Federal Register Vol. 80, No.192,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Inadvertent pilot input in turbulence.

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

Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-15-07-SC for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2015 [80 FR 49934]. No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

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

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

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

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

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

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The Model GVII-G500 airplane will be a large-cabin business jet with seating for 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-15-08-SC for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2015 [80 FR 49936]. No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On September 11, 2015, we issued Emergency AD 2015-18-51 to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters with T/R de-icing installation unit part number (P/N) 204ZP01Y01 and T/R blade P/N 332A12-0055-XX (where XX is any dash number) installed. Emergency AD 2015-18-51 requires inspecting each T/R blade, replacing the set of T/R blades if there is damage, deactivating the rotor de-icing system, revising the RFM, and installing a placard. Emergency AD 2015-18-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters and was prompted by a report of a T/R de-icing system power supply box stuck in a “closed” position providing an uncontrolled and un-annunciated power supply to the system. The T/R de-icing system is part of the entire rotor de-icing system.

Emergency AD 2015-18-51 was prompted by AD No. 2015-0153-E, dated July 24, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332 C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters, equipped with T/R de-icing installation unit P/N 204ZP01Y01 and T/R blade P/N 332A12-0055-XX (where XX represents any dash number). EASA advises of a report of a T/R blade that was overheated and damaged after application of alternating current (AC) from a ground power unit (GPU) following a flight during which the de-icing system was used. Subsequent analysis determined failure of the power supply box stuck in the “closed” position caused the uncontrolled power supply to the rotor blade de-icing system and subsequent damage. EASA also states that its AD is considered an interim action and further AD action may follow.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Airbus Helicopters issued Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-05.01.02, Revision 0, dated July 22, 2015 (ASB), which specifies, before each flight and before starting at least one engine, if the applicable helicopter has been supplied external 115V/400Hz AC GPU with the rotor stationary or if the de-icing system has been used or tested using an AC GPU with the rotor stationary or spinning, visually inspecting the T/R blades for burn marks, detached leading edge protection, or cracks at the skin/leading edge protection junction. If at least one T/R blade is damaged, the ASB specifies replacing all of the T/R blades.

This AD requires, before further flight, inspecting each T/R blade for a burn mark, any disbonding of the leading edge protection, and a crack at the junction of the skin and the leading edge protection. If there is a burn mark, any disbonding of the leading edge protection, or a crack at the junction of the skin and the leading edge protection on a T/R blade, this AD requires replacing all of the T/R blades with airworthy T/R blades. This AD also requires deactivating the rotor de-icing system, revising the RFM to state that the rotor de-icing system is deactivated and that flight into known icing is prohibited, and installing a placard stating that the rotor de-icing system is deactivated.

The EASA AD allows operation of the rotor de-icing system with a recurring inspection of the T/R blades. This AD requires an initial inspection and prohibits operation of the rotor de-icing system by deactivating the rotor de-icing system, revising the RFM to state the rotor de-icing system is deactivated and flight into known icing is prohibited, and installing a placard stating that the rotor de-icing system is deactivated.

We consider this AD to be an interim action. Once a modification to the rotor de-icing system design is evaluated, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

We estimate that this AD affects 19 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. It takes about 1 work-hour to inspect the T/R blades for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $1,615 for the U.S. fleet. It takes about 2 work-hours to deactivate the rotor de-icing system for a cost of $170 per helicopter and $3,230 for the U.S. fleet. It takes about 0.5 work-hour to revise the RFM for a cost of $43 per helicopter and $817 for the U.S. fleet. It takes about 0.5 work-hour and a negligible parts cost to install a placard for a cost of $43 per helicopter and $817 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing a set of T/R blades takes about 3 work-hours for a labor cost of $255 per helicopter. Parts for 4-blade T/R set cost $167,644 for a total replacement cost of $167,899 per helicopter. Parts for a 5-blade T/R set cost $209,555 for a total replacement cost of $209,810 per helicopter.

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

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD were impracticable and contrary to public interest and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by Emergency AD 2015-18-51, issued on September 11, 2015, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Services is revising FAA Order JO 7930.2, Notices to Airmen (NOTAM), which is scheduled to become effective no later than December 15, 2015.

The following paragraphs will be incorporated into the next revision of FAA Order JO 7930.2.

Paragraph 4-2-1a-14, Start of Activity/End of Validity, is “a 10-digit date-time group (YYMMDDHHMM) used to indicate the time at which the NOT AM comes into force (the date/time a condition will exist or begin) and the time at which the NOTAM ceases to be in force and becomes invalid (the expected return to service, return to normal status time, or the time the activity will end).”

Paragraph 4-2-1a-14(a) further specifies, that if the NOTAM duration is expected to return to service prior to the End of Validity time, express the time by using a date- time group followed immediately by EST. The NOTAM Originator must cancel or replace any NOTAM that includes an EST before the NOTAM reaches its End of Validity time, as the NOTAM will now auto expire at the end of validity time, regardless of EST.

This document revises certain language in OSHA's standards to reflect the Agency's intent about the scope of two general industry standards. First, this document revises language that mistakenly could be read as suggesting that the general industry electric power generation, transmission, and distribution standard covers certain tree-trimming work that is performed near, but that is not on or directly associated with, electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations. This was never OSHA's intent; rather, OSHA intended that the general industry electrical safety-related work practices standard cover such work. Similarly, OSHA is correcting language in its general industry electrical safety-related work practices standard to make clear that the standard covers other work performed by qualified persons that is near, but not on or directly associated with, both electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations and certain other types of installations.

This notice also corrects minor errors in two minimum approach distance tables in the general industry and construction standards for electric power generation, transmission and distribution work.

On August 6, 1990, OSHA adopted a standard on electrical safety-related work practices for general industry (55 FR 31984).1 That standard is contained in §§ 1910.331 through 1910.335 in subpart S of 29 CFR part 1910. According to § 1910.331(a), that standard contains electrical safety-related work practices for both qualified persons 2 (those who have training in avoiding the electrical hazards of working on or near exposed energized parts) and unqualified persons (those with little or no such training) working on, near, or with certain electrical installations (not including electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations). Paragraph (c) of § 1910.331 excludes from the scope of the electrical safety-related work practices standard work by qualified persons “on or directly associated with” certain installations, including installations for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy (§ 1910.331(c)(1)).3

When the Agency promulgated the electrical safety-related work practices standard in 1990, OSHA did not define “work directly associated with” generation, transmission, or distribution installations. However, Note 2 to § 1910.331(c)(1) gave two examples of such work: line-clearance tree trimming and replacing utility poles. OSHA defined “line-clearance tree trimming,” at 29 CFR 1910.399 in subpart S, as the pruning, trimming, repairing, maintaining, removing, or clearing of trees or cutting of brush that is within 305 cm (10 feet) of electric supply lines and equipment.

On January 31, 1994, OSHA issued a new standard, § 1910.269, addressing work practices to be used during the operation and maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, and distribution lines and equipment, including, specifically, line-clearance tree-trimming operations (59 FR 4320).4 The 1994 final rule: adopted a definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” in § 1910.269(x) that mirrored the definition of that term in § 1910.399, redesignated Note 2 to § 1910.331(c)(1) (which provided examples of the types of work that are excluded from the electrical safety-related work practices standard because they are directly associated with electric power generation, transmission, or distribution installations) as Note 3, and added a sentence to that note stating that work within the scope of the note is covered by § 1910.269.5

On April 11, 2014, OSHA revised § 1910.269, as well as subpart V of part 1926, which contains corresponding requirements for the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines and equipment (79 FR 20316). The 2014 final rule revised the definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” in § 1910.269(x) to include the pruning, trimming, repairing, maintaining, removing, or clearing of trees, or the cutting of brush, that is within the following distance of electric supply lines and equipment: (1) For voltages to ground of 50 kilovolts or less—3.05 meters (10 feet) and (2) for voltages to ground of more than 50 kilovolts—3.05 meters (10 feet) plus 0.10 meters (4 inches) for every 10 kilovolts over 50 kilovolts. The revision expanded the definition to include work on trees and brush that were farther away from electric power lines and equipment when the voltage was more than 50 kilovolts. The 2014 final rule also revised Note 3 to § 1910.331(c)(1) to reference the definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” in § 1910.269(x) and deleted the corresponding definition from § 1910.399.

After OSHA promulgated the 2014 revisions to § 1910.269, tree care industry representatives raised questions that led the Agency to believe that the industry was unclear about the application of § 1910.269 with respect to certain tree-trimming work. As a result, OSHA examined the relevant regulatory language in the general industry standards on electrical safety-related work practices (subpart S) and on electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work (§ 1910.269). The Agency's review led to two conclusions: (1) Revisions to § 1910.269 are necessary to clarify that certain types of tree trimming meeting the definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” are not covered by that standard; and (2) revisions to § 1910.331 (in subpart S) are necessary to clarify that the electrical safety-related work practices in §§ 1910.331 through 1910.335 apply to tree-trimming work that may meet the definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” when that work is not on or directly associated with electric power generation, transmission, and distribution or other installations listed in § 1910.331(c) and, more generally, to work performed by qualified employees when that work is near, but not on or directly associated with, installations listed in § 1910.331(c).

Tree trimming: As noted earlier in this document, when the Agency adopted the electrical safety-related work practices standard in 1990, OSHA listed line-clearance tree trimming and replacing utility poles as examples of types of work that are directly associated with electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations and, therefore, excluded from subpart S when performed by a qualified person (as “qualified person” is defined in § 1910.399). However, OSHA was imprecise in its description of these examples. Although clearing trees and brush around power lines and replacing utility poles are usually tasks that are directly associated with a power line, that is not always the case. For example, an employee could be trimming trees away from telephone or cable television lines that happen to be near an electric power line. This type of tree trimming, which meets the definition of line-clearance tree trimming in § 1910.269(x), is work directly associated with communications lines, not electric power lines, and is covered by § 1910.268, not § 1910.269.6 Similarly, a telecommunications firm replacing a utility pole supporting communications lines is performing work directly associated with the communications lines, not with any electric power lines that also happen to be supported by the pole but that are not transferred to the new pole by the firm. OSHA intended the examples in Note 3 to § 1910.331(c)(1) to illustrate types of work that generally (but not always) would be directly associated with electric power generation, transmission, and distribution lines. The Agency did not intend for those examples to be dispositive of the question of whether any particular activity is directly associated with those installations.

Furthermore, the current definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” in § 1910.269(x) makes the location of the tree or brush the key determining factor in deciding whether a trimming activity is line-clearance tree trimming. Consequently, any trimming or other maintenance of any tree or brush that is within the specified distances of an electric power line is line-clearance tree trimming, irrespective of the purpose of the activity or the occupation of the worker. Notwithstanding this definition, the only line-clearance tree trimming OSHA intended § 1910.269 to cover is line-clearance tree trimming performed: (1) For the purpose of clearing space around electric power generation, transmission, or distribution lines or equipment and (2) on behalf of an organization that operates, or that controls the operating procedures for, those lines or equipment. For example, a crew trimming trees at a residence or commercial facility for aesthetic purposes would be performing work meeting the current definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” while trimming any tree that is within the specified distance of a power line. Yet, in most cases, OSHA would consider this work to be incidental line-clearance tree trimming 7 that is not directly associated with an electric power generation, transmission, or distribution line. When initially promulgating the electrical safety-related work practices standard in 1990, the Agency did not intend such incidental line-clearance tree trimming to be included in the exemption in § 1910.331(c)(1). When OSHA adopted § 1910.269 in 1994, and revised that standard in 2014, the Agency proceeded on the understanding that such incidental line-clearance tree trimming was covered by subpart S; thus, OSHA did not intend to cover that work under § 1910.269, even though it is now apparent that the definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” in § 1910.269(x), which was adopted in 1994, and revised in 2014, did not make this intent clear.8

The Agency's economic analyses for the 1994 and 2014 rulemakings reflect that OSHA did not intend to cover incidental line-clearance tree trimming under § 1910.269. The regulatory impact assessment for the 1994 final rule indicated that § 1910.269 “will cover . . . contract line-clearance tree trimmers” (59 FR 4431, emphasis added), meaning “contractors [that] perform tree trimming for electric utilities” (OSHA-S015-2006-0645-0008 9 ). And OSHA based the 2014 analysis on the continued assumption that the rule would cover contract line-clearance tree-trimming firms (in other words, contractors that perform tree trimming on behalf of a utility or other organization that operates, or controls the operating procedures for, covered electric power lines and equipment) only. In the 2014 analysis, OSHA relied on 2002 estimates from the National Arborist Association (now known as the Tree Care Industry Association) that 90 percent of large establishments, and 2 percent of small establishments, that perform ornamental shrub and tree services are involved in line-clearance tree trimming covered by § 1910.269 (79 FR 20564). Thus, the 2014 analysis did not account for a large percentage of establishments that perform ornamental shrub and tree care services, even though, in all likelihood, the majority, if not all, of these establishments perform at least some work meeting the definition of line-clearance tree trimming.

Thus, OSHA concludes that the language in the existing standards does not accurately convey the Agency's intent with respect to tree-trimming activities that meet the definition of “line-clearance tree trimming,” but that are not directly associated with electric power generation, transmission, or distribution lines or equipment.

Subpart S coverage of work by qualified employees that is near, but not on or directly associated with, electric power generation, transmission, or distribution installations. Paragraph (a) of § 1910.331 describes work by both qualified and unqualified persons that is covered by the electrical safety-related work practices at §§ 1910.331 through 1910.335. Paragraph (b) of § 1910.331 states that the electrical safety-related work practices at §§ 1910.331 through 1910.335 apply to work performed by unqualified persons on, near, or with certain installations (including electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations) listed in § 1910.331(c)(1) through (c)(4). And the introductory text to § 1910.331(c) states that the electrical safety-related work practices at §§ 1910.331 through 1910.335 do not apply to work performed by qualified persons on or directly associated with the installations (including electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations) listed in § 1910.331(c)(1) through (c)(4). Section 1910.331 does not state explicitly that the electrical safety-related work practices in subpart S do apply to work performed by qualified persons near, but not on or directly associated with, electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations, although other parts of the standard make clear that OSHA intended to cover this type of work in subpart S. For example, § 1910.333(c)(3)(ii) contains requirements for qualified persons working in the vicinity of overhead lines. As virtually all overhead lines at the voltages addressed by this provision 10 are electric power generation, transmission, or distribution lines, it is evident that OSHA intended to cover work by qualified persons performed near, but not on or directly associated with, electric power generation, transmission, or distribution installations.

Therefore, OSHA concludes that the scope provisions in § 1910.331 do not accurately explain the applicability of the electrical safety-related work practices at §§ 1910.331 through 1910.335 to qualified persons performing work near, but not on or directly associated with, the installations listed in § 1910.331(c)(1) through (c)(4), including electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations.

To clarify what work is covered by the general industry standards on electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work and on electrical safety-related work practices, OSHA is taking the following actions:

1. Expressly limiting the scope of § 1910.269 as it relates to line-clearance tree trimming by revising § 1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E) to state explicitly that the standard applies to line-clearance tree trimming only to the extent it is performed for the purpose of clearing space around electric power generation, transmission, or distribution lines or equipment and on behalf of an organization that operates, or that controls the operating procedures for, those lines or equipment.

2. Adding a note to the definition of “line-clearance tree trimming” in § 1910.269(x), with corresponding revisions to Note 2 to the definition of “line-clearance tree trimmer,” to explain that: (1) The scope of § 1910.269 limits the application of the standard to line-clearance tree trimming as noted in § 1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E); and (2) tree trimming that is performed on behalf of a homeowner or commercial entity other than an organization that operates, or that controls the operating procedures for, electric power generation, transmission, or distribution lines or equipment, or that is not for the purpose of clearing space around electric power generation, transmission, or distribution lines or equipment, is not directly associated with an electric power generation, transmission, or distribution installation and is not covered by § 1910.269.

3. Revising Appendix A-3 to § 1910.269 to reflect the clarifications in this correcting amendment.11

4. Replacing terms such as “line-clearance tree-trimming operations” and “line-clearance tree-trimming work” wherever they appear in § 1910.269 and subpart V of part 1926 with “line-clearance tree trimming” and revising § 1926.950(a)(3) to correspond to the changes to § 1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E), noted earlier.12

5. Referencing the scope of § 1910.269 in Note 3 to § 1910.331(c)(1).

6. In § 1910.331(b), adding language clarifying that the electrical safety-related work practices in subpart S cover qualified persons performing work near, but not on or directly associated with, installations listed in § 1910.331(c)(1) through (c)(4).

OSHA is also correcting minor errors in Table R-6 of § 1910.269 and in Table V-5 of subpart V of part 1926. Table R-3 of § 1910.269 and Table V-2 of subpart V, which contain equations for employers to use to establish minimum approach distances from energized parts of electric circuits, set the minimum approach distance for 50 to 300 volts as “avoid contact.” Using the equations in Table R-3 and Table V-2, Table R-6 and Table V-5 provide default minimum approach distances for voltage ranges up to 72.5 kilovolts. The latter two tables erroneously list the first voltage range as 0.50 to 0.300 kilovolts. The correct voltage range is 0.050 to 0.300 kilovolts. In addition, the word “to” is missing between the voltages in the first voltage range in Table V-5. Accordingly, OSHA is correcting Table R-6 and Table V-5 in this document.

OSHA determined that this correcting amendment is not subject to the requirements and procedures for public notice and comment specified in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655). See 29 CFR 1911.5 (Minor changes in standards). This action does not affect or change any existing rights or obligations, and no interested party is likely to object to the minor amendments being made to 29 CFR 1910.269, 29 CFR 1910.331, or 29 CFR part 1926, subpart V. Therefore, the Agency finds good cause for foregoing public notice and comment.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this document.

This action is taken pursuant to sections 3704 et seq., Public Law 107-217, 116 STAT. 1062, (40 U.S.C. 3704 et seq.); sections 4, 6, and 8, Public Law 91-596, 84 STAT. 1590 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (Jan. 25, 2012)), and 29 CFR part 1911.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration amends parts 1910 and 1926 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were amended or rescinded by AVAQMD and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Table 2 provides Federal Register dates and citations for when the EPA approved into the SIP the two rules that are now being rescinded.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

The Illinois EPA (IEPA) submitted a revision to the Illinois SIP to EPA for approval on December 18, 2014. The SIP revision updates the definition of VOM or VOC at 35 IAC Part 211, Subpart B, Section 211.7150(a).

The Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) held a public hearing on the proposed SIP revision on May 7, 2014. IPCB did not receive any public comments. IPCB adopted the amendment to 35 IAC 211.7150(a) on June 5, 2014. IPCB also adopted minor administrative changes such as alphabetization of compound names, addition of the refrigerant industry designation “HFO-1234yf” in parenthesis after the chemical name, and replacing the word “above” with “of this Section” in 35 IAC 211.7150(d) for ease of cross-referencing within a section of the regulations.

In 2009, EPA received a petition requesting that 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene be exempted from VOC control based on its low reactivity to ethane. Based on the mass maximum incremental reactivity value for the compound being equal to or less than that of ethane, EPA concluded that this compound makes negligible contributions to tropospheric ozone formation (76 FR 64059, October 17, 2011).

Therefore on October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62451), EPA amended 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1) to exclude this chemical compound from the definition of VOC for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone under title I of the CAA (78 FR 9823). EPA's action became effective on November 1, 2013. IEPA's SIP revision is consistent with EPA's action amending the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).

EPA is approving into the Illinois SIP revisions to 35 IAC 211 contained in the December 18, 2014, submittal. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 4, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by November 4, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective December 4, 2015.

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

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. For additional information on the infrastructure SIP requirements, see the proposed rulemaking published on July 24, 2015 (80 FR 44005).

On July 24, 2015, EPA proposed to approve portions of Georgia's March 6, 2012, 2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of provisions pertaining to PSD permitting in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J). EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on the July 24, 2015, proposed rule. EPA took final action to approve the PSD permitting requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) on March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14019).

With the exception of provisions pertaining to PSD permitting requirements described above, EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's March 6, 2012, infrastructure submission because it addresses the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP requirements to ensure that the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Georgia.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On December 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for FRAQMD Rule 10.1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, including evidence of public adoption of this regulation, which must be met before formal EPA review.

EPA approved a previous version of Rule 10.1, into the SIP on September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58460).

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP include, among other things, a preconstruction permit program to provide for regulation of the construction and modification of stationary sources within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of title I of the CAA. For areas designated as nonattainment for one or more NAAQS, the SIP must include preconstruction permit requirements for new or modified major stationary sources of such nonattainment pollutant(s), commonly referred to as “Nonattainment New Source Review” or “NNSR.” CAA 172(c)(5).

The jurisdiction of the FRAQMD consists of two counties, Yuba and Sutter, and contains two nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 81.305. The first nonattainment area is the “Sutter Buttes” area, which consists of the area located in the District which is above 2000 feet of elevation. This area is designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

The second nonattainment area is the south “Sutter” area, which is part of the Sacramento Metro Nonattainment Area. This area is also designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

Since the District adopted the latest revisions to Rule 10.1, the “Yuba City-Marysville” area, which consists of all of Sutter County and a portion of Yuba County, has been redesignated as attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 79 FR 72981 (December 9, 2014).

Because of the nonattainment areas located in the FRAQMD, the District is required under part D of title I of the Act to adopt and implement a SIP-approved NNSR program for the nonattainment portions of Yuba and Sutter Counties that applies, at a minimum, to new or modified major stationary sources of the following pollutants: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOX).1

Rule 10.1, New Source Review, implements the NNSR requirements under part D of title I of the CAA for new or modified major stationary sources of nonattainment pollutants. FRAQMD amended and submitted Rule 10.1 to correct minor program deficiencies identified by EPA on September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58460).

EPA has reviewed the submitted permitting rule for compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's regulations for nonattainment stationary source permit programs in 40 CFR 51.165, and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l).

Our September 24, 2013 action identified two deficiencies in Rule 10.1. First, Sections B.4 and B.5 contained language that was too broad because it exempted certain pollutants from all the requirements in Section E, if EPA redesignated the area from nonattainment to attainment, instead of only exempting those pollutants from the requirements for major sources. Second, the definition of “NSR Regulated Pollutant” did not specify that the term included gaseous emissions which condense to form either PM10 or PM2.5, respectively.

The first deficiency was corrected by narrowing the language contained in Sections B.4 and B.5 to only exempt a source from the requirements of Sections E.1.b, E.2.a.2, E.5, E.7 and E.8, which apply to major sources emitting nonattainment pollutants, if EPA re-designates any of the nonattainment portions of the District to attainment for PM2.5 or ozone.

The second deficiency was corrected by adding a second sentence to both Sections D.34 and D.35, which reads as follows: “Gaseous emissions which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures shall be included.” Adding this sentence to each section clarifies that condensable gases emissions, which condense to form either PM10 or PM2.5, must be counted as PM10 or PM2.5, respectively.

With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.

Based on our review of the public process documentation included in CARB's November 6, 2014 submittal, we find that the State has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of this rule to EPA.

With respect to substantive requirements, EPA has reviewed the submitted rule in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that apply to NNSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act. Based on our evaluation of this rule, as summarized in the Public Comment and Final Action section of this notice, we find that the rule meets the CAA and regulatory requirements for NNSR permit programs in part D of title I of the Act and EPA's NNSR implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 for new or modified major stationary sources proposing to locate within the District. Final approval of Rule 10.1 would correct all deficiencies in FRAQMD's permit program identified in our September 24, 2013 final rule. 78 FR 58460.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments by November 4, 2015, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on December 4, 2015. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the FRAQMD Rule 10.1, as discussed in section I.A of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

On July 30, 2015, EPA proposed to approve the Mammoth Lakes PM10 redesignation request and maintenance plan. We proposed this action because California's SIP revision meets the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements and EPA guidance concerning redesignations to attainment of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) and maintenance plans (80 FR 45477). For our detailed procedural and substantive review of the State's SIP submittal and our discussion of our findings and rationale for our proposal and this final action, please see our proposal and the docket for this action.

First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA proposed to approve the State's request to redesignate the Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. In our July 30, 2015 proposal, we concluded that the area has met the five criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E): (1) The area has attained the PM10 NAAQS over the period 2009-2014; (2) the required portions of the SIP are fully approved for the area; (3) the improvement in ambient air quality in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in PM10 emissions; (4) California has met all requirements applicable to the Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA; and, (5) the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, as described below, meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.

Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA proposed to approve as a revision to the SIP, the maintenance plan developed by the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) entitled “2014 Update Air Quality Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Town of Mammoth Lakes” (herein and in our proposal referred to as the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan), dated May 5, 2014, submitted by California, through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to EPA on October 21, 2014.1 EPA proposed to find that the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan meets the requirements in section 175A of the CAA. The plan's maintenance demonstration shows that the Mammoth Lakes area will continue to attain the PM10 NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e. through 2030) by continued implementation of the local control measures approved into the SIP. The plan's contingency provisions incorporate a process for identifying new or more stringent control measures in the event of a future monitored violation. Finally, EPA proposed to approve the plan's 2012 emission inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172 and 175A.

Third, EPA proposed to approve the motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan because we find they meet the applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). With our proposal published July 30, 2015, EPA informed the public that we are reviewing the plan's budgets for adequacy and that we started the public comment period on adequacy of the proposed budgets. This comment period closed on August 31, 2015. We received no public comments concerning the adequacy of the proposed PM10 motor vehicle emissions budgets.

EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. During this comment period we received no comments on our proposal.

To conclude, based on our review of the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan and redesignation request submitted by California, air quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials contained within our docket, EPA finds that the State has addressed all the necessary requirements for redesignation of the Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area to attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.

First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving the State's request, which accompanied the submittal of the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, to redesignate the Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment area to attainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Our redesignation of the Mammoth Lakes area is based on our determination that the area has met the five criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E): (1) The area has attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS as demonstrated by 2009-2014 data; 2 (2) the relevant portions of the SIP are fully approved; (3) the improvement in air quality in the Mammoth Lakes area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in PM10 emissions; (4) California has met all requirements applicable to the Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA; and, (5) our approval of the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, as part of this action.

Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is approving the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan and finds that it meets the requirements of Section 175A. We find that the maintenance demonstration shows that the area will continue to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2030). We find that the Maintenance Plan provides a contingency process for identifying and adopting new or more stringent control measures if a monitored violation of the PM10 NAAQS occurs. Finally, we are approving the 2012 emissions inventory as meeting applicable requirements for emissions inventories in Sections 172 and 175A of the CAA.

Last, we find that the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan's motor vehicle emissions budgets meet applicable CAA requirements for maintenance plans and transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). With the effective date of this action, these approved budgets must be used in any future regional PM10 regional emissions analysis conducted by the State and the Federal Highway Administration.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and,

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the State plan that EPA is approving today does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this rule, as it relates to the maintenance plan, does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The information in this section is organized as follows:

The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. This action narrowly changes the delisting levels for the F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge generated at the John Deere Des Moines facility in Ankeny, Iowa. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we may issue a proposed rule to propose the changes and would address public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

This action only applies to the F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge generated at the John Deere Des Moines facility in Ankeny, Iowa.

A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or to an authorized state to exclude or delist, from the RCRA list of hazardous wastes, waste the generator believes should not be considered hazardous under RCRA.

After evaluating the delisting petition submitted by John Deere, EPA proposed, on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49252), to exclude the waste from the lists of hazardous waste under § 261.31. EPA issued a final rule on November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70108) granting John Deere's delisting petition to have up to 600 tons per year of the F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge generated at the John Deere Des Moines, Ankney, Iowa, facility excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste, once it is disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.

John Deere requests removal of Table 1 item 1(C)—the requirement to conduct analysis of verification samples using EPA SW-846 Method 1313 Extraction at pH 2.88, 7 and 13 and the requirement not to exceed hexavalent chromium level in the resulting [Method 1313] extracts.

John Deere requests increases in delisting levels in Table 1 item 1(D) as follows: Cadmium to 25.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), chromium (total) to 51,000 mg/kg, chromium (hexavalent) to 41 mg/kg, copper to 2877 mg/kg, nickel to 3030 mg/kg, zinc to 10,170, cyanide (total) to 9 mg/kg, and oil and grease to 64,500 mg/kg.

John Deere requests the removal of delisting levels in Table 1 item 1(D) for antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cobalt, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, acetone, and methyl ethyl ketone.

To support the request, John Deere submitted analytical data from verification testing events conducted since the exclusion was finalized. John Deere generated the sampling data under a Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan (June 2012 Revision).

EPA evaluated the proposed increases in the delisting levels against the listing criteria and factors cited in § 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). EPA evaluated the proposed increases in the delisting levels with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the wastes to be hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentrations of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability.

For this delisting determination, we assumed that the waste would be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we considered transport of waste constituents through groundwater, surface water and air. We evaluated John Deere's petitioned waste using the Agency's Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR 28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of the disposal of John Deere's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. To predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors derived from EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration and Transformation Products (EPACMTP). From a release to groundwater, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor of ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater while showering and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.

From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and the user's guide to DRAS are included in the docket.

At a benchmark cancer risk of one in one hundred thousand (1×10−5) and a benchmark hazard quotient of 1.0, the DRAS program determined maximum allowable concentrations for each constituent in both the waste and the leachate at an annual waste volume of 1000 cubic yards disposed in a landfill for 20 years after which time the landfill is closed. We used the maximum reported total and TCLP leachate concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in the groundwater, soil, surface water and air.

The maximum allowable total COC concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by the DRAS are as follows: milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) Barium—2.85 × 107; Copper—5.34 × 106; Chromium (III)—4.56 × 1010; Hexavalent Chromium—1.36 × 104; Cyanide—2.99 × 106; Lead—1.09 × 107; Mercury—1.86 × 101; Nickel—4.76 × 106; Vanadium—1.52 × 108; Zinc—1.38 × 107; Acetone—3.63 × 108; and Methyl Ethyl Ketone—1.45 × 109. The maximum allowable leachate COC concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by the DRAS are as follows: Milligrams per liter (mg/l) Copper—1.78 × 102; Hexavalent Chromium—1.38 × 101; Cyanide—2.27 × 101; Lead—4.18 × 100; Nickel—9.78 × 101; Vanadium—2.47 × 101; Zinc—1.48 × 103; and Acetone—3.84 × 103. The maximum allowable leachate COC concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by TCLP are as follows: Milligrams per liter (mg/l) Barium—100; Chromium (total)—5; Mercury—0.2; and Methyl Ethyl Ketone—200.

The concentrations of all constituents in both the waste and the leachate are below the allowable concentrations. The requested changes in delisting levels are below the allowable concentrations. EPA's decision to grant the requested changes by John Deere is based on the information submitted in support of this direct final rule, and other information in the docket.

EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program. Thus, upon the exclusion being finalized, the wastes covered will be removed from Subtitle C control under the Federal RCRA program. This will mean, first, that the wastes will be delisted in any State or territory where the EPA is directly administering the RCRA program (e.g., Iowa, Indian Country). However, whether the wastes will be delisted in states which have been authorized to administer the RCRA program will vary depending upon the authorization status of the States and the particular requirements regarding delisted wastes in the various states.

Some other generally authorized states have not received authorization for delisting. Thus, the EPA makes delisting determinations for such states. However, RCRA allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under Section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state, or that requires a state concurrence before the Federal exclusion takes effect, or that allows the state to add conditions to any Federal exclusion. We urge the petitioner to contact the state regulatory authority in each state to or through which it may wish to ship its wastes to establish the status of its wastes under the state's laws.

EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make state delisting decisions. In such states, the state delisting requirements operate in lieu of the Federal delisting requirements. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized states unless the state makes the rule part of its authorized program. If John Deere transports the federally excluded waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, John Deere must obtain a delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-hazardous in that state.

Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to Sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in Section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this final rule does not have Federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers health and safety risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from Section 801 the following types of rules (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under Section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from management of this material in a Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA believes that any populations in proximity of the landfills used by this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste management practices for this delisted waste.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 261 as follows:

In FR Doc. 2015-19049 which appeared in the August 17, 2015 Federal Register, titled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers, including Changes Related to the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program; Extensions of the Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural Hospital Program and the Low-Volume Payment Adjustment for Hospitals” (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule), there were a number of technical and typographical errors that are identified and corrected in section IV. of this correcting document. The provisions in this correction document are effective as if they had been included in the document that appeared in the August 17, 2015 Federal Register. Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2015.

On page 49412, we made a typographical error with regards to an MS-DRG code. We made inadvertent and technical errors related to the employment cost index (ECI) used in the wage index, the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality adjustment factor (as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document), and the MGCRB reclassification status of certain providers (as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document), each of which resulted in additional conforming corrections. Specifically, on page 49492, we inadvertently miscalculated the estimated percentage change in the ECI for compensation for the 30-day increment after March 14, 2013 and before April 15, 2013 for private industry hospital workers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS') “Compensation and Working Conditions.” The ECI is used to adjust a hospital's wage data to calculate the wage index, and is based on the midpoint of a cost reporting period.

On page 49498, we are making conforming changes to the number of hospitals in New Jersey that will be receiving the imputed rural floor and to the FY 2016 rural floor value for Nevada as a result of correcting the ECI error, the technical error in the calculation of the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality adjustment factor (discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document), and the error in the reclassification status of 50 providers (discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document).

On page 49619, consistent with the conforming corrections to the IPPS outlier fixed-loss cost threshold for FY 2016 discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document, we are making further conforming corrections to the FY 2016 outlier fixed-loss amount for site neutral cases in the context of our discussion regarding LTCH PPS high-cost outliers.

On page 49776, we are correcting the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality adjustment factor as a result of a technical error made in the calculation of this factor. We are also making conforming changes to the affected rates and factors on pages 49787, 49788 and 49790 as a result of this error.

In addition, as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document, we inadvertently miscalculated the percentage change in the ECI. The correction to the ECI necessitated recalculation of the pre-reclassified unadjusted and occupational-mix adjusted wage indexes and Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAFs) of certain core-based statistical areas (CBSAs). As a result of the corrections to the ECI and the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality adjustment factor, on page 49776, we recalculated the wage index budget neutrality adjustment and are making conforming changes to the tables on pages 49787 and 49788.

On pages 49776, we recalculated the reclassification hospital budget neutrality adjustment because the reclassification status in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule did not properly reflect one of the following for 50 providers:

• Withdrawal or termination of a Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB) reclassification for FY 2016.

• Assignment to the reclassified CBSA approved by the MGCRB or CMS Administrator.

As a result of the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality adjustment factor error, the ECI error, and reclassification error, we are making conforming technical changes to tables on pages 49787 and 49788. The technical errors discussed previously (the percentage change in the ECI error, MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality adjustment factor error, and reclassification error) directly affected and required the recalculation of the wage index, the recalculation of certain budget neutrality adjustments, and also indirectly resulted in errors to other factors and rates. Specifically, on pages 49777, 49778, 49787, and 49788, we are making conforming corrections to the following:

• The rural floor budget neutrality adjustment.

• The wage index transition budget neutrality adjustment.

• The Rural Community Hospital Demonstration program budget neutrality adjustment.

In addition, as discussed in section II.D. of this correcting document, we are making corrections to the uncompensated care payments. As a result of these errors (the percentage change in the ECI error, MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality adjustment factor error, reclassification error, and uncompensated care error) and conforming corrections, on page 49785, we are making conforming corrections to the calculation of the outlier fixed-loss cost threshold and the national and Puerto Rico-specific outlier budget neutrality factors. We are making further conforming corrections to the tables on pages 49787 and 49788 as a result of these changes, including conforming corrections in the calculation of the national and Puerto Rico specific operating standardized amounts, as a result of the conforming corrections to the operating IPPS budget neutrality factors and outlier threshold described previously.

On pages 49791, 49793, 49794, and 49795, in our discussion of the determination of the Federal hospital inpatient capital related prospective payment rate update, we are making conforming corrections to the national GAF/MS-DRG budget neutrality adjustment factor (due to the errors in our calculation of the GAFs, which are computed from the wage index) and to the outlier threshold, and outlier budget neutrality adjustment factors (as discussed previously).

Also, as a result of these errors, on page 49794, we are making conforming corrections in the table showing the comparison of factors and adjustments for the FY2015 capital Federal rate and FY 2016 capital Federal rate and in the table showing the comparison of factors and adjustments for the proposed FY 2016 capital Federal rate and final FY 2016 capital Federal rate.

On page 49804, in our discussion regarding LTCH PPS high-cost outlier payments for site neutral payment rate cases, we are making conforming corrections in the FY 2016 fixed-loss amount for site neutral cases, due to the conforming correction to the IPPS outlier fixed-loss cost threshold for FY 2016 (as discussed previously).

On page 49808, we are correcting the information on how to access the LTCH PPS tables for the FY 2016 final rule on the CMS Web Site.

On page 49809, we are making conforming corrections to the national and Puerto Rico specific operating standardized amounts and capital standard Federal payment rates in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D as a result of the corrections to certain budget neutrality factors and the outlier threshold (as described previously).

On page 49809, we are correcting our estimate of the increase in FY 2016 operating payments and capital payments as a result of the technical errors that led to corrections to certain budget neutrality factors and the outlier threshold (as described previously). On pages 49813 through 49821, 49823, 49828 through 49830, and 49840, in our regulatory impact analyses, we are making conforming corrections in the discussion of the analysis of the changes in operating and capital IPPS payments for FY 2016 and the effects of certain budget neutrality factors as a result of the technical errors (as discussed previously) that lead to conforming corrections to the calculation of the operating and capital IPPS budget neutrality factors, outlier threshold, operating standardized amounts, and capital Federal rates.

On page 49823, in the table titled “Modeled Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments for Estimated FY 2016 DSH Hospitals by Hospital Type: Model DSH $ (In Millions) From FY 2015 To FY 2016” and the accompanying discussion, we made technical and formatting errors in the estimated impacts resulting from inadvertent errors in the calculation of Factor 3 for certain hospitals.

On pages 49829 through 49830, we are making conforming corrections to Table III—Comparison of Total Payments Per Case (FY 2015 Payments Compared to FY 2016 Payments).

On page 49841, we are making conforming corrections to the accounting statements and tables for acute care hospitals that arose from the corrections of errors as described in section II.B. of this correcting document.

We are correcting the errors in the following IPPS tables that are listed on page 49808 of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and are available on the Internet on the CMS Web Site at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2016-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page.html:

Table 2—Final Case-Mix Index and Wage Index Table by CCN, because of the ECI error discussed in section II.A. of this correction document, we are correcting the values in the columns titled FY 2016 Wage Index, Average Hourly Wage FY 2016, and 3-Year Average Hourly Wage (2014, 2015, 2016) for 4 providers located in CBSAs 04, 20, and 12620. Because the average hourly wage changed for these four providers which affects the area wage index, we are also correcting the FY 2016 wage indexes for other providers geographically located in, or reclassified into, CBSAs 04, 20, and 12620.

As discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document, we are also correcting the reclassification status of 50 providers. Thus, we are correcting the FY 2016 wage index values for these providers to reflect assignment to their geographic CBSAs or reclassified CBSAs, as applicable.

Furthermore, because we are revising the national rural floor budget neutrality adjustment as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document, the wage index values for numerous providers in Table 2 are corrected as well.

Table 3—Final Wage Index Table by CBSA, by correcting the ECI error, we are making corresponding changes to the wage indexes and GAFs of CBSAs 04, 20, and 12620 listed in Table 3. Specifically, we are correcting the values in the columns titled FY 2016 Average Hourly Wage, 3-Year Average Hourly Wage (2014, 2015, 2016), Wage Index, Reclassified Wage Index, GAF, and Reclassified GAF, for CBSAs 04, 20, and 12620.

Also, by correcting Table 2 to properly indicate the withdrawal, termination, or reclassification status of the 50 providers, we are making corresponding changes to the wage indexes and GAFs listed in Table 3. Specifically, we are correcting the values in the columns titled Wage Index, Reclassified Wage Index, GAF, and Reclassified GAF. Furthermore, because we are revising the national rural floor budget neutrality adjustment as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document, we are making corrections to the wage index values for numerous CBSAs in Table 3 as well.

Table 5—List of Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs), Relative Weighting Factors, and Geometric and Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay—FY 2016, in the column labeled 'TYPE', to be consistent with previous fiscal years, we are revising the entries labeled 'P' to SURG and the entries labeled 'M' to MED.

Table 10—New Technology Add-On Payment Thresholds for Applications for FY 2017. We are correcting the thresholds in this table as a result of the corrections to the operating standardized amounts discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document.

Table 11—MS-LTC-DRGs, Relative Weights, Geometric Average Length of Stay, Short Stay Outlier (SSO) Threshold, and ”IPPS Comparable Threshold” for LTCH PPS Discharges Occurring from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. We are correcting this table by correcting typographical errors for certain MS-LTC-DRGs in the columns titled “Relative Weight,” “Geometric Average Length of Stay,” “Short-Stay Outlier (SSO) Threshold,” and “IPPS Comparable Threshold.”

Table 12A—LTCH PPS Wage Index for Urban Areas for Discharges Occurring From October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. We are correcting this table by correcting the values in the column titled “LTCH PPS Wage Index” as result of the error in the miscalculation percentage change in the ECI, which affected the wage data for CBSA 12620, as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document.

Table 12B—LTCH PPS Wage Index for Rural Areas for Discharges Occurring From October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. We are correcting this table by correcting the values in the column titled “LTCH PPS Wage Index” as result of the technical error in the percentage change in the ECI, which affected the wage data for CBSAs 04 and 20, as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document.

Table 14—List of Hospitals with Fewer Than 1,600 Medicare Discharges Based on the March 2015 Update of the FY 2014 MedPAR File and Potentially Eligible Hospitals for the FY 2016 Low-Volume Hospital Payment Adjustment (Eligibility for the low-volume hospital payment adjustment is also dependent upon meeting the mileage criteria specified at § 412.101(b)(2)(ii)). We are correcting this table by correcting typographical and technical errors for certain hospitals in the column titled “FY 2016 Low-Volume Payment Adjustment (Percentage Add-on).

Table 18—FY 2016 Medicare DSH Uncompensated Care Payment Factor 3 and Projected DSH Eligibility. For the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we published a list of hospitals that we identified to be subsection (d) hospitals and subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospitals eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payment adjustments and uncompensated care payments for FY 2016. We also published, in the Supplemental Medicare DSH File located in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule data files page at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2016-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page-Items/FY2016-IPPS-Final-Rule-Data-Files.html, the data used to calculate each hospital's Factor 3, total uncompensated care payment, and uncompensated care payment per discharge. Shortly after the publication of the FY2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we discovered that in calculating Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology, we inadvertently excluded the Medicaid days from the most recently available 2012 or 2011 cost report for certain providers that were projected to receive Medicare DSH in FY 2016. As a result, these providers had no Medicaid days included in the calculation of Factor 3. In order to correct these errors, we have Factor 3 for all hospitals to incorporate the changes to the data for these providers whose Medicare hospital cost report data were inadvertently excluded. These corrections to the uncompensated care payments impacted the calculation of the outlier fixed-loss cost threshold for outlier payments.

In addition, we discovered that we had—

• Inadvertently calculated Factor 3 for several providers using Medicaid days from a cost report that was less than a full year when a cost report that was a full year or closer to being a full year was available;

• Erroneously provided Factor 3 values for certain new providers; and

• Calculated a Factor 3 for a hospital that has ceased operations.

We are revising Factor 3 for all hospitals to correct these errors; however, unlike the error in which Medicaid days for certain providers were excluded, the impacts of these three errors (specified in the bulleted list) are too small to change other aspects of the IPPS ratesetting, such as the calculation of the fixed-loss threshold for outlier payments.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical and typographic errors in the preamble, addendum, payment rates, tables, and appendices included or referenced in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2015-19049 of August 17, 2015 (80 FR 49325), we are making the following corrections:

1. On page 49412, first column, third bulleted paragraph, the phrase “MS-DRG 007” is corrected to read “MS-DRG 207”.

2. On page 49492, first column, after the first partial paragraph, in the table titled “Midpoint of Cost Reporting Period”, last entry (After 03/14/2013) is corrected to read as follows:

3. On page 49498, first column, second full paragraph, line 9, the figure “21” is corrected to read “19”.

3. On page 49498, second column, first partial paragraph, line 13, the figure “1.0194” is corrected to read “1.0190”.

4. On page 49619, third column, third full paragraph, line 4, the figure “22,544” is corrected to read “22,539”.

1. On page 49776:

a. First column:

(1) Fourth full paragraph, line 3, the figure “0.998399” is corrected to read “0.998405”.

(2) Fourth full paragraph, line 8, the figure “0.998399” is corrected to read “0.998405”.

(3) Fifth full paragraph, line 16, the figure “0.998399” is corrected to read “0.998405”.

b. Second column, third full paragraph:

(1) Line 9, the figure “0.998749” is corrected to read “0.998738”.

(2) Line 13, the figure “0.998399” is corrected to read “0.998405”.

(3) Line 15, the figure “0.998749” is corrected to read “0.998738”.

(4) Line 21, the figure “0.997150” is corrected to read “0.997145”.

c. Third column, third full paragraph, line 12, the figure “0.987905” is corrected to read “0.988168”.

2. On page 49777, second column, last paragraph, line 3, the figure “0.990298” is corrected to read “0.989859”.

3. On page 49778:

a. First column, second full paragraph:

(1) Line 3, the figure “0.999996” is corrected to read “0.999997”.

(2) Line 6, the figure “0.999996” is corrected to read “0.999997”.

b. Third column, last paragraph, line 36, the figure “0.999861” is corrected to read “0.999837”.

4. On page 49785:

a. Top third of the page, second column, first full paragraph, last line, the figure “22,544” is corrected to read “22,539”.

b. Middle of the page, the untitled table, is corrected to read as follows:

5. On pages 49787 and 49788, the table titled “Comparison of FY 2015 Standardized Amounts to the FY 2016 Standardized Amounts”, is corrected to read as follows:

6. On page 49788, in the center of the page, the table titled “Comparison of FY 2015 Puerto Rico-Specific Payment Rate to the FY 2016 Puerto Rico-Specific Payment Rate” is corrected to read as follows:

7. On page 49790, first column, last paragraph, line 15, the figure “0.998399” is corrected to read “0.998405”.

8. On page 49791, third column, first full paragraph, line 6, the figure “0.85” is corrected to read “0.87”.

9. On page 49793:

a. Second column:

(1) First full paragraph:

(a) Line 16, the figure “0.9979” is corrected to read “0.9982”.

(b) Line 19, the figure “0.9864” is corrected to read “0.9866”.

(2) Second full paragraph, line 17, the figure “0.9858” is corrected to read “0.9860”.

b. In third column:

(1) Second full paragraph:

(a) Line 2, the figure “0.9973” is corrected to read “0.9976”.

(b) Line 4, the figure “0.9979” is corrected to read “0.9982”.

(2) Third full paragraph:

(a) Line 9, the figure “438.65” is corrected to read “438.75”.

(b) Line 19, the figure “0.9973” is corrected to read “0.9976”.

10. On page 49794:

a. Third column, first partial paragraph:

(1) Line 3, the figure “0.27” is corrected to read “0.24”.

(2) Line 10, the figure “0.85” is corrected to read “0.87”.

b. The table titled entitled “Comparison of Factors and Adjustments: FY 2015 Capital Federal Rate and FY 2016 Capital Federal Rate” is corrected to read as follows:

c. The table titled entitled “Comparison of Factors and Adjustments: Proposed FY 2016 Capital Federal Rate and Final FY 2016 Capital Federal Rate” is corrected to read as follows:

11. On page 49795, first column:

a. First paragraph, line 7, the figure “212.56” is corrected to read “212.55”.

b. Third paragraph, line 21, the figure “22,544” is corrected to read “22,539”.

12. On page 49804, second column, first full paragraph:

a. Line 16, the figure “22,544” is corrected to read “22,539”.

b. Line 27, the figure “22,544” is corrected to read “22,539”.

13. On page 49808, third column, first full paragraph, lines 6 and 7, the phrase “index.html under the list item for Regulation Number” is corrected to read “index.html. Click on the link on the left side of the screen titled, “LTCHPPS Regulations and Notices” and select the list item for Regulation Number CMS-1632-F. “.

13. On page 49809:

a. Table 1A titled “National Adjusted Operating Standardized Amounts, Labor/Nonlabor (69.6 Percent Labor Share/30.4 Percent Nonlabor Share if Wage Index is Greater than 1)—FY 2016” is corrected to read as follows:

b. Table 1B titled “National Adjusted Operating Standardized Amounts, Labor/Nonlabor (62 Percent Labor Share/38 Percent Nonlabor Share if Wage Index is Less than or Equal TO 1)—FY 2016” is corrected to read as follows:

c. Table 1C titled “Adjusted Operating Standardized Amounts for Puerto Rico, Labor/Nonlabor (National: 62 Percent Labor Share/38 Percent Nonlabor Share Because Wage Index is Less than or Equal to 1; Puerto Rico: 63.2 Percent Labor Share/36.8 Percent Nonlabor Share if Wage Index is Greater Than 1 or 62 Percent Labor Share/38 Percent Nonlabor Share if Wage Index is Less than or Equal to 1—FY 2016” is corrected to read as follows:

d. Table 1D titled “Capital Standard Federal Payment Rates—FY 2016” is corrected as follows:

1. On page 49809, third column, first full paragraph:

a. Line 10, the figure “$378” is corrected to read “$391”.

b. Line 12, the figure “$187” is corrected to read “$188”.

2. On pages 49813 through 49815, the table titled “Impact Analysis of Changes to the IPPS for Operating Costs for FY 2016” is corrected to read as follows:

In FR Doc. 2015-19033 of August 6, 2015 (80 FR 47142), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below. The provisions in this correction document are effective as if they had been included in the document published August 6, 2015. Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2015.

On page 47182, we inadvertently listed the incorrect hourly rate for continuous home care. We listed $38.67 instead of $38.59. On page 47203, we referenced Table H1 instead of Table 29. In addition, on page 47205, we referenced Table H2 instead of Table 30. This notice corrects theses errors.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived; however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

In FR Doc. 2015-19033 of August 6, 2015 (80 FR 47142), make the following corrections:

1. On page 47182, in Table 25—“FY 2016 Hospice Payment Rates For CHC, IRC, and GIP For Hospices That Do Not Submit The Required Quality Data,” for Code 652, in the “Description” column, the figure “38.67” is corrected to read “38.59”.

2. On page 47203, in the third column, in the first full paragraph, first line, the reference to “Table H1” is corrected to read “Table 29”.

3. On page 47205, in the second column, third line, the reference to “Table H2” is corrected to read “Table 30”.

In FR Doc. 2015-18950 of August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46389), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in section IV of this correcting document. The provisions in this correcting document are effective as if they had been included in the document that appeared on August 4, 2015 in the Federal Register (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2016 SNF PPS final rule). Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2015.

On pages 46436, 46437, 46439, 46450 and 46452 we inadvertently made typographical and other technical errors.

On pages 46400 and 46405, where we provide a link to the CMS Web site listing the wage index for FY 2016, we inadvertently omitted reference to Table B. These pages are being corrected to state that the wage index applicable for FY 2016 is set forth in Tables A and B available on the CMS Web site.

In Table A setting forth the Wage Index for Urban Areas Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas, which is available exclusively on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/SNFPPS/WageIndex.html, following the complete list of correct wage index values, we inadvertently included a number of additional, erroneous values in the final wage index table. The version of Table A that was initially posted to the CMS Web site on July 30, 2015 correctly included all of the final wage index values for all CBSAs in rows 1 through 1238, but also inadvertently included some of the proposed wage index values, beginning in row 1240 of Table A. Therefore, we eliminated the additional, erroneous values beyond row 1238 of the table posted to the CMS Web site.

Additionally, Table B posted to the CMS Web site, which provides the non-urban wage index values by state had Column A mislabeled as “CBSA” while it should have read “State Code” and Column B mislabeled as “Urban Area” while it should have read “Non-urban Area”. Therefore, in Table B, the header for Column A has been changed from “CBSA” to “State Code” and the header for Column B has been changed from “Urban Area” to “Non-Urban Area”.

In addition, on page 49492 of the FY 2016 hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) final rule (80 FR 49325, August 17, 2015), the estimated percentage change in the employment cost index (ECI) for compensation for the 30-day increment after March 14, 2013, and before April 15, 2013, for private industry hospital workers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS') “Compensation and Working Conditions” was inadvertently miscalculated. The ECI is used to adjust a hospital's wage data to calculate the wage index, and is based on the midpoint of a cost reporting period. This technical error necessitated recalculation of the pre-reclassified unadjusted and occupational mix adjusted wage indexes and Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAFs) of certain core-based statistical areas (CBSAs).

This error is identified, discussed and corrected in the Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers, including Changes Related to the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program; Extensions of the Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural Hospital Program and the Low-Volume Payment Adjustment for Hospitals; Correction that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

This error affected the adjustment factor applied to four hospitals with FY 2013 cost reporting periods that have midpoints after March 14, 2013 and before April 15, 2013, which in turn affected the wage index values for these hospitals and the areas in which they are located. One of these hospitals is geographically located in non-urban Arkansas (State Code 04), two hospitals are geographically located in non-urban Maine (State Code 20), and one urban hospital is located in Maine (CBSA 12620). Thus, the pre-reclassified unadjusted wage indexes for these three areas were calculated incorrectly. We are correcting the wage indexes for these three areas in Table A and Table B accordingly on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/SNFPPS/WageIndex.html. Specifically, the wage index value for CBSA 12620 has been corrected from 0.9845 to 0.9980, the wage index value for State Code 04 (Arkansas) has been corrected from 0.7217 to 0.7219, and the wage index value for State Code 20 (Maine) has been corrected from 0.8455 to 0.8477.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical and typographic errors in the FY 2016 SNF PPS final rule and in the tables issued in connection with the final rule, but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2016 SNF PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2016 SNF PPS final rule and the tables issued in connection with the final rule accurately reflect our methodologies, payment rates and policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not making substantive changes to our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the methodologies and policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2016 SNF PPS final rule and the tables issued in connection with the final rule accurately reflect these methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In the FR Doc. 2015-18950 of August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46389), make the following corrections:

1. On page 46400, bottom half of the page, third column, first partial paragraph, line 14, the phrase “Table A” is corrected to read “Tables A and B”.

2. On page 46405, top third of the page, third column, first partial paragraph, line 2, the phrase “Table A” is corrected to read “Tables A and B”.

3. On page 46436, first column, footnote 38:

a. Line 1, the term “Nation” is corrected to read “National”.

b. Line 2, the term “Standardbreds” is corrected to read “Standards”.

c Line 3, the term “Minutes” is corrected to read “Transcript”.

4. On page 46437, first column, first partial paragraph, line 19, the phrase “are not” is corrected to read “will not be”.

5. On page 46439, third column, first partial paragraph, lines 7 through 8, the phrase “unstageable and sDTIs” is corrected to read “unstageable pressure ulcers and sDTIs”.

6. Page 46450, third column, first partial paragraph, line 23, the phrase “input from clinicians would be” is corrected to read “input from clinicians who would be”.

7. Page 46452, second column, footnote 86, “86 Peter C. Smith, Elias Mossialos, Irene Papanicolas and Sheila Leatherman. Performance Measurement for Health” is corrected to read “86 Lisa I. Iezzoni, “Risk Adjustment for Performance Management”. In Performance Measurement for Health System Improvement: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects, ed. Peter C. Smith, Elias Mossialos, Irene Papanicolas and Sheila Leatherman. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 261-262.”.

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2015 flathead sole, rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ reserves specified in the BSAI are 2,320 metric tons (mt), 7,085 mt, and 16,543 mt as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and following revisions (80 FR 58220, September 28, 2015). The 2015 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves are 4,756 mt, 12,357 mt, and 10,079 mt as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and following revisions (80 FR 58220, September 28, 2015).

The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association has requested that NMFS exchange 568 mt of flathead sole and 210 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 778 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 568 mt of flathead sole and 210 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 778 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and following revisions (80 FR 58220, September 28, 2015) are further revised as follows: