Miners' ability to communicate with each other can be critical during mine emergencies. Under existing rules, miners use self-contained self-rescue (SCSR) escape respirators that have a mouthpiece. A self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) has a full-face respirator mask. Miners must remove the mouthpiece of an SCSR to speak, or remove the full-face respirator mask of an SCBA to communicate clearly. These actions expose miners to deadly gases in the mine atmosphere.

7. Discuss the challenges associated with providing two-way communication when using escape SCBAs or SCSRs. What technologies, such as voice amplifiers or wireless communication systems, are available for escape SCBAs or SCSRs that can enhance voice communication among miners?

8. Discuss how this technology can be integrated with a mine's two-way post-accident communication system.

MSHA will accept written responses, data, and information for the record from any interested party, including those not participating in the public meeting, through November 16, 2015.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) (based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) and a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3 (based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations). See 62 FR 36852. On January 5, 2005, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA designated Hamilton County in Tennessee, in association with counties in Alabama and Georgia in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as nonattainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 19844, respectively. Designation of an area as nonattainment for PM2.5 starts the process for a state to develop and submit to EPA an attainment plan SIP revision under title I, part D of the CAA. This SIP revision must include, among other elements, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the attainment date required by the CAA.

EPA designated all 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS areas under title I, part D, subpart 1 (hereinafter “Subpart 1”). Subpart 1 contains the general requirements for nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants and is less prescriptive than the other subparts of title I, part D. On April 25, 2007, EPA promulgated a rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under Subpart 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule”).1 See 72 FR 20586. On October 15, 2009, Tennessee submitted an attainment plan SIP revision pursuant to Subpart 1 and the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule that addressed RACM and contained a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, base-year and attainment-year emissions inventories, and contingency measures for the Area.

On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31239), EPA published a final determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area had attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 time period. In that determination and in accordance with the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA suspended the requirements for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 52.2231(c); 76 FR 31239.

Tennessee submitted a request to EPA on November 13, 2014, to redesignate the State's portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve a SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Area. EPA proposed to approve the redesignation request and the related SIP revision in an action signed on March 11, 2015, based, in part, on the Agency's longstanding interpretation that Subpart 1 nonattainment planning requirements, including RACM, are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) once an area is attaining the NAAQS and, therefore, need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. See 80 FR 16331 (March 27, 2015).

On March 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 781 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015), that is inconsistent with this longstanding interpretation regarding section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In its decision, the Court vacated EPA's redesignation of the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA had not yet approved Subpart 1 RACM for the Cincinnati Area into the Indiana and Ohio SIPs.2 The Court concluded that “a State seeking redesignation `shall provide for the implementation' of RACM/RACT, even if those measures are not strictly necessary to demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS . . . . If a State has not done so, EPA cannot `fully approve[]' the area's SIP, and redesignation to attainment status is improper.” Sierra Club, 781 F.3d at 313.

EPA is bound by the Sixth Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA within the Court's jurisdiction unless it is overturned.3 Although EPA continues to believe that Subpart 1 RACM is not an applicable requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E) for an area that has already attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is proposing two separate but related actions regarding the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in response to the Court's decision.4 5

First, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the State's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision that addresses RACM under Subpart 1 for the Tennessee portion of the Area. Second, EPA is supplementing the Agency's proposed approval of Tennessee's November 13, 2014, redesignation request for the Area by proposing that approval of the RACM portion of the aforementioned SIP revision satisfies the Subpart 1 RACM requirement in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. More detail on EPA's rationale for these proposed actions is provided below.

Subpart 1 requires that each attainment plan “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from the existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.” See CAA section 172(c)(1). EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172(c)(1) as measures that are both reasonably available and necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 51.1010(a).6 A state must adopt, as RACM, measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or more. See 40 CFR 51.1010(b).

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that the Subpart 1 RACM portion of the attainment plan SIP revision include the list of potential measures that a state considered and information sufficient to show that the state met all requirements for the determination of what constitutes RACM in a specific nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 51.1010(a). Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements which are not already either federally promulgated, part of the state's implementation plan, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in enforceable form as part of a state's attainment plan SIP revision for the area. As discussed above, an attainment determination suspends the requirement for a PM2.5 nonattainment area to submit an attainment plan SIP revision so long as the area continues to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).

EPA is proposing to approve the portion of Tennessee's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision that addresses Subpart 1 RACM for the State's portion of the Area on the basis that the Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and, therefore, no emission reduction measures are necessary to satisfy Subpart 1 RACM. As noted above, EPA has determined that the Area has attaining data for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and met the standard by the April 5, 2010, attainment date. See 77 FR 31239. Because the Area has attained the standard, there are no emissions controls that could advance the attainment date; thus, no emissions controls are necessary to satisfy Subpart 1 RACM pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1010 (defining RACM as the level of control necessary to advance the attainment date by one year or more).

Additionally, the portion of Tennessee's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision that addresses Subpart 1 RACM for the State's portion of the Area is approvable on the basis that the SIP revision demonstrates that no additional reasonably available controls would have advanced the attainment date projected therein.

Through participation in the regional planning efforts of the Visibility Improvement States and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) and the Association for Southeastern Integrated Planning (ASIP), Tennessee determined that existing measures and measures planned for implementation by 2009 would result in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2009. Air quality modeling conducted by ASIP indicated that the Area would attain the annual NAAQS in 2009 based upon projected emissions reductions from sources within the Area after 2002 (the base year of the nonattainment emissions inventory). As discussed in Chapter 2.0 of the October 15, 2009, SIP revision, the State, in consultation with VISTAS and ASIP, considered the following existing federally enforceable measures in projecting the emissions inventory used for the 2009 modeling: Tier 2 vehicle standards; heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards; large nonroad diesel engine standards; nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards; NOX SIP call; and the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

In Tennessee's RACM analysis, which appears in chapter 4.0 of the October 15, 2009, SIP revision, the State discusses its evaluation of sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within the Tennessee portion of the Area and its determination that these sources were meeting Subpart 1 RACM levels of emissions control. As discussed above, a State must show that all Subpart 1 RACM (including RACT for stationary sources) necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable have been adopted and must consider the cumulative impact of implementing available measures to determine whether a particular emission reduction measure or set of measures is required to be adopted as RACM. Potential measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or more. Because the attainment demonstration in Tennessee's attainment plan SIP revision showed attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area by the end of 2009, only measures that would advance the attainment date to the end of 2008 would be considered as Subpart 1 RACM.7

In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

This is a summary of the Media Bureau's Order, DA 15-918, adopted August 12, 2015, in MB Docket No. 15-146 (Order). The full text of the Order is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554. This document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact the FCC by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

1. On June 16, 2015, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 6711 (2015) in MB Docket No. 15-146 (Vacant Channel NPRM) seeking comment on rules to preserve vacant television channels for shared use by white space devices and wireless microphones. On July 29, 2015, the Media Bureau, in an Order, DA 15-867, on delegated authority, suspended the comment and reply comment deadlines in this proceeding until further notice.

2. In its document, FCC 15-78, released August 11, 2015 (Auctions Procedures PN), the Commission adopted its proposal to allow the optimization tool to assign television stations within the 600 MHz Band where necessary to accommodate market variation in a manner that best fulfills the clearing target objectives, and not to restrict it to assignments in specific portions of the 600 MHz Band, including the duplex gap. To mitigate the potential impact on white space devices and wireless microphones in areas where the duplex gap is subject to impairment, the Commission tentatively concluded that it will designate a second available television channel in the remaining television band in such areas for shared use by white space devices and wireless microphones, in addition to the one such channel it has tentatively concluded will be made available in each area of the United States for shared use by these devices and microphones. The Commission invited comment on this tentative conclusion and stated that it intends to address in the same order all proposals in the Vacant Channel NPRM as well as the proposals raised in the Auctions Procedures PN. To that end, the Commission directed the Media Bureau to establish new comment and reply deadlines of September 30 and October 30, 2015, respectively, for the proposals in the Vacant Channel NPRM as well as the proposal in paragraph 32 of the Auctions Procedures PN.

3. By this Order, as directed by the Commission in the Auctions Procedures PN, the Media Bureau announces that comments are now due on September 30, 2015 and reply comments on October 30, 2015.

When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:

(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:

(a) Habitat requirements;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:

(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);

(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);

(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);

(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or

(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat.

If, after the status review, we determine that listing is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) for domestic (U.S.) species under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information for the species listed in Table 1 on:

(1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range occupied by the species;

(2) Where these features are currently found;

(3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;

(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and

(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.

Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing these 90-day findings is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the appropriate lead U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office (contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which will be subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0077 under the Supporting Documents section.

On February 5, 2015, we received a petition dated February 5, 2015, from Defenders of Wildlife requesting that the blue Calamintha bee be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the blue Calamintha bee (Osmia calaminthae) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0079 under the Supporting Documents section.

On January 6, 2015, we received a petition dated December 18, 2014, from the Institute for Wildlife Protection, requesting that the Cahaba pebblesnail be listed as endangered under the Act. The petition further requested that we emergency list the species. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a February 18, 2015, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition to list the species as endangered.

Based on our review of the petition, sources cited in the petition, and information available in our files at the time the petition was received, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Cahaba pebblesnail (Clappia cahabensis) as endangered may be warranted. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing this species as endangered may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0079 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Cahaba pebblesnail or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0139 under the Supporting Documents section.

On January 9, 2015, we received a petition dated December 22, 2014, from the Wild Nature Institute and the John Muir Project of the Earth Island Institute, requesting that the California spotted owl be listed as endangered or threatened and that we designate critical habitat under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a February 12, 2015, letter to the petitioners, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses this petition.

Based on our review of the petitions and sources cited in the petitions, we find that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) based on Factors A, D, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

We received another petition dated August 19, 2015, from Sierra Forest Legacy and Defenders of Wildlife, to list the California spotted owl as endangered, and requesting we designate critical habitat for the species. This finding serves to notify the petitioners that we have received their petition, and that, because we have made a substantial finding on the December 22, 2014, petition and are initiating a status review of the species, we will include the information they provided in our status review for the owl.

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0080 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Cascade torrent salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Cascade torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0083 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 amphibians and reptiles, including the Columbia torrent salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Columbia torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factor A. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0086 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Florida pine snake, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) for listing based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0092 under the Supporting Documents section.

Inyo Mountains salamander (Batrachoseps campi); California.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Inyo Mountains salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Inyo Mountains salamander (Batrachoseps campi) based on Factor A. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0093 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Kern Plateau salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Kern Plateau salamander (Batrachoseps robustus) based on Factor A. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0097 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the lesser slender salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the lesser slender salamander (Batrachoseps minor) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0099 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the limestone salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the limestone salamander (Hydromantes brunus) based on Factor A. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0103 under the Supporting Documents section.

On September 30, 2014, we received a petition dated September 29, 2014, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the northern bog lemming be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petitioner requested:

• Listing of the full species;

• Listing of the individual subspecies (in particular, the disjunct population of S. b. sphagnicola south of the St. Lawrence River in Maine and New Hampshire); or

• Listing of the U.S. distinct population segment (DPS) of S. b. chapmani.

The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an October 3, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0105 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Panamint alligator lizard, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Panamint alligator lizard (Elgaria panamintina) based on Factors A and B. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0106 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Peaks of Otter salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0078 under the Supporting Documents section.

On April 24, 2013, we received a petition dated April 19, 2013, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that the regal fritillary be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112 under the Supporting Documents section.

On February 5, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition dated January 31, 2013, from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces) requesting that the rusty patched bumble bee be listed under the Act as an endangered species. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). On February 14, 2014, Xerces provided the Service with written notice of their intent to sue for failure to issue a petition finding. Xerces filed a complaint on May 13, 2014, against the Service for failure to issue a timely 90-day finding. The Service and Xerces reached a settlement to deliver a 90-day petition finding to the Federal Register no later than September 30, 2015. This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0115 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Shasta salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0116 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the short-tailed snake, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0119 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the southern rubber boa, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica or Charina bottae umbratica) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0140 under the Supporting Documents section.

On November 10, 2014, we received a petition dated November 7, 2014, from the Riverside County Farm Bureau and the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Responsibility, requesting that Stephens' kangaroo rat, which is listed as an endangered species, be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (“delisted”), based on a new analysis of the rat's dispersal ability. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi). Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that delisting the Stephens' kangaroo rat may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0140 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0118 under the Supporting Documents section.

On December 12, 2013, we received a petition dated December 11, 2013, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Tinian monarch be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a January 29, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Tinian monarch (Monarcha takatsukasae) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0138 under the Supporting Documents section.

On February 5, 2015, we received a petition dated February 3, 2015, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the tricolored blackbird be listed as endangered under the Act. The petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated for this species. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 13, 2015, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) based on Factors A, C, D, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for the tricolored blackbird, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0108 under the Supporting Documents section.

On February 14, 2014, we received a petition dated February 12, 2014, from Natural Resources Defense Council, requesting that the contiguous U.S. DPS of the tufted puffin be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0121 under the Supporting Documents section.

On November 20, 2012, we received a petition dated November 20, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Virgin River spinedace be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a December 20, 2012, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Virgin River spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0122 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the wood turtle, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A, B, C, D, and E. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0124 under the Supporting Documents section.

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard (Uma rufopunctata) may be warranted based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Cahaba pebblesnail and Stephens' kangaroo rat do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status reviews for these species.

The petitions summarized above for the blue Calamintha bee, California spotted owl, Cascade torrent salamander, Columbia torrent salamander, Florida pine snake, Inyo Mountains salamander, Kern Plateau salamander, lesser slender salamander, limestone salamander, northern bog lemming, Panamint alligator lizard, Peaks of Otter salamander, regal fritillary, rusty patched bumble bee, Shasta salamander, short-tailed snake, southern rubber boa, Tinian monarch, tricolored blackbird, tufted puffin, Virgin River spinedace, wood turtle, and the Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted.

Because we have found that these petitions present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue a 12-month finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the Service believes listing is warranted.

It is important to note that the “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.

A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate lead field offices (contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Prior to 2013, SBA had set the small business size standard for all sectors of the commercial fishing industry at the same amount. Since 2005, this standard had been $4 million in annual gross receipts (revenues). Effective July 22, 2013, SBA established significantly different and higher size standards for the three separate sectors of the industry (78 FR 37398, June 20, 2013): $19 million for commercial finfish fishing businesses (NAICS 114111), $5.0 million for commercial shellfish fishing businesses (NAICS 114112), and $7.0 million for other commercial marine fishing businesses (NAICS 114119). These standards were subsequently adjusted for inflation to $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million, respectively, via an interim final rule, effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 requires SBA to review all size standards every five years to account for changes in industry structure and market conditions. SBA is also required to assess the impact of inflation on its monetary-based size standards at least once every five years (13 CFR 121.102). However, as reflected by the timing of the two recent rulemakings adjusting the size standards, SBA is not required to conduct the reviews for these two purposes simultaneously. Thus, these size standards are likely to change on a regular basis.

Under the RFA, an agency must prepare an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA/FRFA) for each proposed and final rule, respectively, unless it certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies generally rely on the SBA size standards to identify small entities for RFA purposes. For NMFS, rulemaking activities that have been impacted by changes to the size standards for defining “small” businesses include, but are not limited to, regulatory actions and analyses undertaken pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Between 2012 and 2014, NMFS published an average of 285 final rules per year, more than 40 percent of which required an RFA analysis, and a majority of those directly regulated commercial fishing businesses. Thus, NMFS' costs of complying with the RFA are significant even when the small business size standards are stable, and those costs increase substantially when the standards are changing on a recurring basis.

NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) have encountered significant difficulties implementing and adjusting to the new standards because: (1) The change was from a single size standard for all commercial fishing businesses to three very different standards, (2) many commercial fishing businesses participate in both finfish and shellfish fishing activities, making it unclear which standard to apply in the RFA analyses, and (3) a number of rules simultaneously implement regulations under fishery management plans for both finfish and shellfish species (for e.g., 76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011; 76 FR 82414, December 30, 2011; 77 FR 15916, March 26, 2012; and 80 FR 41472, July 15, 2015), again making it unclear which standard to apply in the RFA analyses.

Furthermore, one of the RFA's primary purposes is to determine if proposed regulations are expected to have disproportionate economic impacts on small businesses relative to large businesses and, if so, to consider alternatives that would minimize any significant adverse economic impacts on small businesses. Under SBA's current standards for commercial fishing businesses, practically all commercial fishing businesses, and particularly commercial finfish fishing businesses, would likely be determined to be small. Thus, in their RFA analyses, NMFS and the Councils would not be able to discern, consider, or address any disproportionate economic impacts that various regulatory alternatives might have on businesses NMFS and the Councils think are “small” in the commercial fishing industry. Such an outcome effectively precludes NMFS from fulfilling one of the RFA's primary purposes and thus is not desirable.

Section 601(3) of the RFA provides that an agency, after consultation with SBA's Office of Advocacy and after an opportunity for public comment, may establish one or more definitions of “small business” which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publish such definition(s) in the Federal Register. Further, 13 CFR 121.903(c) states that “where the agency head is developing a size standard for the sole purpose of performing a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis pursuant to section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the department or agency may, after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish a size standard different from SBA's which is more appropriate for such analysis.” NMFS and the Department of Commerce General Counsel's Office had preliminary discussions with SBA's Office of Advocacy about these provisions, and SBA was supportive of NMFS using RFA section 601(3) and 13 CFR 121.903(c) to establish its own size standard for the commercial fishing industry for purposes of RFA analyses only.

SBA has also previously expressed support for the idea of creating a single size standard in instances where industries are closely related, as is the case for the commercial finfish and shellfish fishing industries. In its proposed rule to change the size standard for businesses in manufacturing industries (79 FR 54146, Sept. 10, 2014), SBA stated: “To simplify size standards and for other reasons, SBA may propose a common size standard for closely related industries. Although the size standard analysis may support a separate size standard for each industry, SBA believes that establishing different size standards for closely related industries may not always be appropriate. For example, in cases where many of the same businesses operate in the same multiple industries, a common size standard for those industries might better reflect the Federal marketplace. This might also make size standards among related industries more consistent than separate size standards for each of those industries.” (79 FR 54146, 54150, Sept. 10, 2014).

NMFS has determined that the data used by SBA's Office of Size Standards to develop the new standards are incomplete and, as a result, not representative of all commercial fishing businesses. Specifically, the data used by SBA only account for commercial fishing businesses that have employees (i.e., employer firms), and thus do not include commercial fishing businesses that do not have employees (i.e., non-employer firms). Non-employer commercial fishing businesses typically pay their self-employed crew a percentage of the gross or net revenue on each commercial fishing trip rather than a standard wage or salary, and thus self-employed crew are not considered employees. Commercial fishing businesses with employees represent only about 3 percent of all commercial fishing businesses, while the other 97 percent are non-employer firms.

Further, according to SBA, annual gross revenues for finfish and shellfish commercial fishing businesses with employees average $1.6 and $0.6 million, respectively. Conversely, NMFS determined the annual gross revenues for commercial fishing businesses without employees is only about $44,000 on average. Thus, NMFS concluded the exclusion of commercial fishing businesses without employees is primarily responsible for the magnitude of the size standard increases, particularly for finfish fishing businesses, and the standards would have been very different if SBA had used data for all commercial fishing businesses. Because the size standards apply to all commercial fishing businesses, not just those with employees, when used to analyze the economic impacts of management actions on directly regulated entities under the RFA, NMFS thinks it is more appropriate to have size standards for RFA purposes that are based on all commercial fishing businesses.

In conjunction with its recent review of size standards, SBA developed a “Size Standards Methodology” for establishing, reviewing, and modifying size standards, where necessary. SBA included it as a supporting document in the electronic docket of the September 11, 2012, proposed rule to change the size standards for the three sectors of the commercial fishing industry (77 FR 55755) at www.regulations.gov. Application of this new methodology resulted in the significantly different size standards for the three separate sectors of the industry. NMFS referenced this document in developing the proposed size standard in this proposed rule. Consistent with that methodology, SBA used the following industry factors to establish the current size standards for NAICS Sector 11 (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting): Average firm size, as measured by simple average receipts and weighted average receipts; average assets size; the four-firm concentration ratio (i.e., the percentage of receipts accounted for by the four largest firms in the industry); and the Gini coefficient, which measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of firms by receipts size class under SBA's approach.

SBA's primary source of industry data used in the rule to establish the new size standards for the three sectors of the commercial fishing industry was a special tabulation of the 2007 County Business Patterns data from the U.S. Bureau of Census (Census Bureau). This special tabulation provided SBA with data on the number of employer firms, number of establishments, number of employees, annual payroll, and annual receipts of companies by U.S. industry (6-digit NAICS code). These data were arrayed by various classes of firms' size based on the overall number of employees and gross receipts of the entire enterprise (all establishments and affiliated firms) from all industries. These data allowed SBA to estimate average firm size, the four-firm concentration ratio, and the Gini coefficient.

SBA's Office of Size Standards provided these data upon request to NMFS. NMFS subsequently requested and received from the Census Bureau comparable data for non-employer businesses. NMFS aggregated data to the industry level (i.e., NAICS 11411) for employer and non-employer businesses and then combined these data. Although data confidentiality was not an issue with the non-employer data, prior to aggregation NMFS had to estimate total gross receipts in certain receipts classes for employer firms where the Census Bureau determined the data were confidential and thus could not be released. The combined data provide a complete accounting of the distribution of businesses and receipts by receipt size class category for all commercial fishing businesses. NMFS used these data to generate estimates of certain industry factors needed to establish a single size standard for the commercial fishing businesses, consistent with SBA's methodology to the extent practicable.

Specifically, NMFS used the data it received from SBA and the Census Bureau to generate estimates of simple average receipts, weighted average receipts, and the Gini coefficient. For simple average receipts, each firm's share of the industry's total receipts is weighted equally, whereas the shares of larger firms receive larger weights in estimating weighted average receipts. Weighted average receipts and the Gini coefficient were estimated using the equations provided in SBA's Size Standards Methodology document. NMFS generated the following estimates for the commercial fishing industry: $77,178 for simple average receipts, $12,322,365 for weighted average receipts, and 0.755 for the Gini coefficient. Based on the information in Table 2 of SBA's proposed rule to change the size standards for the finfish, shellfish, and other marine fishing sectors of the commercial fishing industry (77 FR 55755), these estimates support size standards of $5 million, $5 million, and $19 million, respectively.

SBA also considers the average assets size of firms to be an important factor in establishing a size standard. NMFS does not possess and was not able to procure assets size data for non-employer businesses. SBA has such data for employer firms in the finfish and shellfish sectors, though not for employer firms in the other marine fishing sector because of the very small number of firms in that sector. The number of firms in the other marine fishing sector is very small because it includes firms primarily involved in the harvest of corals, sponges, reef associated plants (e.g., algae), and aquarium trade species, whose allowable harvest levels are very small. However, SBA had to purchase the assets size data for employer firms in the finfish and shellfish sectors from a private source and thus could not share the data with NMFS due to their proprietary nature. Therefore, NMFS created an estimate based on data that SBA published in its proposed rule, using the following approach.

According to SBA's proposed rule, the average assets sizes for the finfish and shellfish commercial fishing sectors are $1.4 million and $0.4 million, respectively. Finfish fishing firms and shellfish fishing firms represent approximately 54 percent and 46 percent, respectively, of the 2,039 employer firms in those two sectors combined. Based on these percentages, the weighted average assets size of the combined finfish and shellfish commercial fishing sectors is approximately $0.94 million. Based on Table 2 in SBA's proposed rule, this estimate supports a $7 million size standard.

SBA does not consider the average receipts of the four largest firms to be an important factor in establishing a size standard for industries where the four-firm concentration ratio is below 40 percent (i.e., receipts of the 4 largest firms account for less than 40 percent of the total receipts). According to the data SBA provided to NMFS, the four largest firms in the commercial fishing industry are commercial finfish fishing businesses. Within the finfish sector, these firms only account for 29 percent of total receipts within that sector. Therefore, within the larger commercial fishing industry as a whole, the percentage of receipts they account for must be less than 29 percent. Because the four largest firms account for less than 40 percent of the total receipts for the commercial fishing industry, consistent with SBA's methodology, NMFS did not use the four-firm concentration ratio in establishing a single size standard for the commercial fishing industry.

According to SBA's methodology, all factors should be weighted equally. Therefore, NMFS averaged the standards supported by the simple average receipts ($5 million), weighted average receipts ($5 million), Gini coefficient ($19 million), and average assets size ($7 million) estimates, which results in a size standard of $9 million. However, SBA only allowed for eight size standards in its final rule (79 FR 54146, September 10, 2014): $5 million, $7 million, $10 million, $14 million, $19 million, $25.5 million, $30 million, and $35.5 million. When the estimated size standard is not equivalent to one of these eight standards, SBA rounds up to the next highest size standard. For NMFS' estimated $9 million size standard, the next highest size standard would be $10 million. If the average assets size factor is not included, because it is based on aggregated employer data only rather than a combination of employer and non-employer data, the average of the other 3 factors is $9.67 million. Thus, the next highest size standard would still be $10 million.

NMFS is aware the Census Bureau has recently released the 2012 County Business Patterns data for employer firms. However, 2012 data for non-employer firms has not yet been released. As previously discussed, NMFS does not think it is prudent to propose a size standard based only on employer data because 97 percent of the commercial fishing businesses are non-employers. Further, even if the 2012 non-employer data is released and NMFS generates new estimates of the various industry factors, NMFS would still not be able to determine what standards are implied by the new estimates until SBA generates an updated version of Table 2 in its proposed rule to change the size standards for the finfish, shellfish, and other marine fishing sectors of the commercial fishing industry (77 FR 55755) using 2012 rather than 2007 data.

As previously stated, SBA recently implemented a rule to adjust all of its receipts based size standards for inflation using the chain-type price index for the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP price index) (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). According to that rule, for all industries with a non-inflation-adjusted size standard of $10 million, the new inflation-adjusted size standard is $11 million.

Thus, this rule proposes to establish a small business size standard of $11 million for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes only. This single size standard for commercial fishing businesses would be used in all RFA analyses conducted in support of NMFS' regulatory actions. Establishing this single size standard would simplify the RFA analyses done in support of NMFS' rules, better meet the RFA's intent by more accurately representing expected disproportionate effects of NMFS' rules between small and large commercial fishing businesses, create a standard that more accurately reflects the size distribution of all businesses in the commercial fishing industry, and allow NMFS to determine when changes to the standard are necessary and appropriate.

Consistent with SBA's review requirements under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and 13 CFR 121.102, NMFS also proposes to review this standard at least once every 5 years to determine if a change is warranted. A change may be warranted because of changes in industry structure, market conditions, inflation, or other relevant factors. The reviews for these potential reasons will be conducted simultaneously in order to minimize the frequency of changes to the standard and additional rulemakings.

Consistent with the requirements in 13 CFR 121.903(c), NMFS will formally consult SBA's Office of Advocacy to ensure their concurrence with this proposed action.

Pursuant to section 601(3) of the RFA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the RFA and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined by the Office of Management and Budget to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.

The purposes of the rule are to establish a single small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411), for RFA compliance purposes only, and a requirement for NMFS to assess at least once every 5 years whether this size standard should be changed. The objectives of the rule are to simplify the RFA analyses done in support of NMFS' rules, better meet the RFA's intent by more accurately representing expected disproportionate effects of NMFS' rules between small and large businesses, create a standard that more accurately reflects the size distribution of all businesses in the commercial fishing industry, and allow NMFS to determine when changes to the standard are necessary and appropriate. The RFA and 13 CFR 121.903(c) serve as the legal basis for the rule.

The actions in this rule are administrative in nature and thus would only potentially generate indirect economic effects on commercial fishing businesses. Specifically, the proposed size standard would only affect how NMFS and the Councils determine whether commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by future regulatory actions are small or large, whether and to what extent those actions have disproportionate economic impacts on those two classes of businesses, and when it is appropriate for NMFS to change the standard in the future. This rule would not impose any new requirements on commercial fishing businesses. Therefore, no small entities would be directly regulated by this rule. This rule would not be expected to affect the behavior or operations of commercial fishing businesses. As such, this rule is not expected to generate any direct economic effects on commercial fishing businesses.

Based on the information above, a reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected. Because this rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an IRFA is not required and none has been prepared.

No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This rule would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to add 50 CFR part 200 under subchapter A to read as follows: