Federal Register Vol. 80, No.218,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 218 (November 12, 2015)

Page Range69837-70148
FR Document

80_FR_218
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 70145 - World Freedom Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 69985 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 70002 - Good Hill Partners LP and Good Hill ETF Trust; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 69977 - Draft Screening Form and Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the San Rafael Ranch; Santa Cruz County, AZPDF
80 FR 69873 - Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Seventh Coast Guard DistrictPDF
80 FR 70060 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property Release at Columbia Metropolitan Airport, Columbia, South Carolina.PDF
80 FR 69905 - Use of the Term “Natural” in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and CommentsPDF
80 FR 69986 - In the Matter of Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, Combined Licenses for South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4; Notice of Hearing; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 69883 - Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance YearPDF
80 FR 69984 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of the Office of Management and Budget Control Numbers Under the Paperwork Reduction ActPDF
80 FR 69937 - Foreign-Trade Zone 191-Palmdale, California; Application for Reorganization under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
80 FR 69937 - Foreign-Trade Zone 102-St. Louis, Missouri; Application for Subzone; H-J Enterprises, Inc./H-J International, Inc.; High Ridge, MissouriPDF
80 FR 69961 - Local Government Advisory Committee: Request for NominationsPDF
80 FR 69945 - Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of DutyPDF
80 FR 69942 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 69876 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Imperial County Air Pollution Control DistrictPDF
80 FR 69940 - Certain Steel Grating From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 69944 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 69941 - Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 69938 - Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 69951 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and TestingPDF
80 FR 69909 - Ensuring a Safe Environment for Community Residential Care ResidentsPDF
80 FR 69952 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing and Notice of Public Scoping MeetingsPDF
80 FR 69838 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan EnginesPDF
80 FR 69953 - National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity Meeting; Update and CorrectionPDF
80 FR 69970 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) Public Law (105-220) for the State Independent Living (SILS) and Centers for Independent Living (CIL) Program Authorized by Title VII, Chapter 1, of the, as Amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA, Pub. L. 113-128) [Rehabilitation Act]PDF
80 FR 69970 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Semi-Annual and Final Reporting Requirements for Discretionary Grant ProgramsPDF
80 FR 69946 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness Solicitation of Nominations for MembershipPDF
80 FR 70060 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 70067 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
80 FR 70065 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
80 FR 69967 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
80 FR 69985 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 69966 - Notice of Debarment; Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support MechanismPDF
80 FR 69969 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review BoardPDF
80 FR 69987 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 69947 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0080, Annual Report for Chief Compliance Officer of RegistrantsPDF
80 FR 69935 - Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 69979 - Announcement of National Geospatial Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 69948 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0089, Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition SwapsPDF
80 FR 69837 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and FreezersPDF
80 FR 69979 - Christina B. Paylan, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 70057 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
80 FR 70080 - Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 70081 - Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 70083 - Perry County Food & Drug Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 69969 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 69968 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 69969 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 69969 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 69861 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Eluxadoline Into Schedule IVPDF
80 FR 69935 - El Dorado County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 70077 - Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
80 FR 70078 - 60-Day Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 69982 - Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program: Certifications for 2015 Under the Federal Unemployment Tax ActPDF
80 FR 70074 - Notice of Intent to Grant a Buy America Waiver to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for the Use of Eight (8) Non-Domestic Components in Tier III High-Speed Rail TrainsetsPDF
80 FR 69983 - Proposed Collection, Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 69936 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Census Employment InquiryPDF
80 FR 69987 - Amendment to Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 70080 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13224PDF
80 FR 69976 - Agency Information Collection Activities: AABB Accredited Laboratory Testing; Rapid DNA Prototype Accelerated Nuclear DNA Equipment (ANDE) by NetBio; Rapid DNA Prototype RapidHIT200 by IntegenX; Form G-1294, DNA Collection Consent Form (Laboratory Test) and Form G-1295, DNA Collection Consent Form (Rapid Test); New CollectionPDF
80 FR 69864 - Changes to Accounting Requirements for the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) ProgramPDF
80 FR 70036 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing RequirementsPDF
80 FR 70045 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing RequirementsPDF
80 FR 70017 - Wildermuth Endowment Strategy Fund and Wildermuth Advisory, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 69990 - Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 70019 - Forum Funds and Exceed Advisory LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 70027 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide That the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange Include 40 Gigabit Internet Protocol Network Connections in the Exchange's Data Center and To Amend the Exchange's Price List To Implement Fees for the New ServicePDF
80 FR 70054 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Price Improving and Post-Only OrdersPDF
80 FR 70021 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange (the Offering of a Wireless Connection To Allow Users To Receive Market Data Feeds From Third Party Markets) and To Reflect Changes to the Exchange's Price List Related to These ServicesPDF
80 FR 70024 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide That the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange Include 40 Gigabit Internet Protocol Network Connections in the Exchange's Data Center and To Amend the NYSE MKT Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Implement Fees for the New ServicePDF
80 FR 70039 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide That the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange Include 40 Gigabit Internet Protocol Network Connections in the Exchange's Data Center and To Amend the Exchange's Price List To Implement Fees for the New ServicesPDF
80 FR 69988 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing RequirementsPDF
80 FR 70000 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans (“BC/DR plans”) Testing Requirements for Certain Options Participants in Connection With Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (“Regulation SCI”)PDF
80 FR 70047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange (the Offering of a Wireless Connection To Allow Users To Receive Market Data Feeds From Third Party Markets) and To Reflect Changes to the NYSE MKT Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule Related to These ServicesPDF
80 FR 70030 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Chapter XV, Entitled “Options Pricing,” at Section 2 Governing Pricing for NASDAQ MembersPDF
80 FR 70051 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange (the Offering of a Wireless Connection To Allow Users To Receive Market Data Feeds From Third Party Markets) and To Reflect Changes to the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule and the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges Related to These ServicesPDF
80 FR 70032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Chapter XV, Entitled “Options Pricing,” at Section 2 Governing Pricing for NASDAQ MembersPDF
80 FR 70044 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 3, Relating to Listing and Trading of Shares of the Guggenheim Total Return Bond ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
80 FR 70042 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Mandatory Participation in Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Testing Under Regulation SCIPDF
80 FR 70016 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure) To Reduce the Waiting Period for the Release of Information Reported on Form U5PDF
80 FR 69975 - Infrastructure Protection Gateway Facility SurveysPDF
80 FR 70006 - Pointbreak Advisers LLC, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 69888 - Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Availability of Provisional Analysis ToolsPDF
80 FR 69885 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #37 Through #39PDF
80 FR 69884 - Fraser River Sockeye and Pink Salmon Fisheries; Inseason OrdersPDF
80 FR 69971 - Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 69972 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 69973 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 69973 - National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 69974 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 69975 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 69972 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 69975 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 69968 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
80 FR 69874 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Nonattainment New Source Review Permitting State Implementation Plan Revisions for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo CountyPDF
80 FR 69960 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 69955 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Illinois Commerce Commission's “Planning For The Future” Policy Session; Focus on 2015-2016 Winter Preparedness and Resource Adequacy in the Ameren Illinois FootprintPDF
80 FR 69956 - CEP&G LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 69954 - East Coast Power & Gas of New Jersey, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 69961 - Cameron Ridge II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 69963 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 69958 - New-Indy Oxnard LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 69957 - New-Indy Ontario LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 69959 - DBM Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Staff Protest to Proposed Blanket Certificate ActivityPDF
80 FR 69958 - National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Empire Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Amendment to ApplicationPDF
80 FR 69955 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LL; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Garden State Expansion ProjectPDF
80 FR 69957 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 69959 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 69964 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 69962 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 69963 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 69965 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 69967 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)PDF
80 FR 69880 - Approval of Air Plans; California; Multiple Districts; Prevention of Significant DeteriorationPDF
80 FR 70081 - Agency Information Collection (Statement of Accredited Representative in Appealed Case) Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 69915 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source RegulationsPDF
80 FR 69949 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Proposed Rules ChangesPDF
80 FR 70079 - Proposed Collection of Information: Supporting Statement of Ownership for Overdue United States Bearer SecuritiesPDF
80 FR 69973 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 69986 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C; Cancellation of the November 19, 2015, ACRS Subcommittee MeetingPDF
80 FR 70115 - Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor's Request for Individual Assistance for a Major DisasterPDF
80 FR 69896 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 69903 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited AirplanesPDF
80 FR 69898 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) AirplanesPDF
80 FR 69899 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 69852 - Addition of Certain Persons and Modification of Certain Entries to the Entity List; and Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity ListPDF
80 FR 69925 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of New Mexico/Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport SIP 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 69930 - Various Administrative Changes and Clauses to the USAID Acquisition RegulationPDF
80 FR 69846 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 69839 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

80 218 Thursday, November 12, 2015 Contents Agency Agency for International Development PROPOSED RULES Acquisition Regulation; Various Administrative Changes and Clauses, 69930-69934 2015-27977 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Census Employment Inquiry, 69936-69937 2015-28704 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Special Local Regulations: Recurring Marine Events in the Seventh Coast Guard District, 69873-69874 2015-28792 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Report for Chief Compliance Officer of Registrants, 69947-69948 2015-28732 Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements -- Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps, 69948-69949 2015-28729 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Extension State Plan for Independent Living, etc., 69970 2015-28745 Semi-Annual and Final Reporting Requirements for Discretionary Grant Programs, 69970-69971 2015-28744 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Proposed Rules Changes, 69949-69951 2015-28598
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Eluxadoline; Placement into Schedule IV, 69861-69864 2015-28718 NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Christina B. Paylan, M.D., 69979-69982 2015-28727 Perry County Food and Drug, 70084-70114 2015-28723 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity; Correction, 69953-69954 2015-28746 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program: Certifications for 2015 under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 69982-69983 2015-28710 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Standards for Walk-in Coolers and Freezers, 69837-69838 2015-28728 PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Provisional Analysis Tools; Availability, 69888-69896 2015-28675
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 69876-69880 2015-28756 California; Multiple Districts; Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 69880-69883 2015-28624 New Mexico; Nonattainment New Source Review Permitting State Implementation Plan Revisions for the City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, 69874-69876 2015-28648 Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances from New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance Year, 69883-69884 2015-28766 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Mobile Source Regulations, 69915-69925 2015-28614 New Mexico, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport SIP 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 69925-69930 2015-28353 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Local Government Advisory Committee, 69961-69962 2015-28759 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 69846-69852 2015-27449 General Electric Company Turbofan Engines, 69838-69839 2015-28747 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 69839-69846 2015-26616 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 69899-69903 2015-28559 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes, 69898-69899 2015-28560 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes, 69903-69905 2015-28561 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 69896-69897 2015-28562 NOTICES Surplus Property Releases: Columbia Metropolitan Airport, Columbia, SC, 70060 2015-28786 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-28626 69962-69967 2015-28627 2015-28628 2015-28629 2015-28630 2015-28638 Debarments: Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support Mechanism, 69966-69967 2015-28736 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency PROPOSED RULES Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor's Request for Individual Assistance for a Major Disaster, 70116-70143 2015-28570 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., Empire Pipeline, Inc.;, 69958-69959 2015-28634 Combined Filings, 69957, 69959-69961 2015-28631 2015-28632 2015-28643 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Garden State Expansion Project, 69955-69956 2015-28633 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Cameron Ridge II, LLC, 69961 2015-28639 CEP&G LLC, 69956-69957 2015-28641 East Coast Power and Gas of New Jersey, LLC, 69954-69955 2015-28640 New-Indy Ontario, LLC, 69957-69958 2015-28636 New-Indy Oxnard, LLC, 69958 2015-28637 Proposed Blanket Certificate Activities: DBM Pipeline, LLC; Withdrawal, 69959 2015-28635 Staff Attendances, 69955 2015-28642 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 69967 2015-28738 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 70067-70074 2015-28740 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 70065-70067 2015-28739 Vision, 70060-70065 2015-28741 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers, 70074-70077 2015-28708 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69968 2015-28653 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 69969 2015-28720 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 69969 2015-28719 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 69969 2015-28722 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies; Correction, 69968-69969 2015-28721 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Member Appointments, 69969-69970 2015-28735 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Supporting Statement of Ownership for Overdue United States Bearer Securities, 70079 2015-28596 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Screening Forms and Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plans: San Rafael Ranch; Santa Cruz County, AZ, 69977-69979 2015-28794 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Requests for Information: Use of the Term “Natural” in the Labeling of Human Food Products, 69905-69909 2015-28779 NOTICES Meetings: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee, 69971-69972 2015-28672 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 70080 2015-28702 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Applications for Subzone Status: H-J Enterprises, Inc./H-J International, Inc. Foreign-Trade Zone 102, St. Louis,, MO, 69937 2015-28760 Reorganizations under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 191, Palmdale, CA, 69937-69938 2015-28761 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: El Dorado County Resource Advisory Committee, 69935 2015-28717 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Meetings: National Geospatial Advisory Committee, 69979 2015-28730 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Infrastructure Protection Gateway Facility Surveys, 69975-69976 2015-28679
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Changes to Accounting Requirements for the Community Development Block Grants Program, 69864-69873 2015-28700 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Addition and Removal of Certain Persons and Modification of Certain Entries to the Entity List, 69852-69861 2015-28552 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Steel Grating from the People's Republic of China, 69940-69941 2015-28755 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China, 69938-69940 2015-28751 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 69941-69942 2015-28752 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 69944-69945 2015-28754 Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, 69942-69944 2015-28757 Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty, 69945 2015-28758 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness, 69946-69947 2015-28743 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Labor Statistics Bureau

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69983-69984 2015-28707 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69985 2015-28819 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Charter Renewals: National Cancer Institute, 69973 2015-28592 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 69972-69973 2015-28655 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 2015-28650 2015-28651 2015-28652 2015-28656 2015-28657 2015-28658 2015-28659 69972-69975 2015-28660 2015-28661 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 69975 2015-28654 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries off West Coast States: Modifications of the West Coast Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #37 through #39, 69885-69887 2015-28674 Inseason Orders: Fraser River Sockeye and Pink Salmon Fisheries, 69884-69885 2015-28673 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permit Applications, 69985-69986 2015-28737 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, 69952-69953 2015-28748 Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, 69951-69952 2015-28750 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Licenses: Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4, 69986 2015-28767 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Digital I and C; Cancellation, 69986-69987 2015-28591 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69984-69985 2015-28762 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES Amendment to Postal Product, 69987-69988 2015-28703 New Postal Products, 69987 2015-28734 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: World Freedom Day (Proc. 9365), 70145-70148 2015-28912 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69935-69936 2015-28731 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Forum Funds and Exceed Advisory LLC, 70019-70021 2015-28694 Good Hill Partners LP and Good Hill ETF Trust, 70002-70006 2015-28796 Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC, et al., 69990-69999 2015-28695 Pointbreak Advisers LLC, et al., 70006-70015 2015-28677 Wildermuth Endowment Strategy Fund and Wildermuth Advisory, LLC, 70017-70019 2015-28696 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 70000-70002 2015-28687 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 2015-28680 70016-70017, 70042-70044 2015-28681 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 2015-28688 69988-69990, 70054-70057 2015-28692 NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 70036-70039 2015-28698 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 70030-70036, 70045-70047 2015-28683 2015-28685 2015-28697 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 70021-70024, 70027-70030 2015-28691 2015-28693 NYSE Arca, Inc., 70039-70042, 70044-70045, 70051-70054 2015-28682 2015-28684 2015-28689 NYSE MKT, LLC, 70024-70027, 70047-70051 2015-28686 2015-28690 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 70057-70060 2015-28726 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70078-70079 2015-28714 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 70077-70078 2015-28716
Treasury Treasury Department See

Fiscal Service

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: AABB Accredited Laboratory Testing, Rapid DNA Prototype Accelerated Nuclear DNA Equipment by NetBio, etc., 69976-69977 2015-28701 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Ensuring a Safe Environment for Community Residential Care Residents, 69909-69915 2015-28749 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Statement of Accredited Representative in Appealed Case, 70081 2015-28615 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War, 70080-70081 2015-28725 Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, 70081 2015-28724 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, 70084-70114 2015-28723 Part III Homeland Security Department, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 70116-70143 2015-28570 Part IV Presidential Documents, 70145-70148 2015-28912 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

80 218 Thursday, November 12, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015] RIN 1904-AB86 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, requires the Department of Energy (DOE), among other things, to prescribe performance-based energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. On June 3, 2014, DOE complied with this requirement. Recent litigation regarding these standards resulted in a settlement agreement between DOE and the other parties to that litigation. Consistent with the parties' settlement agreement, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit subsequently vacated six specific standards set forth in the June 2014 rule. DOE is amending the CFR to reflect the court's order vacating the six standards found in DOE's regulations pertaining to certain refrigeration systems used in walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer applications.

DATES:

This action is effective on November 12, 2015. However, the court order had legal effect immediately upon its filing on August 10, 2015. Compliance with the remaining standards from the June 2014 final rule that were not vacated by the court order continues to be required on June 5, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: [email protected]

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE published a final rule, 79 FR 32050 (June 3, 2014), that set nineteen energy conservation standards pertaining to walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, “walk-ins” or “WICFs”). A walk-in, at its basic level, is a refrigerated box, with a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet. The standards promulgated by DOE pertained to the primary components that comprise a walk-in—i.e. panels, doors, and the refrigeration systems. The panels and doors of a walk-in comprise the box, while the refrigeration system provides the cooling air to cool the interior of the box.

The Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) and Lennox International, Inc. (a manufacturer of WICF refrigeration systems) filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule and DOE's subsequent denial of a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Lennox Int'l, Inc. v. Dep't of Energy, Case No. 14-60535 (5th Cir.). A number of other WICF refrigeration system manufacturers—Rheem Manufacturing Co., Heat Transfer Products Group, and Hussmann Corp.—along with the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (a trade association representing contractors who install WICF refrigeration systems) intervened on the petitioners' behalf, while the Natural Resources Defense Council—representing itself, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Texas Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy—intervened on behalf of DOE. As a result of this litigation, a settlement agreement was reached to address, among other things, six of the refrigeration system standards.

The controlling court order from the Fifth Circuit, which was issued on August 10, 2015, vacates those six standards. These vacated standards relate to (1) the two energy conservation standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium and low temperatures and (2) the four energy conservation standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. See 10 CFR 431.306(e) (codifying these six standards, together with four distinct standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium temperatures).

The final rule on review also established thirteen other energy conservation standards applicable to other components of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers: (1) Four standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium temperatures; (2) three standards applicable to panels; and (3) six standards applicable to doors. See 79 FR at 32051-32052 (Table I.1) and 32123-32124 (codified at 10 CFR 431.306(a), (c)-(e)). These standards have not been vacated and remain subject to the June 5, 2017 compliance date prescribed by the June 2014 final rule.

This final rule is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). DOE finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment as such procedure is unnecessary. DOE must comply with the order of a Federal court, and has no discretion to do otherwise. In implementation of that order, DOE is vacating (1) the two energy conservation standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium and low temperatures and (2) the four energy conservation standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. Comments suggesting any other course would serve no useful purpose. DOE notes it is also actively engaged in a negotiated rulemaking to address the standards for these six classes of refrigeration systems.

Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

2. Section 431.306 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 431.306 Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.

(e) Walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration systems. All walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems manufactured starting on June 5, 2017, must satisfy the following standards:

Class descriptor Class Equations for
  • minimum AWEF
  • (Btu/W-h)
  • Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.M.I, <9,000 5.61 Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.M.I, ≥9,000 5.61 Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Outdoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.M.O, <9,000 7.60 Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Outdoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.M.O, ≥9,000 7.60
    [FR Doc. 2015-28728 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1658; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-18-AD; Amendment 39-18320; AD 2015-23-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B turbofan engine models. This AD was prompted by reports of GEnx-1B engine oil loss. This AD requires removal and replacement of the non-conforming ball valve in the oil filler cap. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of engine oil, which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective December 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1658; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE GEnx-1B turbofan engine models. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34560). The NPRM was prompted by multiple reports of engine oil loss and resultant flight plan diversions. The NPRM proposed to require removal and replacement of the non-conforming ball valve in the oil filler cap. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 34560, June 17, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Support for the NPRM

    One individual commenter expressed support for the NPRM (80 FR 34560, June 17, 2015).

    Request To Change Applicability

    American Airlines (American) requested that paragraph (c) Applicability be changed. American stated that the part number and the post-SB markings are located on the oil filler cap scupper not on the oil filler cap itself. American indicated that this change would improve clarity and accomplishment of the AD.

    We agree. We revised paragraph (c), Applicability, of this AD to read: “This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B model turbofan engines with oil filler cap, part number (P/N) 2349M62G01, installed, that do not contain any of the following markings after the P/N on the oil filler cap scupper: “P/M BALL PP,” or “RW,” or “79-0022.”

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) No. 79-0022, Revision 1, dated May 13, 2015. The SB describes procedures for removing and replacing the ball valve in the oil filler cap.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 86 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 hour per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $11 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $8,256.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

    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 above, 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, 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.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-23-04 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-18320; Docket No. FAA-2015-1658; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-18-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 17, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B model turbofan engines with oil filler cap, part number (P/N) 2349M62G01, installed, that do not contain any of the following markings after the P/N on the oil filler cap scupper: “P/M BALL PP,” or “RW,” or “79-0022.”

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of GEnx-1B engine oil loss. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of engine oil, which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (1) Within 360 cycles in service after the effective date of this AD, remove the ball valve, P/N 2349M68P01, from the affected oil filler cap and replace with a part eligible for installation.

    (2) Reserved.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) GE GEnx-1B SB No. 79-0022, Revision 1, dated May 13, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected]

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 4, 2015. Carlos Pestana, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28747 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0454; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-138-AD; Amendment 39-18298; AD 2015-21-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-07-08 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737 airplanes. AD 2002-07-08 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower skin at the lower row of fasteners in the lap joints of the fuselage; repair of any cracking found; modification of the fuselage lap joints at certain locations, which terminated the repetitive inspections of the modified areas; and replacement of a certain preventive modification with an improved modification. This new AD adds repetitive inspections for cracking at certain window corner fastener holes, a preventive modification, and repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by the FAA's determination that certain modifications of the fuselage lap joints do not provide an adequate level of safety, and the subsequent discovery of cracks in additional fastener locations in the window belt skin panels, adjacent stringers, and window frames in locations outside the previous inspection area. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage lap joints and window belt skin panels, which could result in reduced structural integrity and sudden decompression of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective December 17, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 17, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of May 17, 2002 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0454.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0454; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002). AD 2002-07-08 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2014 (79 FR 42710). The NPRM was prompted by the FAA's determination that certain modifications of the fuselage lap joints do not provide an adequate level of safety, and the subsequent discovery of cracks in additional fastener locations in the window belt skin panels, adjacent stringers and window frames in locations outside the previous inspection area. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower skin at the lower row of fasteners in the lap joints of the fuselage; repair of any cracking found; modification of the fuselage lap joints at certain locations, which would terminate the repetitive inspections of the modified areas; and replacement of a certain preventive modification with an improved modification. The NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking at certain window corner fastener holes, a preventive modification, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage lap joints and window belt skin panels, which could result in reduced structural integrity and sudden decompression of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Identify New Inspection Locations

    Boeing requested that we revise the preamble of the NPRM (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), by adding references to new inspection locations on the window belt skin panels. Boeing pointed out that the NPRM preamble defined structure that has been found to crack since release of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002). Boeing also indicated that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, provides inspections for skin cracking at nine additional fastener holes in the corners of certain passenger windows from what is mandated by AD 2002-07-08.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. We have added the description of the new inspection locations in the SUMMARY of this final rule accordingly. The unspecified inspection areas were accounted for in paragraph (p) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), which is retained in this AD.

    Request To Remove Post Repair/Modification Requirements

    Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014) to remove the “post-repair/alteration and butt joint repetitive inspections” requirement as specified in paragraph (r) of the proposed AD. Boeing pointed out that one of the proposed actions, “post-repair/alteration and butt joint repetitive inspections,” defined in paragraph (r) of the proposed AD, refers to damage-tolerance-based structural post-repair/post-alteration inspections. Boeing also stated that the inspections are provided in the service bulletin for operators' use to comply with the operational requirements of 14 CFR part 121.1109 and Part 129.109 and, therefore, the inspections do not need to be mandated separately in the NPRM.

    We agree with the request. As Boeing stated, the inspections that were specified in paragraph (r) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014) may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2)). However, this AD does not require those post-modification inspections. We have therefore removed paragraph (r) of the proposed AD and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. We have also revised the SUMMARY of this final rule to remove reference to the inspections.

    Request To Reference Related AD

    Boeing requested that we clarify the “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information” section of the NPRM (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), by adding a reference to AD 2002-07-11, Amendment 39-12705 (67 FR 17931, April 12, 2002), for Model 737 airplanes, line numbers 1 through 291 inclusive. Boeing pointed out that the “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information” section of the NPRM (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014) defined the applicability of the NPRM as Model 737 airplanes, line numbers 292 through 2565 inclusive, and explained that Model 737 airplanes, line numbers 1 through 291 inclusive, have been addressed by AD 2003-23-03, Amendment 39-13367 (68 FR 64980, November 18, 2003). Boeing also indicated that AD 2002-07-11, Amendment 39-12705 (67 FR 17931, April 12, 2002), addresses Model 737 airplanes line numbers 1 through 291 inclusive, and mandates the actions defined in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001.

    Although the “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information” section of the NPRM (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014) is not restated in this final rule, we agree with the commenter's clarification of the applicability. Paragraph (c) of this AD is retained as proposed in the NPRM, and no change has been made to this AD regarding this issue.

    Request for Additional Exception

    Boeing requested that we clarify paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), to include an additional exception. Boeing pointed out that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD provided an exception for paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to address lap joint modification (repair) instructions for certain lap joint areas on 737-200 and 737-200C airplanes. Boeing also indicated that paragraph (q)(2) of the proposed AD addresses an optional terminating action, window belt replacement for 737-300 and 737-500 airplanes, for the lap joint modification. Boeing also stated that paragraph (q)(2) of the proposed AD should be included as an exception for the lap joint modification (repair) defined in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.

    We agree with the request for an additional exception. We revised paragraph (g) of this AD to include a reference to paragraph (q)(2) of this AD as an exception.

    Request for New Exception

    Boeing requested that we clarify paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), to include an exception. Boeing indicated that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, added an optional window belt skin panel replacement as terminating action for the S-10 and S-14 lap joint inspections and for the window corner inspections on Model 737-300 and 737-500 airplanes. Boeing also stated that paragraph (q) of the proposed AD addressed the optional terminating action, and that follow-on inspections are also necessary for the optional window belt skin panel replacement, and paragraph (q) of the proposed AD should be added as an exception to paragraph (m) of the proposed AD.

    We disagree with the request to include an exception. Paragraph (q) of this AD is an optional action and terminates only paragraph (g) of this AD. If an operator chooses to use the modification option in paragraph (q) of this AD to do the repair required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD have not been terminated, and those inspections must be accomplished. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

    Request for Additional Instruction

    Boeing requested that we clarify paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), to include instruction for any crack found by the inspections. Boeing stated that paragraph (m) of the proposed AD contains follow-on inspections of the lap joint modification, which are contained in the Compliance and Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. Boeing also stated that if any crack is found during the follow-on inspections, the Compliance section of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, instructs operators to contact Boeing for repair instructions; therefore, reference to paragraph (s)(2) of the proposed AD should be added to paragraph (m) of the proposed AD.

    We agree with the request to include instruction for any crack found by the inspections. The instructions for repair were inadvertently omitted in paragraph (m) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002). The associated service information recommended that this repair be done by contacting Boeing for instructions. However paragraph (s)(2) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014) specifically directed operators to contact the FAA for instructions when the service information specified to contact Boeing. We revised paragraph (m) of this AD to refer to paragraph (t) of this AD, which provides directions to request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

    Request To Remove Reference to Paragraphs (m) and (n) of the Proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014)

    Boeing requested that we clarify paragraph (o) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), by removing references to paragraphs (m) and (n) of the proposed AD. Boeing indicated that paragraph (o) of the proposed AD addresses repair of crack damage and references PART II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin SB 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. Boeing also stated that PART II of Boeing Service Bulletin SB 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, provides instructions for repair of cracks found in the lower skin of the lower row of the production lap joint, which could be found by the inspections defined in paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of the proposed AD. Boeing pointed out that cracks found by the inspections in paragraphs (m) and (n) of the proposed AD are addressed individually by the same paragraphs respectively (with changes to paragraph (m) of the proposed AD, as discussed in the previous comment); therefore, repair of any crack found during the inspections in paragraphs (m) and (n) of the proposed AD should not be included in paragraph (o) of the proposed AD.

    We agree with the request to revise paragraph (o) of this AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014) to remove references to paragraphs (m) and (n) of the AD, for the reasons provided by the commenter. We revised paragraph (o) of this AD accordingly.

    Request To Revise Paragraph (q)(1) of the Proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014)

    Boeing requested that we clarify paragraph (q)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), by revising the wording for consistency with paragraph (q)(2) of the proposed AD, adding references to inspections in paragraph (n) of the proposed AD that are terminated by the actions in paragraph (q)(2) of the proposed AD, and adding wording to limit the number of window inspections that can be terminated by the replacement panel. Boeing pointed out that paragraphs (q)(1) and (q)(2) of the proposed AD address the same action, replacement of window belt skin panels. Boeing also pointed out that the inspections in paragraph (n) of the proposed AD, Retained Repetitive HFEC Inspections of the Window Corners, can also be terminated by replacement of the window belt panel and therefore, wording should be added to paragraph (q)(1) of the proposed AD to ensure inspections would only be terminated at window corners common to the replaced panel.

    We partially agree. We agree to reword paragraph (q)(1) of this AD because consistent language makes the AD easier to read, and replacement of a panel will terminate the inspections only for the panel that is replaced. We disagree to add references to inspections in paragraph (n) of this AD, as Boeing proposed. Paragraph (q)(1) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraph (p) of this AD, and doing the actions required by paragraph (p) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

    Request To Revise Paragraph (q)(2) of the Proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014)

    Boeing requested that we clarify paragraph (q)(2) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), by revising the wording to show that the optional window belt skin panel replacement terminates the lap joint lower row inspections of AD 2013-09-01, Amendment 39-17442 (78 FR 27001, May 9, 2013), rather than terminating the lap joint modification. Boeing pointed out that paragraph (q)(2) of the proposed AD addresses an optional window belt skin panel replacement. Boeing also indicated that the skin panel replacement was included in Boeing Service Bulletin SB 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, to provide an option for operators to terminate the lap joint lower row inspections, and was mandated by paragraphs (g) and (i) of AD 2013-09-01, in lieu of the lap joint modification which is addressed by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.

    We agree with the request for the reasons provided by the commenter. There is a direct AMOC connection between the window belt skin panel replacement and the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD. However, we have added new paragraph (q)(3) of this AD to explain that the skin panel replacement terminates the specified inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of AD 2013-09-01, Amendment 39-17442 (78 FR 27001, May 9, 2013), for the replaced skin panel only.

    Request To Change FAA Contact Information

    Boeing requested that we clarify paragraphs (t)(1) and (t)(2) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014), by revising the wording to reference the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO instead of the Manager of the Seattle ACO. Boeing indicated that responsibility for the 737 Classic models (which include the airplanes affected by this AD) has been transferred from the Seattle ACO to the Los Angeles ACO and that authority for approval of AMOCs for the proposed AD should be changed from the Manager, Seattle ACO, to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

    We infer that Boeing requested that we clarify paragraphs (t)(1) and (t)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014).

    We agree with the request, and have revised paragraphs (t)(1) and (t)(3) of this AD as requested, and included the following in paragraph (t)(1) of this AD: [email protected] We also revised paragraph (u) of this AD to include the appropriate contact information.

    Additional Changes to This Final Rule

    We have included a new paragraph (s) in this AD to provide credit for accomplishing lap joint repair before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 4, dated September 2, 1999; Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 5, dated February 15, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001. The subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated accordingly.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 42710, July 23, 2014).

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Boeing has issued Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. The service information procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower skin at the lower row of fasteners in the lap joints of the fuselage; repair of any cracking found; modification of the fuselage lap joints at certain locations to terminate the repetitive inspections of the modified areas; replacement of a certain preventive modification with an improved modification; repetitive inspections for cracking at certain window corner fastener holes; a preventive modification; and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 247 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Retained lap joint modification 4,650 work-hours × $85 per hour = $395,250 Up to $204,000 $599,250 $95,280,750 (estimated 159 airplanes). Retained lap joint inspection 90 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,650 per inspection cycle $0 $7,650 per inspection cycle $1,889,550 per inspection cycle. Retained post-NACA inspection 110 work-hours × $85 per hour = $9,350 per inspection cycle $0 $9,350 per inspection cycle $308,550 per inspection cycle (estimated 33 airplanes). Retained window corner inspection 36 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,060 per inspection cycle $0 $3,060 per inspection cycle $755,820 per inspection cycle. New window corner inspection 108 work-hours × $85 per hour = $9,180 per inspection cycle $0 $9,180 per inspection cycle $2,267,460 per inspection cycle.
    Estimated Costs: Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • New preventive modification 134 work-hours × $85 per hour = $11,390 $0 $11,390

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary corrective actions that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these corrective actions:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Window corner repair, per corner 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 (1) $765 1Parts fabricated by operator; cost unknown.

    The cost estimate figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the actions required by this AD, and that no operator will accomplish those actions in the future if this AD is not adopted. However, we have been advised that the lap joint modification has already been installed on some affected airplanes. Therefore, based on the current number of U.S.-registered airplanes below the threshold of 50,000 total flight cycles, the future economic cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is expected to be less than the cost impact figure indicated above.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 above, 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, 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.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), and adding the following new AD: 2015-21-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18298; Docket No. FAA-2014-0454; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-138-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 17, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002). Certain provisions of this AD affect certain requirements of AD 2013-09-01, Amendment 39-17442 (78 FR 27001, May 9, 2013).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, line numbers 292 through 2565 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain fuselage lap joints are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage lap joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity and sudden decompression of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Lap Joint Modification (Repair)—Crown Areas

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information. Except as provided by paragraphs (h) and (q)(2) of this AD: Install the lap joint repair as specified in Part 1.E.1. (“Compliance”) of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 4, dated September 2, 1999; Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 5, dated February 15, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; per PART III or IV (“Lap Joint Repair”), as applicable; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; per PART III, IV, VI, or VII (“Lap Joint Modification (Repair)”), as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin; at the time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishment of this repair terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, may be used to do the actions required by this paragraph. A lap splice modification (repair) done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of AD 2013-09-01, Amendment 39-17442 (78 FR 27001, May 9, 2013), for the modified (repaired) area only.

    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 70,000 total flight cycles or more as of May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002)): Within 600 flight cycles after May 17, 2002, do the lap joint repair.

    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 65,000 total flight cycles or more, but fewer than 70,000 total flight cycles as of May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002)): Do the repair at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 70,000 total flight cycles.

    (ii) Within 600 flight cycles after May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002)).

    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated 45,000 total flight cycles or more, but fewer than 65,000 total flight cycles as of May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002)): Within 5,000 flight cycles after May 17, 2002.

    (4) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 45,000 total flight cycles as of May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002)): Before the accumulation of 50,000 total flight cycles.

    (5) Notwithstanding the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, for airplanes on which the “Preventive Change” (NACA modification) has been accomplished per PART III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 1, dated September 19, 1996; Revision 2, dated July 24, 1997; or Revision 3, dated September 18, 1997: Within 18,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the NACA modification.

    (h) Retained Lap Joint Modification for Certain Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information and revised airplane groups.

    (1) For airplanes identified as Groups 3 and 5 in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001: Install the lap joint repair at stringers 4R and 10R, as specified in Part 1.E.1. (“Compliance”) of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001, at the time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD, as applicable, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (t) of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes identified in Groups 6, 7, and 8 in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013: Install the lap joint repair at stringers 4R and 10R, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, at the time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD, as applicable, unless previously accomplished as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Retained Repetitive Low Frequency Eddy Current (LFEC) Inspections—Outside Crown Areas

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (i) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information. Before the accumulation of 70,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,500 flight cycles after May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08), whichever comes later: Do an LFEC inspection to find cracking of the lap joints of the fuselage, as specified in Part 1.E.2. (“Compliance”) of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; and as identified in Figures 2 through 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or as identified in Figures 50 through 64 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. Do the inspection per Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, may be used to do the actions required by this paragraph. Repeat the inspection after that at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

    (j) Retained Post-NACA Modification Inspections—Crown Areas

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (j) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information. For airplanes that have the “Preventive Change” (NACA modification) of the crown lap joint stringers (“Crown Laps”) done per PART III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 1, dated September 19, 1996; Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 2, dated July 24, 1997; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 3, dated September 18, 1997: Within 12,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the NACA modification, or within 750 flight cycles after May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08), whichever is later, do either an external or internal LFEC inspection to find cracking and corrosion as specified in Part 1.E.4.a. (“Compliance”) of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; per PART I (“Inspection”) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. The external and internal LFEC inspections are specified in Figures 8 and 9, respectively, of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, may be used to do the actions required by this paragraph.

    (1) If the external inspection is done: Repeat the inspection after that at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles until accomplishment of the lap joint repair required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) If the internal inspection is done: Repeat the inspection after that at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles until accomplishment of the lap joint repair required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) Retained Post-NACA Modification Inspections—Outside Crown Areas

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (k) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information. For airplanes that have the “Preventive Change” (NACA modification) outside the crown areas done per PART III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 1, dated September 19, 1996; Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 2, dated July 24, 1997; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 3, dated September 18, 1997: Before the accumulation of 20,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the NACA modification, or within 750 flight cycles after May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08), whichever is later, do either an external or internal LFEC inspection to find cracking and corrosion as specified in Part 1.E.4.b. (“Compliance”) of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; per PART I (“Inspection”) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. The external and internal LFEC inspections are specified in Figures 8 and 9, respectively, of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, may be used to do the actions required by this paragraph.

    (1) If the external inspection is done: Repeat the external inspection after that at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles.

    (2) If the internal inspection is done: Repeat the internal inspection after that at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.

    (l) Retained Modification of Tear Strap Splice Straps

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (l) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information. For airplanes that have the “lap joint repair,” as specified in Part IV of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 2, dated July 24, 1997; or Revision 3, dated September 18, 1997: Within 45,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of this lap joint repair, modify the splice straps per Figures 10, 11, and 12 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, may be used to do the actions required by this paragraph.

    (m) Retained Follow-On LFEC Inspections

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (m) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information. Within 45,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the lap joint repair required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, as applicable: Do either an external or internal LFEC inspection as specified in Part 1.E.7. (“Compliance”) of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; to find cracking of the lap joint repair, per PART I (“Inspection”) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. Repair any crack found before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (t) of this AD. The internal LFEC inspection is specified in Figure 9 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, may be used to do the actions required by this paragraph. Repeat the inspection after that at intervals not to exceed 2,800 flight cycles.

    (n) Retained Repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Inspections—Window Corners

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (n) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information. For airplanes having line numbers 520 through 2565 inclusive: Before the accumulation of 50,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,250 flight cycles after May 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-07-08), whichever comes later, do an HFEC inspection to find cracking as specified in Part 1.E.10 (“Compliance”) of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001, or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; per PART V (“Window Corner Fastener Hole Cracking, Inspection and Repair”) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. Repeat the inspection after that at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, until the initial actions required by paragraph (p) of this AD have been done. Accomplishment of the modification (which includes removing and discarding fasteners, oversizing fastener holes, and installing rivets or Hi-Lok fasteners, as applicable), per PART V of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 5, dated February 15, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by this paragraph.

    (o) Retained Crack Repair

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (d) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), with revised service information. If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), or (k) of this AD: Before further flight, repair per PART II (“Crack Repair”) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; except as required by paragraph (r)(2) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, may be used to do the actions required by this paragraph.

    (p) New Inspections, Repair, and Preventive Modification

    For airplanes identified as Groups 2 through 28 in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013: At the applicable times specified in tables 8, 9, 10, and 11 of paragraph 1.E.10, “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, except as required by paragraph (r)(1) of this AD, do a surface HFEC inspection for cracking at the applicable window corner fastener holes, and do a preventive modification, as applicable, in accordance with Part V of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, except as required by paragraph (r)(2) of this AD. Repair any crack found before further flight, in accordance with Part V of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, except as required by paragraph (r)(2) of this AD. Repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in tables 8, 9, 10, and 11 of paragraph 1.E.10, “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013. Accomplishment of the initial inspection specified in this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (n) of this AD. Accomplishment of the preventive modification specified in this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph for the applicable corner fastener locations specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013.

    (q) Optional Terminating Action

    (1) Replacement of the skin panel as specified in Part VIII or Part IX, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, terminates the repetitive inspections at the window corners specified in paragraph (p) of this AD for the windows common to the replaced panel only.

    (2) Replacement of the skin panel as specified in Part VIII or Part IX, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, terminates the lap joint modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the S-10 and S-14 lap joints common to the replaced panel only.

    (3) Replacement of the skin panels as specified in Part VIII or Part IX, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of AD 2013-09-01, Amendment 39-17442 (78 FR 27001, May 9, 2013), for the replaced skin panel only.

    (r) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 7 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; specify to contact Boeing for certain procedures: Do the specified actions before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (t) of this AD.

    (3) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013; include the phrase “or is Boeing or FAA approved,” this AD requires the “Boeing Approval” to be requested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (t) of this AD.

    (s) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i), (s)(1)(ii), and (s)(1)(iii) of this AD, which were incorporated by reference in AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002).

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 4, dated September 2, 1999.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 5, dated February 15, 2001, which continues to be incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001, which continues to be incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (i) through (o) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002) and continues to be incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (t) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (u)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (u) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (v)(3) and (v)(4) of this AD.

    (v) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 7, dated June 14, 2013.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 17, 2002 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002).

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 5, dated February 15, 2001.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001.

    (4) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 11, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26616 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2461; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-202-AD; Amendment 39-18310; AD 2015-22-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-18-15, for all Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 2009-18-15 required revising the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to require additional life limits and/or replacements for certain main landing gear and nose landing gear components. This new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a determination that existing maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are inadequate to ensure the structural integrity of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of certain system components, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective December 17, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 17, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of October 27, 2009 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009).

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= FAA-2015-2461; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2461.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009). AD 2009-18-15 applied to all Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2015 (80 FR 40942).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0248, dated October 14, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Model A300, A310, and A300-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus aeroplanes are currently published in Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents.

    The mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations applicable to the Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM) are specified in Airbus A310 or A300-600 ALS Part 4 documents, which are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). EASA AD 2007-0092 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0092.pdf/AD_2007-0092] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009)] was issued to require compliance to the requirements as specified in these documents.

    The revision 02 of Airbus A310 and Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4 documents introduces more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. Failure to comply with the instructions of ALS Part 4 could result in an unsafe condition [reduced structural integrity of the airplane.]

    For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2007-0092, which is superseded, and requires the implementation of the new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 4, Revision 02, or Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4, Revision 02, as applicable to aeroplane type/model.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-2461-0002.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 40942, July 14, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 40942, July 14, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 40942, July 14, 2015).

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information. “Sub-part 1-2: Life Limits” and “Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated fatigue lives” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” in each of these documents describe procedures for revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

    • For Model A300 series airplanes: Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 01, dated September 5, 2013, of the Airbus Model A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section.

    • For Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes): Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 01, dated September 5, 2013, of the Airbus Model A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section.

    • For Model A310 series airplanes: Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 01, dated September 5, 2013, of the Airbus Model A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 177 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The retained ALS revision required by AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009), takes about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2009-18-15 is $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new ALS revision of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $15,045, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

    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 above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-2461; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009), and adding the following new AD: 2015-22-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-18310. Docket No. FAA-2015-2461; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-202-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 17, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009).

    (2) Accomplishing certain requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD satisfies the requirements of paragraph A. of AD 84-02-04, Amendment 39-4795 (49 FR 2746, January 23, 1984).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 32, Landing Gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that existing maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are inadequate to ensure the structural integrity of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of certain system components, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Revision of Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009). For Model A300, A310, and A300-600 series airplanes: Within 3 months after October 27, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-15), revise the ALS of the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) to incorporate the applicable document listed in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions specified in the applicable document satisfies the requirements of paragraph A. of AD 84-02-04, Amendment 39-4795 (49 FR 2746, January 23, 1984).

    (1) For Model A300 series airplanes: Incorporate the applicable document listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Section 05-10-00, Revision 28, dated February 27, 1998, of Chapter 05, “Service Life Limits and Maintenance Checks,” of the Airbus A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, except that the parts listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD are subject to the life limits defined in the document listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (ii) “Sub-part 1-2: Life Limits,” and “Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated Fatigue Lives” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” dated September 6, 2007, of the Airbus A300 ALS.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Parts Subject to the Life Limits Specified in the Document Identified in Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of This AD Part No.
  • (P/N)
  • Part name
    P/N C61643-2, P/N C61643-4, P/N C61643-5 Main landing gear (MLG) shock absorber end fitting. P/N A32210001205xx Nose landing gear (NLG) pintle pin. P/N C62037-1 NLG shock absorber bottom. P/N 196-0328-501 Cross beam (Pratt & Whitney forward engine mount).

    (2) For Model A310 series airplanes: Incorporate “Sub-part 1-2: Life Limits,” and “Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated Fatigue Lives” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” dated December 21, 2006, of the Airbus A310 ALS.

    (3) For Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes): Incorporate “Sub-part 1-2: Life Limits,” and “Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated Fatigue Lives” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” dated December 21, 2006, of the Airbus A300-600 ALS.

    (h) Retained Initial Compliance Times and Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009). Do the replacement at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD. The replacement must be done thereafter within the interval specified in the applicable document identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For any life limitation/task that has been complied with before October 27, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011), in accordance with the applicable document listed in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, or in accordance with paragraph (g) of AD 2009-18-15, use the last accomplishment of each limitation/task as a starting point for accomplishing each corresponding limitation/task required by this AD.

    (2) For any life limitation/task that has not been complied with before October 27, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011), in accordance with the applicable document listed in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, or in accordance with paragraph (g) of AD 2009-18-15, the initial compliance time starts from the date of initial entry into service as defined in the applicable document.

    (i) Retained Special Compliance Times

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009). For any airplane on which the history of accumulated landings is partial or unknown, or where the history of application details (airplane type, model, weight variant, etc.) is partial or unknown: Parts listed in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD must be replaced at the associated compliance time. The replacement must be done thereafter at the interval specified in the applicable document(s) specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD:

    Airbus Service Information Letter 32-118, Revision 02, dated October 24, 2007, provides operators with guidance on the means to assign a conservative calculated life to parts whose history of accumulated landings is partial or unknown; and to select the limitations applicable to parts whose history of application details (aircraft type, aircraft model, weight variant, etc.) is partial or unknown.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (i) of This AD—Special Compliance Times Designation Aircraft type applicability A300 X A310 X A300-600 X P/N Start date Compliance time
  • (whichever occurs first after the “start date”)
  • Landings Calendar time
    MAIN LANDING GEAR Aft pintle pin A32140032200xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140056200xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140056202xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140057200xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140057202xx X X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140062000xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140063000xx X X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. Half ball housing (Fwd pintle bearing) A32140036200xx
  • A32140036202xx
  • X
  • X
  • December 13, 2007
  • December 13, 2007
  • 13,500
  • 13,500
  • 9 years.
  • 9 years.
  • A32140036204xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140036206xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140042200xx X X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140042202xx X X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140068002xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140068004xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140069002xx X X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140069004xx X X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. Ball (Fwd pintle pin) A32140012202xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A32140043202xx X X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. Pin (Multiple link/Frame 50) A53833451200xx
  • A53833451206xx
  • X
  • X
  • December 13, 2007
  • December 13, 2007
  • 13,500
  • 13,500
  • 9 years.
  • 9 years.
  • A53834451200xx X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. A53834451202xx X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Pin (Drop link/Frame 50) A53811122200xx X April 25, 2007 18,000 9 years. MLG Barrel Assembly Upper torque link pin nut 00-200-402
  • SL40089
  • X
  • X
  • December 13, 2007
  • December 13, 2007
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • 30 months.
  • 30 months.
  • SL40089P X December 13, 2007 N/A 30 months. SL40123 X December 13, 2007 N/A 30 months. SL40123P X X X April 25, 2007 N/A 30 months. Torque link medium pin nut 00-200-358
  • SL40114P
  • X
  • X
  • X
  • December 13, 2007
  • April 25, 2007
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • 30 months.
  • 30 months.
  • SL40132 X December 13, 2007 N/A 30 months. SL40132P X X April 25, 2007 N/A 30 months. Attaching fitting pin C62311-1 X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. C62311-20 X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Pin (Connecting rod/Upper rod) C65815
  • C65815-1
  • X
  • X
  • December 13, 2007
  • December 13, 2007
  • 13,500
  • 13,500
  • 9 years.
  • 9 years.
  • C65815-20 X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. C66472 X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. C66472-1 X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. C66472-20 X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. D52751 X April 25, 2007 18,000 9 years. MLG Shock Absorber Assembly Lower torque link pin nut 00-200-402
  • SL40089
  • X
  • X
  • December 13, 2007
  • December 13, 2007
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • 30 months.
  • 30 months.
  • SL40089P X December 13, 2007 N/A 30 months. SL40123 X December 13, 2007 N/A 30 months. SL40123P X X X April 25, 2007 N/A 30 months. Bogie beam pivot pin nut SL40054 X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.1 2 SL40054P X X April 25, 2007 at next removal/installation.1 2 SL40413P X April 25, 2007 at next removal/installation.1 2 MLG Lock Link Assembly Lock link medium pin C61485-1 X December 13, 2007 N/A 30 months. C61485-20 X X April 25, 2007 N/A 30 months. NOSE LANDING GEAR Pintle pin A32210079200xx X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. NLG Telescopic Strut Assembly Nut (Cylinder/Locking cylinder) C61375
  • D55955
  • X
  • X
  • X
  • X
  • X
  • April 25, 2007
  • April 25, 2007
  • 13,500
  • 13,500
  • 9 years.
  • 9 years.
  • Locking sleeve C61389 X X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C61389-1 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. NLG Barrel Assembly Pin (Clevis/Telescopic strut) C62231-1
  • C62231-2
  • X
  • X
  • December 13, 2007
  • December 13, 2007
  • 13,200
  • 13,200
  • 9 years.
  • 9 years.
  • C62231-20 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. D56530 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Lower pin (Link/Clevis) C62268-1 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C62268-2 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C62268-20 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Link (Clevis/Barrel) C62230-1 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. D56526 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Upper pin (Link/Barrel) C62267-1 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C62267-2 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C62267-20 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. End fitting pin nut D68062 X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.2 MS17825-6 X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.2 End fitting pin AN6-17 X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.2 D61183 X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.2 D68063 X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.2 NAS1306-22D X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.2 End fitting C62032 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. C62032-1 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Rack C61453 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C61453-1 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. C61453-20 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. C61453-40 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. C61453-41 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Torque link pin (Upper & Lower) C62223-1
  • C62223-20
  • X
  • X
  • X
  • X
  • December 13, 2007
  • April 25, 2007
  • 13,200
  • 13,500
  • 9 years.
  • 9 years.
  • Torque link medium pin nut SL40110P X X X April 25, 2007 N/A 30 months. NLG Shock Absorber Assembly Wheel axle nut C62879 X X X April 25, 2007 4,000 24 months. Upper cam dowel C62270 X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation. Upper cam C62034-1 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Lower cam C62035 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Restrictor C62036 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C62036-1 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C62036-2 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C67863 X December 13, 2007 13,200 9 years. C67863-1 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. C67863-2 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. C67863-3 X December 13, 2007 13,500 9 years. C67863-4 X X X April 25, 2007 13,500 9 years. Lower cam dowel C62866 X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.2 Nut (S/A/Barrel) C64040 X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.1 2 C64040-1 X X X December 13, 2007 at next removal/installation.1 2 1 When the nut is temporarily removed and reinstalled for the purpose of performing maintenance outside a workshop, no replacement is required provided the nut's removal and reinstallation are performed on the same assembly and neither the assembly nor the nut accumulates time in service during the period between the removal and reinstallation. 2 If the removal/installation was done after the start date, but before the effective date of this AD, the compliance time is within 3 months after October 27, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-15, Amendment 39-16011 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009)).
    (j) New Requirements of This AD: Maintenance Program Revision

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the applicable limitation, replacement, or inspection specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Doing any task required by this paragraph terminates the corresponding task required by paragraph (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.

    (1) For Model A300 series airplanes: Incorporate “Sub-part 1-2: Life Limits,” and “Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated Fatigue Lives” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 01, dated September 5, 2013, of the Airbus A300 ALS.

    (2) For Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4 605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes): Incorporate “Sub-part 1-2: Life Limits,” and “Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated Fatigue Lives” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 01, dated September 5, 2013, of the Airbus A300-600 ALS.

    (3) For Model A310 series airplanes: Incorporate “Sub-part 1-2: Life Limits,” and “Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated Fatigue Lives” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” dated Revision 01, September 5, 2013, of the Airbus A310 ALS.

    (k) New Limitation: No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0248, dated October 14, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2461-0002.

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference in this AD is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 27, 2015.

    (i) ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 01, dated September 5, 2013, of the Airbus Model A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section.

    (ii) ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 01, dated September 5, 2013, of the Airbus Model A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section.

    (iii) ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 01, dated September 5, 2013, of the Airbus Model A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 27, 2009 (74 FR 48143, September 22, 2009).

    (i) Section 05-10-00 of Chapter 05, “Service Life Limits and Maintenance Checks,” of the Airbus A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Revision 28, dated February 27, 1998.

    (A) The AMM title page; the Record of Revisions, Effective Pages, and Table of Content pages; and Section 05-10-00; for Chapter 05 of Airbus A300 AMM are all dated February 27, 1998.

    (B) The revision level of Chapter 05 of the Airbus A300 AMM is indicated only in the Record of Revisions section of Chapter 05.

    (C) The List of Effective Pages (LOEP) for Chapter 05 of the Airbus A300 AMM contains the discrepancies identified in paragraphs (n)(4)(i)(C)(1) through (n)(4)(i)(C)(4) of this AD.

    (1) The Transmittal Letter page, page 4 of the LOEP and Table of Contents sections, page 2 of Subsection 05-00-01, Subsection 05-10-00, and page 1 of Subsection 05-11-11, are not listed in the LOEP for Chapter 05 of the Airbus A300 AMM.

    (2) The LOEP for Chapter 05 of the Airbus A300 AMM does not specify a date for the Record of Revisions page.

    (3) The LOEP for Chapter 05 of the Airbus A300 AMM identifies three pages for Subsection 05-11-00, Configuration 5; however, only one page exists.

    (4) The LOEP for Chapter 05 of the Airbus A300 AMM identifies three pages for Subsection 05-11-00, Configuration 9; however, those pages do not exist.

    (ii) Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items” dated September 6, 2007.

    (iii) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations Items” dated December 21, 2006.

    (iv) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items” dated December 21, 2006.

    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 21, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27449 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 150911846-5846-01] RIN 0694-AG74 Addition of Certain Persons and Modification of Certain Entries to the Entity List; and Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding seven persons under ten entries to the Entity List. The seven persons who are added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These persons will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of China and Hong Kong.

    This final rule also removes two persons from the Entity List. One entity requested removal from the Entity List in accordance with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity. The End-User Review Committee (ERC) decided to remove this entity following a review of information provided in the removal request. The ERC decided to remove a second person from the Entity List following a proposal submitted by an ERC member agency, in accordance with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity.

    Finally, this final rule modifies ten existing entries on the Entity List consisting of one entry under China and nine entries under Hong Kong to provide additional or modified addresses and/or aliases for these persons.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The “license review policy” for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities and other persons on the Entity List pursuant to sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

    The ERC, composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

    ERC Entity List Decisions Additions to the Entity List

    This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add seven persons under ten entries to the Entity List. These seven persons are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The ten entries added to the Entity List consist of three entries in China and seven entries in Hong Kong. There are ten entries for the seven persons because three persons are listed in both China and Hong Kong, resulting in three additional entries.

    The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these seven persons under ten entries to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of § 744.11 include an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Pursuant to § 744.11 of the EAR, the ERC determined that the seven persons be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

    The ERC has determined that for the seven persons added, there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that (Jack) Wang Wei, Sky Rise Technology Ltd., TiMi Technologies Co. Ltd., Caprice Group Ltd., Reekay Technology Limited, and 32 Group China Ltd. have made attempts to procure items, including U.S.-origin items, for activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, (Jack) Wang Wei has used these companies to supply U.S.-origin items to an Iranian party associated with the Iranian defense industry and to an Iranian party whose customers include companies designated by the Department of Treasury as Specially Designated Nationals.

    Pursuant to § 744.11(b)(2) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these seven persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR.

    For the seven persons this rule adds to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11, the ERC specified a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule.

    This final rule adds the following seven persons under ten entries to the Entity List:

    China

    (1) Sky Rise Technology Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Sky Rise Tech. 4-4-2301 Xinyi Jiayuan, Chongwenmen, Dongcheng, Beijing, China (See also addresses under Hong Kong);

    (2) TiMi Technologies Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —TiMi Technology Co. Ltd.; and —TiMi Tech. F/10, A-Tower, Nongke Building, 11/Shu Guang Hua Yuan Zhong Lu, Haidian District, Beijing, China, 100097; and Nanhai Avenue, Nanshan District, 518054, Shenzhen, China (See also addresses under Hong Kong); and

    (3) Wang Wei, a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Jack Wang. 4-4-2301 Xinyi Jiayuan, Chongwenmen, Dongcheng, Beijing, China; and F/10, A-Tower, Nongke Building, 11/Shu Guang Hua Yuan Zhong Lu, Haidian District, Beijing, China, 100097 (See also addresses under Hong Kong). Hong Kong

    (1) 32 Group China Ltd., Room 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong; and Room 1119, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong;

    (2) Caprice Group Ltd., Room 1119, 11/F, Block B1, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Unit B1, G/F, Pioneer Building, 213 Wai Yip St., Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Unit A, G/F, Pioneer Building, 213 Wai Yip St., Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong;

    (3) Kitronix Display, Unit B1, G/F, Pioneer Building, 213 Wai Yip St., Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong;

    (4) Reekay Technology Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Reekay Technology. Suite 502, 5th Floor Arion Commercial Centre, No. 2-12 Queens Road West, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong;

    (5) Sky Rise Technology Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Sky Rise Tech. Room 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong; and Room 1118, 11/F, Block B1, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and 1119, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See also address under China);

    (6) TiMi Technologies Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —TiMi Technology Co. Ltd.; and —TiMi Tech. Room 1119, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1118, 11/F, Block B1, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Unit A, G/F, Pioneer Building, 213 Wai Yip St., Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong (See also addresses under China);

    (7) Wang Wei, a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Jack Wang. Room 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong; and Room 1118, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1119, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See also addresses under China). Removals From the Entity List

    This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove two persons, Weihai New Era Chemical Industrial Company Limited, located in China; and Able City Development Limited, located in Hong Kong, from the Entity List. This rule removes Weihai New Era Chemical Industrial Company Limited on the basis of a removal request submitted by this listed person pursuant to § 744.16 (Procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity) of the EAR. Able City Development Limited is being removed pursuant to a proposal submitted by an End-User Review Committee (ERC) member agency, in accordance with Supplement No. 5 to Part 744 of the EAR, as discussed below.

    A. Removal pursuant to § 744.16.

    Based upon a review of the information provided in a removal request made in accordance with § 744.16 of the EAR and further review conducted by the ERC, the ERC determined that the Weihai New Era Chemical Industrial Company Limited should be removed from the Entity List.

    Weihai New Era Chemical Industrial Company Limited was added to the Entity List on May 1, 2014 (79 FR 24563) pursuant to § 744.11(b)(2) and (b)(5) of the EAR. The ERC's decision to remove Weihai New Era Chemical Industrial Company Limited from the Entity List was based on information provided by the company in its appeal request pursuant to § 744.16.

    In accordance with § 744.16(c), the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration has sent written notification informing this person of the ERC's decision.

    B. Other removal based on ERC decision.

    This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove one person located in Hong Kong, Able City Development Limited, from the Entity List. The ERC determined that this person no longer met the criteria for inclusion on the Entity List. Able City Development Limited was added to the Entity List on July 21, 2009 (74 FR 35797) pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR. In accordance with the procedures outlined in Supplement No. 5 to part 744 of the EAR, any agency that participates in the ERC may make a proposal to add, modify or remove an entry from the Entity List by submitting that proposal to the chairman. For this removal, an ERC member agency proposed to the ERC to remove Able City Development Limited because a review of records indicated that the entity has dissolved. Because this entity does not exist, in accordance with § 744.16(c), the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration has not sent written notification informing this person of the ERC's decision.

    This final rule implements the decision to remove the following two persons from the Entity List:

    China

    (1) Weihai New Era Chemical Industrial Company Limited, No. 985 Fenghua Shan Road, Yangting New Industrial District, Huancui District, Weihai, China.

    Hong Kong

    (1) Able City Development Limited, Unit C, 9/F Neich Tower, 128 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong; and Unit 401, Harbour Ctr., Tower 2, 8 Hok Cheung Street, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

    The removal of the two entities referenced above, which was approved by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to these entities. However, the removal of these two entities from the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally these removals do not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR. Additionally, as noted above, Able City Development Limited no longer exists so there should be no transactions involving this person.

    Modifications to the Entity List

    This final rule implements decisions of the ERC to modify ten existing entries on the Entity List. Under the destination of China, the ERC made a determination to add six additional addresses and eight additional aliases to the entry for China Electronics Technology Group Corporation 29 (CETC 29) Research Institute. Under the destination of Hong Kong, the ERC made a determination to make the following modifications to nine entries, as follows: add one additional address to the entry for Biznest, LTD; add one additional address to the entry for Giant Base Asia Limited; add one additional address to the entry for Jadeshine Engineering (HK) Co.; add one additional address to the entry for JLD Technology; add one additional address and two additional aliases to the entry for Kinglead Electronics Co., Ltd.; add one alias to the entry for PRC Lode Technology Company; add one additional address to the entry for Serko Limited; add one additional address and one alias to the entry for Tex-Co Logistics Ltd.; and add one additional address and one alias to the entry for Yeraz, LTD.

    This final rule makes the following modifications to ten entries on the Entity List:

    China

    (1) China Electronics Technology Group Corporation 29 (CETC 29) Research Institute, a.k.a., the following ten aliases:

    —CETC 29th Research Institute; —China Southwest Electronic Equipment Research Institute (SWIEE); —29 (SIWEI Co) Institute; —SIWI Electronics Corporation; —Chengdu SIWI Electronics Inc.; —Chengdu SIWEI Electronics Company; —Chengdu 29 Institute; —Si Wei Company 29th Institute; —SIWI Group; and —Southwest China Institute of Electronics. No. 496 West Yingkang Road, Chengdu, Sichuan Province 610036, China; and Box #429, #1 Waixichadianziheng Street, Chengdu, Sichuan Province 610036, China; and 5 Cheng Wen Road, Chengdu, China 610036; and No. 3 Research Department, Zhongdian, China; and No. 29 Institute, Waixi Chadi, Chengdu, China; and No. 81 BaiChao Road, XiPu Town, PiXian County, Chengdu, China; and Siwei Electron Mansion, Xiejiasi, Qingyang, Chengdu, China; and 1 Hengjie Chadianzi Western Suburb, Chengdu, China. Hong Kong

    (1) Biznest, LTD, Room 927 9/F Far East Consortium Building, 121 Des Voeux Road C, Central District, Hong Kong; and 4/F, Hong Kong Trade Centre, 161-167 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong;

    (2) Giant Base Asia Limited, Room 2205, 22/F, Kowloon Building, 555 Nathan Road, Hong Kong; and Flat E, Block 1, 12/F, Superluck Industrial Centre, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong;

    (3) Jadeshine Engineering (HK) Co., Room 702, Boss Commercial Centre, Ferry Street 38, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and G/F BLK C 255 Sai Tau Wai DD 123 Lot 1307 Yuen Long, NT, Hong Kong;

    (4) JLD Technology, Hong Kong Co., Ltd., Room 1237, Pacific Trade Centre, No. 2 Kai Hing Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong; and Room 301-2, Hang Seng Wanchai Building, 3rd Floor, No. 200 Hennessy Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong;

    (5) Kinglead Electronics Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following four aliases:

    —Kinglead International Trading; —Kinglead Trading; —Kinglead International Trading Limited; and —Phonide Electronics Limited. Room 1041 Pacific Trade Center, No. 2 Kai Hing Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong; and B5-3, 29/F, Legend Tower, 7 Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See alternate address under China);

    (6) PRC Lode Technology Company, a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Lode International Limited. Room 1019-1020 Nan Fung Centre, 264-298 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan New Territories, Hong Kong; and Room 1522 Nan Fung Centre, 264-298 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan New Territories, Hong Kong (See alternate addresses under China);

    (7) Serko Limited, Room 704 7/F, Landwide Commercial Building, 118-120 Austin Rd, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong; and Room 1509, Unit A, 15th Floor, Mai Shun Industrial Building, No. 18-24 Kwai Cheong Road, New Territories, Hong Kong;

    (8) Tex-Co Logistics Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Tex-Co Hongxin Logistics Limited. GF Seapower Industrial Building 177, Hoi Bun Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong, and Room 2202, 22F, Causeway Bay Plaza 1, 489 Hennessey Road, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, and Room B03, 6/F, Cheong Wah Factory Building, 39-41 Sheung Heung Road, Tokwawan, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room G, 6/F Winner Building, 36 Man Yue Street, Hung Hom, Kowloon; and

    (9) Yeraz, LTD, a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Mikrocity HK Limited. Room 927 9/F Far East Consortium Building, 121 Des Voeux Road C, Central District, Hong Kong; and Room 402-403, 4/F, Hong Kong Trade Centre, 161-167 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong. Savings Clause

    Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on November 12, 2015, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).

    Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

    4. For the seven persons under ten entries added to the Entity List in this final rule, and the ten existing entities whose entries on the Entity List are being modified to provide additional or modified addresses and/or aliases, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then entities being added to the Entity List or modified by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, because these parties may receive notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place this entity on the Entity List if a proposed rule is published, doing so would create an incentive for these persons to either accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, or to take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule was published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule.

    For the two removals from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.

    In determining whether to grant removal requests from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed persons requesting removal from the Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR 49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). These two removals have been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. One of the entities removed by this rule no longer exists. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales to the other entity removed by this rule because the customer remained a listed person on the Entity List even after the ERC approved the removal pursuant to the rule published at 73 FR 49311 on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS allows the applicant to receive U.S. exports immediately since the applicant already has received approval by the ERC pursuant to 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b).

    The removal from the Entity List as a result of a removal request granted by the ERC or for other reasons involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively reviewed, including according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5 and 15 CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relied to make the decisions to remove these two entities. In addition, the information included in the removal request is information exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List contain confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such removal requests.

    Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because this rule is a substantive rule which relieves a restriction. This rule's removal of two persons from the Entity List removes a requirement (the Entity-List-based license requirement and limitation on use of license exceptions) on these two persons being removed from the Entity List. The rule does not impose a requirement on any other person for these two removals from the Entity List.

    No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

    PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of September 17, 2014, 79 FR 56475 (September 19, 2014); Notice of November 7, 2014, 79 FR 67035 (November 12, 2014); Notice of January 21, 2015, 80 FR 3461 (January 22, 2015); Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of September 18, 2015, 80 FR 57281 (September 22, 2015).

    2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended: a. By adding under China, in alphabetical order, three Chinese entities; b. By revising under China, one Chinese entity, “China Electronics Technology Group Corporation 29 (CETC 29) Research Institute”; c. By removing under China, one Chinese entity, “Weihai New Era Chemical Industrial Company Limited, No. 985 Fenghua Shan Road, Yangting New Industrial District, Huancui District, Weihai, China.”; d. By adding under Hong Kong, in alphabetical order, seven Hong Kong entities; e. By revising under Hong Kong, nine Hong Kong entities, “Biznest, LTD”, “Giant Base Asia Limited”, “Jadeshine Engineering (HK) Co.”, “JLD Technology”, “Kinglead Electronics Co., Ltd.”, “PRC Lode Technology Company”, “Serko Limited”, “Tex-Co Logistics Ltd.”, “Yeraz, LTD”; and f. By removing under Hong Kong, one Hong Kong entity, “Able City Development Limited, Unit C, 9/F Neich Tower, 128 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong; and Unit 401, Harbour Ctr., Tower 2, 8 Hok Cheung Street, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.”

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity List Country Entity License requirement License
  • review policy
  • Federal
  • Register
  • citation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * China, People's Republic of *         *         *         *         *         *         * China Electronics Technology Group Corporation 29 (CETC 29) Research Institute, a.k.a., the following ten aliases:
  • —CETC 29th Research Institute;
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 79 FR 44680, 8/1/2014.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • —China Southwest Electronic Equipment Research Institute (SWIEE); —29 (SIWEI Co) Institute; —SIWI Electronics Corporation; —Chengdu SIWI Electronics Inc.; —Chengdu SIWEI Electronics Company; —Chengdu 29 Institute; —Si Wei Company 29th Institute; —SIWI Group; and —Southwest China Institute of Electronics No. 496 West Yingkang Road, Chengdu, Sichuan Province 610036, China; and Box #429, #1 Waixichadianziheng Street, Chengdu, Sichuan Province 610036, China; and 5 Cheng Wen Road, Chengdu, China 610036; and No.3 Research Department, Zhongdian, China; and No. 29 Institute, Waixi Chadi, Chengdu, China; and No.81 BaiChao Road, XiPu Town, PiXian County, Chengdu, China; and Siwei Electron Mansion, Xiejiasi, Qingyang, Chengdu, China; and 1 Hengjie Chadianzi Western Suburb, Chengdu, China. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sky Rise Technology Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Sky Rise Tech
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
    4-4-2301 Xinyi Jiayuan, Chongwenmen, Dongcheng, Beijing, China (See also addresses under Hong Kong). *         *         *         *         *         *         * TiMi Technologies Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —TiMi Technology Co. Ltd
  • —TiMi Tech
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
    F/10, A-Tower, Nongke Building, 11/Shu Guang Hua Yuan Zhong Lu, Haidian District, Beijing, China, 100097; and Nanhai Avenue, Nanshan District, 518054, Shenzhen, China (See also addresses under Hong Kong) *         *         *         *         *         *         * Wang Wei, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Jack Wang
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
    4-4-2301 Xinyi Jiayuan, Chongwenmen, Dongcheng, Beijing, China; and F/10, A-Tower, Nongke Building, 11/Shu Guang Hua Yuan Zhong Lu, Haidian District, Beijing, China, 100097 (See also addresses under Hong Kong) *         *         *         *         *         *         * Hong Kong 32Group China Ltd., Room 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong; and Room 1119, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Biznest, LTD, Room 927 9/F Far East Consortium Building, 121 Des Voeux Road C, Central District, Hong Kong; and 4/F, Hong Kong Trade Centre, 161-167 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 76 FR 44259, 7/25/11.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Caprice Group Ltd., Room 1119, 11/F, Block B1, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Unit B1, G/F Pioneer Building, 213 Wai Yip St., Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Unit A, G/F, Pioneer Building, 213 Wai Yip St., Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Giant Base Asia Limited, Room 2205, 22/F, Kowloon Building, 555 Nathan Road, Hong Kong; and Flat E, Block 1, 12/F, Superluck Industrial Centre, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 78 FR 18808, 03/28/13.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Kitronix Display, Unit B1, G/F, Pioneer Building, 213 Wai Yip St., Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Jadeshine Engineering (HK) Co., Room 702, Boss Commercial Centre, Ferry Street 38, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and G/F BLK C 255 Sai Tau Wai DD 123 Lot 1307 Yuen Long, NT, Hong Kong For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 78 FR 18808, 03/28/13.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * JLD Technology, Hong Kong Co., Ltd., Room 1237, Pacific Trade Centre, No. 2 Kai Hing Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong; and Room 301-2, Hang Seng Wanchai Building, 3rd Floor, No. 200 Hennessy Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 79 FR 32441, 6/5/14.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Kinglead Electronics Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —Kinglead InternationalTrading;
  • —Kinglead Trading;
  • —Kinglead International Trading Limited; and
  • —Phonide Electronics Limited
  • Room 1041 Pacific Trade Center, No. 2 Kai Hing Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong; and B5-3, 29/F, Legend Tower, 7 Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See alternate address under China).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 79 FR 32441,
  • 6/5/14.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * PRC Lode Technology Company, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Lode International Limited.
  • Room 1019-1020 Nan Fung Centre, 264-298 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan New Territories, Hong Kong; and Room 1522 Nan Fung Centre, 264-298 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan New Territories, Hong Kong (See alternate addresses under China).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 79 FR 44680, 8/1/2014.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Reekay Technology Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Reekay Technology. Suite 502, 5th Floor Arion Commercial Centre, No. 2-12 Queens Road West, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Serko Limited, Room 704 7/F, Landwide Commercial Building, 118-120 Austin Rd, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong; and Room 1509, Unit A, 15th Floor, Mai Shun Industrial Building, No. 18-24 Kwai Cheong Road, New Territories, Hong Kong. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 77 FR 61249, 10/9/12.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sky Rise Technology Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Sky Rise Tech.
  • Room 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong; and Room 1118, 11/F, Block B1, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1119, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See also address under China).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Tex-Co Logistics Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Tex-Co Hongxin Logistics Limited.
  • GF Seapower Industrial Building 177, Hoi Bun Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong, and Room 2202, 22F, Causeway Bay Plaza 1, 489 Hennessey Road, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, and Room B03, 6/F, Cheong Wah Factory Building, 39-41 Sheung Heung Road, Tokwawan, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room G, 6/F Winner Building, 36 Man Yue Street, Hung Hom, Kowloon.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 75 FR 7358,
  • 2/19/10.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • TiMi Technologies Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —TiMi Technology Co. Ltd.
  • —TiMi Tech.
  • Room 1119, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1118, 11/F, Block B1, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Unit A,
  • G/F, Pioneer Building, 213 Wai Yip St., Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong (See also addresses under China)
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Wang Wei, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Jack Wang.
  • Room 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong; and Room 1118, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1119, 11/F, Block B, Yau Tong Industrial City, 17 Ko Fai Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See also addresses under China).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Yeraz, LTD, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Mikrocity HK Limited.
  • Room 927 9/F Far East Consortium Building, 121 Des Voeux Road C, Central District, Hong Kong; and Room 402-403, 4/F, Hong Kong Trade Centre, 161-167 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 76 FR 44259, 7/25/11.
  • 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 11/12/2015.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: November 5, 2015. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28552 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-419F] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Eluxadoline Into Schedule IV AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    With the issuance of this final rule, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration places the substance 5-[[[(2S)-2-amino-3-[4-aminocarbonyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxopropyl][(1S)-1-(4-phenyl-1H-imidazol-2-yl)ethyl]amino]methyl]-2-methoxybenzoic acid (eluxadoline), including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, into schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act. This scheduling action is pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act which requires that such actions be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing through formal rulemaking. This action imposes the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule IV controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, dispense, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities, or possess) or propose to handle eluxadoline.

    DATES:

    Effective date: December 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John R. Scherbenske, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Legal Authority

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

    Under the CSA, each controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of controlled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may, by rule, “add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by [21 U.S.C. 812(b)] for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

    The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on her own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 1 or (3) on the petition of any interested party. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). This action was initiated at the request of the Assistant Secretary of the HHS and imposes the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to controlled substances, including those specific to schedule IV controlled substances, on persons who handle or propose to handle eluxadoline.

    1 As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985. The Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993. Accordingly, all subsequent references to “Secretary” have been replaced with “Assistant Secretary.”

    Background

    Eluxadoline (5-[[[(2S)-2-amino-3-[4-aminocarbonyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxopropyl][(1S)-1-(4-phenyl-1H-imidazol-2-yl)ethyl]amino]methyl]-2-methoxybenzoic acid), is a new molecular entity with central nervous system opioid properties. Eluxadoline has mixed mu opioid receptor (MOR) and kappa opioid receptor (KOR) agonist and delta opioid receptor (DOR) antagonist properties. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved eluxadoline (brand name “VIBERZI”) as a prescription drug for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) on May 27, 2015.

    DEA and HHS Eight Factor Analyses

    On May 5, 2015, the HHS provided the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation document prepared by the FDA entitled “Basis for the Recommendation to Place Eluxadoline in Schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act.” After considering the eight factors in 21 U.S.C. 811(c), including consideration of the substance's abuse potential, legitimate medical use, and dependence liability, the Assistant Secretary of the HHS recommended that eluxadoline be controlled in schedule IV of the CSA. In response, the DEA completed its own eight-factor analysis of eluxadoline. Both the DEA and HHS analyses and other relevant documents are available in their entirety in the public docket of this rule (Docket Number DEA-419) at http://www.regulations.gov under “Supporting Documents.” 2

    2 Although the published notice of proposed rulemaking stated that such items had been placed into the docket on regulations.gov, the Administration discovered in preparing this final rule that the HHS analysis had in fact not been posted. However, that document was available for review at DEA. The DEA posted the cited analysis to regulations.gov upon discovery of the error.

    Determination to Schedule Eluxadoline

    After a review of the available data, including the scientific and medical evaluation and the scheduling recommendation from the HHS, the Administrator of the DEA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Eluxadoline into Schedule IV” which proposed placement of eluxadoline in schedule IV of the CSA. 80 FR 48044, August 11, 2015. The proposed rule provided an opportunity for interested persons to file a request for hearing in accordance with DEA regulations by September 10, 2015. No requests for such a hearing were received by the DEA. The NPRM also provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit written comments on the proposal on or before September 10, 2015.

    Comments Received

    The DEA received two comments on the proposed rule to schedule eluxadoline. One commenter supported controlling eluxadoline as a schedule IV controlled substance. One commenter opposed the control of eluxadoline as a schedule IV substance, and suggested it be controlled as a schedule V substance instead.

    Support for the Proposed Rule. One commenter agreed with the DEA's proposal to control eluxadoline as a schedule IV controlled substance, and stated that the public health (specifically, an unmet medical need) necessitates an immediate effective date for the final order controlling eluxadoline.

    DEA Response. The DEA appreciates the comment in support of this rulemaking. Generally, DEA scheduling actions are effective 30 days from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 21 CFR 1308.45; see also 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The DEA believes that providing 30 days for this rule to become effective is both expeditious and sufficient to allow handlers to comply with regulatory requirements for handling Schedule IV controlled substances. Both the HHS' and the DEA's scientific and medical analyses, the data collectively suggest that eluxadoline does have sufficient abuse potential and the DEA does not agree that eluxadoline's effective date should be the date of publication of the final rule.

    Opposition to the Proposed Rule. One commenter opposed the proposal to control eluxadoline as a schedule IV controlled substance, stating “I do not think that eluxadoline meets the factor [5] requirements for scheduling under schedule IV due to there being no general widespread use throughout other countries.” The commenter also stated that the best approach would be to place eluxadoline in schedule V, rather than schedule IV.

    DEA Response. Although eluxadoline is a new chemical entity and information on actual abuse is not currently available, there is a sufficient factual basis to meet the requirements of Factor 5 (the scope, duration, and significance of abuse). The legislative history of the CSA provides guidance regarding the assessment of a new drug's potential for abuse. The legislative history of the CSA provides that a substance may have a potential for abuse if: “The drug or drugs containing such a substance are new drugs so related in their action to a drug or drugs already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that the drug will have the same potentiality for abuse as such drugs, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.” Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, H.R. Rep. No. 91-1444 (1970); as reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4601. As discussed in the HHS and the DEA eight-factor analyses, both pre-clinical and clinical studies indicate eluxadoline shares pharmacological similarities with schedule IV drugs such as butorphanol and pentazocine and has similar abuse potential.

    In addition, the HHS and DEA eight-factor analyses support the finding that the overall abuse potential of eluxadoline is comparable to schedule IV substances such as pentazocine and butorphanol. This indicates that placement in schedule IV is appropriate rather than schedule V.

    Scheduling Conclusion

    Based on consideration of all comments, the scientific and medical evaluation and accompanying recommendation of the HHS, and the DEA's consideration of its own eight-factor analysis, the Administrator finds that these facts and all relevant data demonstrate substantial evidence of potential for abuse of eluxadoline. As such, the DEA is scheduling eluxadoline as a controlled substance under the CSA.

    Determination of Appropriate Schedule

    The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA outlines the findings required for placing a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS and review of all available data, the Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(4), finds that:

    (1) 5-[[[(2S)-2-amino-3-[4-aminocarbonyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxopropyl][(1S)-1-(4-phenyl-1H-imidazol-2-yl)ethyl]amino]methyl]-2-methoxybenzoic acid (eluxadoline) has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. The overall abuse potential of eluxadoline is comparable to schedule IV substances such as pentazocine and butorphanol;

    (2) 5-[[[(2S)-2-amino-3-[4-aminocarbonyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxopropyl][(1S)-1-(4-phenyl-1H-imidazol-2-yl)ethyl]amino]methyl]-2-methoxybenzoic acid (eluxadoline) has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Recently, the FDA approved eluxadoline as a prescription drug for the treatment of IBS-D. Therefore, eluxadoline has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and

    (3) Abuse of 5-[[[(2S)-2-amino-3-[4-aminocarbonyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxopropyl][(1S)-1-(4-phenyl-1H-imidazol-2-yl)ethyl]amino]methyl]-2-methoxybenzoic acid (eluxadoline) may lead to limited psychological dependence similar to that of schedule IV drugs, but less than that of schedule III drugs.

    Based on these findings, the Administrator of the DEA concludes that eluxadoline, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, warrants control in schedule IV of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(4).

    Requirements for Handling Eluxadoline

    Upon the effective date of this final rule, any person who handles eluxadoline is subject to the CSA's schedule IV regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importing, exporting, engagement in research, and conduct of instructional activities, of schedule IV controlled substances including the following:

    1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities with) eluxadoline, or who desires to handle eluxadoline, must be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312 as of December 14, 2015. Any person who currently handles eluxadoline and is not registered with the DEA must submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle eluxadoline as of December 14, 2015 unless the DEA has approved that application, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

    2. Security. Eluxadoline is subject to schedule III-V security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93, as of December 14, 2015.

    3. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of eluxadoline must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(e) and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302, as of December 14, 2015.

    4. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of eluxadoline on the effective date of this final rule must take an inventory of all stocks of eluxadoline on hand as of December 14, 2015, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a), (d), and (e).

    Any person who becomes registered with the DEA after November 12, 2015 must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including eluxadoline) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a), (b), and (e).

    After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including eluxadoline) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    5. Records. All DEA registrants must maintain records with respect to eluxadoline pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312 and § 1307.11, as of December 14, 2015.

    6. Prescriptions. All prescriptions for eluxadoline or products containing eluxadoline must comply with 21 U.S.C. 829, and be issued in accordance with 21 CFR part 1306 and subpart C of 21 CFR part 1311 as of December 14, 2015.

    7. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of eluxadoline must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312 as of December 14, 2015.

    8. Liability. Any activity involving eluxadoline not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA, occurring as of December 14, 2015 is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal proceedings.

    Regulatory Analyses Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.

    Executive Order 12988

    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

    Executive Order 13132

    This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    Executive Order 13175

    This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this final rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of this final rule is to place eluxadoline, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, into schedule IV of the CSA. No less restrictive measures (i.e., non-control, or control in schedule V) enable the DEA to meet its statutory obligations under the CSA. In preparing this certification, the DEA has assessed economic impact by size category and has considered costs with respect to the various DEA registrant business activity classes.

    Eluxadoline is a new molecular entity which has not yet been marketed in the United States or any other country. The DEA has no basis to determine the level of contracted or outsourced manufacturing activities or the breadth of the distribution network. Furthermore, due to the wide variety of unidentifiable and unquantifiable variables that could potentially influence the dispensing and distribution rates of new pharmaceutical drugs, the DEA is unable to determine the number of potential small entities that might handle eluxadoline. However, the DEA estimates that all persons who would handle, or propose to handle, eluxadoline are currently registered with the DEA to handle schedule IV controlled substances, because it is a pharmaceutical controlled substance intended for medical treatment. Accordingly, the number of DEA registrations authorized to handle schedule IV controlled substances is a reasonable estimate for the maximum number of eluxadoline handlers. Therefore, the DEA estimates that 1.6 million (1,554,254 as of June 2015) controlled substance registrations, representing approximately 427,584 entities, would be the maximum number of entities affected by this final rule. The DEA estimates that 418,141 (97.8%) of 427,584 affected entities are “small entities” in accordance with the RFA and SBA size standards.

    The DEA anticipates that prospective eluxadoline handlers already handle other schedule IV controlled substances and that the cost impact as a result of placing eluxadoline in schedule IV would be nominal. As the anticipated eluxadoline handlers already handle other schedule IV controlled substances, they already have DEA registrations and the required security and recordkeeping processes, equipment, and facilities in place, and would only require a nominal increase in security, inventory, recordkeeping and labeling costs.

    As discussed above, while the DEA does not have a basis to estimate the number of affected entities, the DEA estimates that the maximum number of affected entities is 427,584 of which 418,141 are estimated to be small entities. Since the affected entities are expected to handle other schedule IV controlled substances and maintain security and recordkeeping facilities and processes consistent with schedule IV controlled substances, the DEA estimates any economic impact will be nominal.

    Because of these facts, this final rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The DEA has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year * * *” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under provisions of UMRA.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Congressional Review Act

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act (CRA)). This rule will not result in: an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. However, pursuant to the CRA, the DEA has submitted a copy of this final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    The APA requires the publication of a substantive rule to be made not less than 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, one exception is “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” As fully discussed above in response to the comment suggesting an immediate effective date, an immediate effective date is necessary in this case because there are limited therapeutic options currently available to patients with IBS-D and the eluxadoline NDA received priority review with FDA. Therefore, it is unnecessary to delay the effective date of this final rule by 30 days, and this rule shall take effect immediately upon publication.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is amended to read as follows:

    PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 1308.14 by adding paragraph (g)(3) to read as follows:
    § 1308.14 Schedule IV.

    (g) * * *

    (3) Eluxadoline (5-[[[(2S)-2-amino-3-[4-aminocarbonyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxopropyl][(1S)-1-(4-phenyl-1H-imidazol-2-yl)ethyl]amino]methyl]-2-methoxybenzoic acid) (including its optical isomers) and its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers (9725).

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28718 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 91 and 570 [Docket No. FR 5797-I-01] RIN 2506-AC39 Changes to Accounting Requirements for the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule makes several changes to the existing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program regulations in order to better track the use of grant funds and improve accounting procedures in the program. Through this rule, HUD requires grantees to commence tracking the obligations and expenditures of funds for each specific fiscal year grant, rather than track such information cumulatively. In order to effectively implement this accounting change, changes are needed to the regulations applicable to affected grants, such as the program-specific regulations, consolidated plan regulations, and methods to calculate the cap on administrative and planning expenses. While amending these regulations to conform to and support this accounting practice in applicable regulations, HUD is also making certain grammatical and other technical corrections in those regulations.

    DATES:

    Effective date: December 14, 2015.

    Comment due date: January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this interim rule. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stanley Gimont, Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 7th Street SW., Suite 7286, Washington, DC 20410 at 202-708-3587, (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. The CDBG Program

    The CDBG program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a formula basis to units of general local government and States. The annual CDBG appropriation is allocated between metropolitan cities and urban counties, which are referred to as “entitlement areas,” and States, which must distribute the funds to their units of general local government, referred to as “nonentitlement areas.” HUD determines the amount of each grant by using a formula comprised of several measures of community need, including the extent of poverty, population, housing overcrowding, age of housing, and population growth lag.

    A grantee must develop and follow a consolidated plan describing the planned use of CDBG funds, which includes a detailed plan that provides for and encourages citizen participation. This integral process emphasizes participation by persons of low or moderate income, particularly residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, slum or blighted areas, and areas in which the grantee proposes to use CDBG funds. Not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. In addition, each funded activity must meet one of the following national objectives for the program: Benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevent or eliminate slums or blight, or address community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available.

    The regulations for the CDBG program are codified in 24 CFR part 570 (entitled “Community Development Block Grants”). The regulations governing the CDBG annual plan and citizen participation requirements are codified at 24 CFR part 91 (entitled “Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development Programs”).

    B. CDBG Accounting Requirements

    CDBG grants funds are currently disbursed through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) on a “first-in, first-out” (FIFO) basis. Under this methodology, CDBG grantees do not designate a specific fiscal year grant in IDIS when funding an activity or when creating an expenditure voucher. In general, all obligations and disbursements are recorded against the earliest annual grant with an available balance, thereby exhausting the oldest grant available before recording expenditures against the next grant.

    Grantees' accounting systems, on the other hand, typically track expenditures according to each annual grant. During any given time period, grantees expend funds from multiple grants for a range of activities that have a variety of implementation schedules. Expenditures are incurred against more recent grants for activities that are on schedule; and, often simultaneously, expenditures are incurred against earlier annual grants for activities that experience acceptable delays.

    These two distinct accounting methods often complicate reconciliation between grantees' accounting records and IDIS's FIFO records. The revised methodology will simplify reconciliation by aligning the accounting practices used by HUD and those used by grantees.

    HUD is cognizant that Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 funding and formula allocations are underway, but the revised methodology is now available and, through this rule, HUD directs CDBG grantees to commence using the revised methodology. For the FY 2015 and subsequent fiscal year grants, IDIS will support grant-specific accounting. Therefore, as of the effective date of this interim rule, when obligating funds to be expended for a CDBG activity (i.e., when funding an activity in IDIS), grantees must identify the specific annual grant that is the source of the funds. When creating an expenditure voucher, HUD, through IDIS, will disburse the funds according to the specific annual grant that was obligated to that activity.

    In order to complement and support this accounting change, conforming changes are needed to the regulations covering affected FY grants to reflect this accounting practice, such as clarifying which accounting practice is utilized, revising records retention requirements, and conforming the calculation of the cap on administrative and planning expenses. Conforming changes are not only needed to the CDBG regulations in 24 CFR part 570 but also to the CDBG planning and citizen participation regulations in part 91. In addition, certain grammatical and other technical corrections need to be made to the CDBG regulations.

    The following section of this preamble provides a section-by-section overview of the regulatory changes.

    II. This Interim Rule—Section-by-Section Changes Action Plans (§§ 91.220, 91.320, 91.325 and 91.505)

    HUD revises those provisions regarding the CDBG program components of the action plans for entitlements at § 91.220(l) and states at § 91.320(l). The interim rule adds clarifying language to reiterate that the available resources for that annual action plan may include a variety of sources of funding in addition to the annual grant.

    For State CDBG recipients, HUD clarifies § 91.320(l) to address program income funds that are retained by units of general local government. By including locally retained program income funds, such as general program income and revolving loan funds, the State's action plan will include all the CDBG funds available throughout the State, regardless of whether those funds are retained by the State or units of general local government.

    For state CDBG recipients, HUD amends § 91.325(b)(4)(ii), which provides that the State shall certify that 70 percent of the amount expended shall principally benefit low- and moderate-income families, on a program year basis. This regulatory provision is inconsistent with § 570.484, which requires the same certification to be provided on an annual grant basis. Therefore, § 91.325(b)(4)(ii) is amended to be consistent with § 570.484.

    HUD amends § 91.505(a)(2) to clarify that an amendment would be necessary for the use of program income, repayments, or reallocations that were not previously included in an action plan.

    Definition of Origin Year (§§ 570.3 and 570.481)

    The interim rule adds a definition to §§ 570.3 and 570.481(a)(3) for the term “origin year” to mean the Federal fiscal year in which the annual grant funds were appropriated. Current regulations use the term “grant year,” which has often been confused with a grantee's program year. The term “origin year” is intended to reinforce specificity concerning any one annual grant and support grant-specific accounting. In addition to the new definition, the interim rule makes corresponding language changes throughout parts 91 and 570.

    Treasury Account Cancellations §§ 570.480(i) and 570.200(k)

    The interim rule adds §§ 570.480(i) and 570.200(k) to incorporate the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 1552, which states that on September 30 of the 5th fiscal year after the period of availability for obligation of a fixed appropriation account ends, the United States Treasury account shall be canceled and any remaining balance (whether obligated or unobligated) shall be canceled and therefore not available for obligation or expenditure for any purpose. HUD's obligation period for CDBG is typically 3 fiscal years, including the origin year (as stated in each annual appropriations act). HUD obligates and makes the funds available to grantees as soon as possible, but has until the end of 3 fiscal years to do so. For example, a CDBG grant appropriated for Fiscal Year 2015 must be obligated by HUD by the end of Fiscal Year 2017, and any unexpended funds will be canceled and cease to be available on September 30, 2022. HUD reserves the right, however, to require an earlier expenditure and drawdown deadline under a grant agreement due to end-of-year accounting and timing issues. This provision is applicable to funds in the grantee's line of credit and any funds returned to the line of credit. However, this statute does not apply to funds repaid to a local account or program income deposited in a local account. CDBG funds have rarely been canceled because the FIFO accounting method disperses funds from the oldest source grant first, and timely expenditure of grant funds would prevent the grantee from having as many years' worth of grant funds in its line of credit.

    Entitlement Administration and Planning Cap (§ 570.200)

    In annual appropriations acts, Congress limits the amount grantees may use for planning, management development, and administration to not more than 20 percent of each grant. Under the FIFO method of accounting in IDIS, grantees would draw funds without distinguishing funds by origin year, making the application of a 20 percent limit to any one grant impractical for HUD to monitor. Current regulations at § 570.200(g) base the 20 percent limit upon obligations in a given program year, relative to the amount of the most recent grant plus program income. Therefore, § 570.200(g) is revised to better reflect the limitations imposed by annual appropriations acts.

    Through this rule, HUD divides § 570.200(g) into two distinct compliance tests. The current test, retained and redesignated § 570.200(g)(2), which determines compliance based upon obligations of both grant funds and program income, will apply to all prior and future program years. For grants made in FY 2015 and subsequent years, an additional test is included at § 570.200(g)(1), which would limit planning and administration expenditures to no more than 20 percent of each separate origin year grant (excluding program income). This new test will be used to determine compliance with the annual appropriations acts requirement at the end of the grant. The key difference between the two tests is that the existing test addresses program income and the new test does not. The reason that two tests are necessary is because the existing test allows program income to be used in lieu of grant funds for planning, management development, and administration costs, thereby ensuring that grantees are compliant with the cash management principles that require program income to be spent ahead of draws of Treasury funds.

    These two tests measure different things over different time periods. The existing test (the program year test) limits obligations of funds made by the grantee during a program year. The amount of funds obligated for planning and administrative costs is limited to 20 percent of the sum of the origin year grant amount for that program year plus the amount of program income received by the grantee (and all subrecipients) during that program year. Compliance is determined at the end of each program year based on the grantee's annual performance report submission. This test allows obligations of program income for planning and general administration cost to support grantee compliance with § 570.504(b)(2), which requires that program income be substantially disbursed before withdrawals of grant funds from the United States Treasury.

    The origin year grant test limits expenditures for planning and administrative costs against a given origin year's grant. For any given origin year grant, compliance will be determined during the grant closeout. For purposes of the second test, it does not matter when the funds were obligated or expended. Beginning with origin year 2015 grants and with FY 2015 program years, grantees must ensure that they comply with both tests. Grantees are cautioned that compliance with one test does not automatically ensure compliance with the other test.

    HUD recognizes that CDBG grantees are administering programs that typically have multiple grants open at any given time. The interim rule adds language at § 570.200(g) to reiterate that administration and planning costs support the general operation of a grantee's CDBG program, and thus are not tied to any specific origin year or CDBG grant. A grantee may use funds from any origin year grant for administration and planning costs for any CDBG grant. This provision is limited to only administration and planning costs and does not include staff and overhead costs directly related to carrying out activities eligible under § 570.201 through § 570.204, since those costs are eligible as part of such activities and allocable to specific origin year grants.

    Eligible Activities: Public Services (§ 570.201)

    HUD revises regulations at § 570.201 in order to clarify that the public service cap determination is applicable to nonentitlement grantees in Hawaii and recipients of insular area funds under the CDBG program.

    State CDBG Program Administrative Requirements (§ 570.489)

    HUD revises the regulations for State administrative costs in § 570.489. Redundancies are removed and clarifying language is added to § 570.489(a)(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) and § 570.489(e)(3). Current regulations at § 570.489(a)(1)(v) allow State CDBG grantees the option of using cumulative accounting of administrative costs, consistent with the FIFO accounting method. Under the new grant-based accounting, for origin year 2015 grants and subsequent grants, State CDBG grantees will no longer have the option of cumulative accounting of the State's administrative costs and instead must use year-to-year tracking. The cumulative method will only continue to be available for State administrative expenses charged to FY 2014 and prior fiscal year grants.

    HUD clarifies § 570.489(a)(3) to explain how HUD determines compliance with the planning and administration cost cap. While this provision is already grant-specific, the current calculation incorporates program income into the 20 percent administrative and planning cap. Therefore, the interim rule clarifies the compliance test at § 570.489(a)(3) by dividing it into multiple parts. Section 570.489(a)(3)(i) describes administration costs for both States and units of general local government. Section 570.489(a)(3)(ii) maintains current language of the administrative and planning cap, with added clarity. Section 570.489(a)(3)(iii) adds a second compliance test based solely upon use of funds from each annual grant (excluding program income) beginning with origin year 2015 and subsequent years' grants. The second compliance test will demonstrate compliance with annual appropriations acts limiting the amount grantees may use for planning, management development, and administration to not more than 20 percent of each grant.

    As noted under the discussion of changes made to § 570.200, HUD recognizes that CDBG grantees are administering programs that typically have multiple grants open at any given time. Similar to the change made to § 570.200(g), the interim rule revises § 570.489(a)(3)(iv) to reiterate that administration and planning costs support the general operation of a grantee's CDBG program, and thus are not tied to any specific origin year or CDBG grant. A grantee may use funds from any origin year grant for administration and planning costs for any CDBG grant. This provision is limited to only administration and planning costs and does not include staff and overhead costs directly related to carrying out other eligible activities, since those costs are eligible as part of such activities and allocable to specific origin year grants.

    Section 570.489(e)(3) is edited for clarity and to remove redundancies.

    Records To Be Maintained (§ 570.506)

    This rule adds language in § 570.506 specifying that grantees' records pertaining to obligations, expenditures, and drawdowns must be able to relate financial transactions to either a specific origin year's grant or to program income received during a specific program year.

    Grant Closeout Procedures—Entitlement CDBG (§§ 570.509, 570.513)

    The current regulations at § 570.509 have primarily applied when an entitlement CDBG grantee discontinued its participation in the program as a grantee. The interim rule will now permit and necessitate close out of each origin year grant from HUD. Starting with FY 2015 origin year grants, each year's grant will be closed out when all activity associated with the grant is completed.

    This necessitates several changes to the closeout process, which also result in conforming changes to other portions of the regulations. The grant funds, as well as program income received during the program year corresponding to the grant's origin year, must be fully expended before the grant can be closed out. In addition, the grantee must enter final accomplishment data and all activities on which those funds were expended must be reported as completed in a final annual report. The interim rule clarifies that, in order to close out a grant, any unexpended program income received during the program year associated with the grant's origin year must be included in a subsequent year's action plan, thereby rolling forward those available resources onto a more recent action plan with ongoing activities. The funds will be included in the section describing the CDBG funds available pursuant to § 91.220(l), thereby allowing that prior origin year's grant to be closed out.

    In addition, the interim rule adds closeout criteria based upon the changes to the administration and planning cap at § 570.200(g).

    The interim rule change regarding expenditure of associated program income before grant closeout triggers corresponding changes to § 570.513, lump sum drawdown. A grant cannot be closed out if grant funds or associated program income remain unexpended in a deposit account subject to an existing lump sum drawdown agreement. The change to § 570.513 will require a grantee to execute a new lump sum drawdown agreement covering any unexpended funds, and that program income must be identified in the current program year action plan.

    Minor and Technical Changes

    The interim rule makes minor changes to §§ 91.505, 570.206, 570.410, and 570.503 for regulatory and statutory cross-references and grammar. The interim rule also makes various technical changes to incorporate administrative requirements in 2 CFR part 200. These changes include a new paragraph § 570.485(d) to clarify that HUD is authorized to establish specific conditions on grants to States in accordance with 2 CFR 200.207; changes to § 570.489(g) to make clear that States can make subrecipient and contractor determinations in accordance with 2 CFR 200.330; and a new paragraph § 570.489(o), which states that HUD will close out grants to States in accordance with 2 CFR 200.343.

    III. Specific Issues for Comment

    HUD solicits and welcomes comments on all aspects of this interim rule. HUD also specifically solicits comment on the following topics related to the accounting methodology changes for CDBG. HUD seeks the view of grantees, other program participants and interested members of the public. HUD may, at a future date, offer regulatory changes addressing one or more of these topics.

    1. Retention of Program Income by Local Governments (§ 570.489(e))

    HUD solicits comments about the revisions made to § 570.489(e)(3)(ii)(B) beyond those made by this interim rule. The intent of the section is to reinforce the requirement that program income remains subject to CDBG requirements regardless of the status of any State award to a unit of general local government. The current language of this section uses terms such as “activity closeout” and “grant close out”, as well as concepts such as “part of the unit of general local government's grant” and “part of the state's program year,” and this language may not reflect HUD's intent as explicitly as contemplated by HUD. HUD therefore seeks comment on whether the regulatory language clearly reflects HUD's intent and, if not, what revisions are recommended to better convey the intent of this section.

    2. Limitations on Local Retention of Program Income (§ 570.489(e))

    HUD seeks information that better informs the nature of activities that continue with program income. For States that limit the local retention of program income, what types of limitations do States place upon the definition of the “same activity”? Do the limitations restrict the program income for the same activity in a very strict sense (i.e., limited to the same work, at the same address, with the same beneficiaries)? Do the limitations generally reflect an activity type, such as housing rehabilitation; and, if so, what are the considerations for not classifying this as a revolving loan fund? Do the limitations reflect multiple activities that are bundled into a single effort, such as a main street revitalization plan that might use program income from business loans for other activities in the vicinity, such as façade and side walk improvements along the same main street? Is tracking and reporting the use of these funds problematic, and what solutions have States found (especially for States that do not limit the local retention of program income)?

    3. Entitlement Administration and Planning Cap (§§ 570.200 and 570.201(e))

    HUD has some flexibility in the manner program income applies to the administration and planning cap at § 570.200(g) and the public service cap at § 570.201(e). Currently, program income received during the current program year is considered in the determination of compliance with § 570.200(g) and program income received during the prior program year is considered in the determination of compliance with § 570.201(e). HUD solicits comments regarding the possibility of making these two determinations match in terms of which program year is considered for compliance. In this regard, HUD seeks comment on whether compliance with both caps should be based on prior year receipts of program income or current year receipts, or whether the current distinction between the two should be maintained.

    IV. Justification for Interim Rulemaking

    HUD generally publishes rules for advance public comment in accordance with its rule on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. However, under 24 CFR 10.1, HUD may omit prior public notice and comment if it is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this instance, HUD has determined that it is unnecessary to delay the effectiveness of this rule for advance public comment.

    The interim rule provides that, for FY 2015 grants, Entitlement CDBG grantees are to track their obligations and expenditures of funds for each specific grant year. The scope of the interim regulatory amendments is limited to the change in the input of this information in IDIS and to those additional changes necessary to conform the regulations to the grant accounting system, such as the time periods of affected grants, records retention, and the calculation of the cap on administrative and planning expenses, along with minor clarifications and technical corrections.

    This interim rule does not establish new and unfamiliar requirements for CDBG grantees. Rather the regulatory changes eliminate administrative burden on grantees by aligning CDBG accounting methodology, as reflected in IDIS, with the grant accounting system typically used by grantees, and the standard accounting practice of keeping track of grant commitments and expenditures on an annual grant basis.

    Although, under the current regulations, Entitlement CDBG recipients have the option to track expenditures in a cumulative manner, HUD estimates that 80 to 90 percent of grantees adhere to the grant-specific accounting. In addition, the selection of the grant year is already required for State CDBG recipients when requesting funds, so grantees are already tracking this information.

    Given that the overwhelming majority of CDBG grantees use grant-specific accounting (the use of which is also strongly recommended by HUD's Office of Inspector General) HUD has the justification necessary to issue this rule as an interim rule. While a small percentage of CDBG grantees are not using this system, it is not a system that is unfamiliar to them. In addition, IDIS itself provides the reports and tools necessary to document compliance with the regulatory changes for all grantees.

    And with the grant year-specific accounting, it is now possible for HUD to determine compliance with the administrative expenditure cap on a grant-specific basis. The revised accounting methods also necessitate these additional regulatory changes specifying how grantees are to handle closeout procedures and maintain records. Since the accounting changes are required by existing appropriations law, HUD believes that it is appropriate for the remaining regulatory changes to be effective for the current grant year through an interim rule.

    Although HUD has determined that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect without prior solicitation of public comment, HUD recognizes the value and importance of public input in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, HUD is issuing these regulatory amendments on an interim basis and providing a 60-day public comment period. All comments will be considered in the development of the final rule.

    V. Findings and Certifications Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review”). OMB determined that this rule was significant under the order, but not an economically significant regulatory action. The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339. The docket file is available for public inspection at the above address, or it may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov, under the above docket number. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    Information Collection Requirements

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection requirements contained in this interim rule have been submitted to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2506-0117.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule will not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.

    Environmental Review

    This interim rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern, or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As an initial matter, HUD notes that the scope of the rule is limited to accounting methodology, and does not add or modify other CDBG program requirements other than to provide grammatical and technical corrections. Further, accounting for grant funds by specific funding allocations is a practice used in other Federal programs, and so the requirements are not unfamiliar to, and may already be used by, CDBG grantees that also receive funding under such programs.

    With respect to burden on small entities, as part of the development of HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final rule, HUD identified small entities participating in the CDBG program as those receiving a grant in FY 2015 of $500,000 or less (small CDBG grantees).1 The number of small CDBG grantees totaled 357 out of 1,258 CDBG grantees in FY 2015.

    1 See AFFH final rule published on July 16, 2015, at 80 FR 42272 (http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf).

    In this rule, HUD is now requiring small actions that were previously optional, but which many grantees were already performing. Further, any necessary accounting system changes would be one-time updates, rather than a recurring expense, and such costs would be reimbursed from the grantee's administrative expense account, funded by the CDBG grant. Therefore, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Notwithstanding HUD's belief that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments nor preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers applicable to the program that would be affected by this rule are 14.218, 14.225, 14.228, and 14.248.

    List of Subjects 24 CFR Part 91

    Aged, Grant programs—housing and community development, Homeless, Individuals with disabilities, Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 570

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Community development block grants, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—housing and community development, Guam, Indians, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Virgin Islands.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD is amending 24 CFR parts 91 and 570 as follows:

    PART 91—CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388, 12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.

    2. In § 91.220, revise paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
    § 91.220 Action plan.

    (l) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) A jurisdiction must describe activities planned with respect to all CDBG funds expected to be available during the program year, except that an amount generally not to exceed 10 percent of such total available CDBG funds may be excluded from the funds for which eligible activities are described if it has been identified for the contingency of cost overruns.

    (ii) “CDBG funds expected to be available during the program year” includes all of the following:

    (A) The CDBG origin year grant.

    (B) Any program income expected to be received during the program year.

    (C) Any program income amounts not included in a prior action plan.

    (D) Any program income previously generated under a lump sum drawdown agreement for which a new agreement will be executed during the program year pursuant to 24 CFR 570.513(b).

    (E) Proceeds from Section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in its strategic plan.

    (F) Surplus from urban renewal settlements.

    (G) Reimbursements, other than program income, made to a local account.

    (H) Income from float-funded activities: The full amount of income expected to be generated by a float-funded activity must be shown, whether or not some or all of the income is expected to be received in a future program year. To assure that citizens understand the risks inherent in undertaking float-funded activities, the recipient must specify the total amount of program income expected to be received and the month(s) and year(s) that it expects the float-funded activity to generate such program income.

    3. Amend § 91.320 as follows: a. Capitalize the word “state” and “state's” each time it appears; and b. Revise paragraph (k)(1).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 91.320 Action plan.

    (k) * * *

    (1) CDBG. The action plan must set forth the State's method of distribution.

    (i) The method of distribution must contain a description of all criteria used to select applications from local governments for funding, including the relative importance of the criteria, where applicable. The method of distribution must provide sufficient information so that units of general local government will be able to understand and comment on it, understand what criteria and information their application will be judged on, and be able to prepare responsive applications. The method of distribution may provide a summary of the selection criteria, provided that all criteria are summarized and the details are set forth in application manuals or other official State publications that are widely distributed to eligible applicants.

    (ii) The action plan must include a description of how all CDBG resources will be allocated among funding categories and the threshold factors and grant size limits that are to be applied. The total CDBG resources to be described in the action plan include all of the following:

    (A) The CDBG origin year grant.

    (B) Any program income expected to be returned to the State in accordance with 24 CFR 570.489(e)(3)(i) in the program year or not included in a prior action plan, and any program income expected to be received by any State revolving fund in accordance with 24 CFR 570.489(f)(2) in the program year or not included in a prior action plan.

    (C) Reimbursements, other than program income, made to a local account.

    (iii) If the State intends to help nonentitlement units of general local government apply for guaranteed loan funds under 24 CFR part 570, subpart M, it must describe available guarantee amounts and how applications will be selected for assistance. If a State elects to allow units of general local government to carry out community revitalization strategies, the method of distribution shall reflect the State's process and criteria for approving local government's revitalization strategies.

    (iv) If the State permits units of general local government to retain program income per 24 CFR 570.489(e)(3) or establish local revolving funds per 24 CFR 570.489(f)(1), the State must include a description of each of the local accounts including the name of the local entity administering the funds, contact information for the entity administering the funds, the amounts expected to be available during the program year, the eligible activity type(s) expected to be carried out with the program income, and the national objective(s) served with the funds.

    (iv) HUD may monitor the method of distribution as part of its audit and review responsibilities, as provided in 24 CFR 570.493(a)(1), in order to determine compliance with program requirements.

    4. In § 91.325, revise paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 91.325 Certifications.

    (b) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ii) In the aggregate, not less than 70 percent of the CDBG funds received by the State during a period specified by the State, not to exceed three years, will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. The period selected and certified to by the State shall be designated by fiscal year of annual grants, and shall be for one, two, or three consecutive annual grants. (See 24 CFR 570.481 for definition of “CDBG funds”); and

    [§ 91.505 Amended]
    5. In § 91.505, amend paragraph (a)(2) by adding “, reimbursements, or reallocations from HUD” after “including program income”.
    PART 570—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS 6. The authority citation for part 570 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301-5320.

    7. In § 570.3, revise the definition of “Entitlement amount” and add the definition of “Origin year” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 570.3 Definitions.

    Entitlement amount means the amount of funds which a metropolitan city or urban county is entitled to receive under the Entitlement grant program, as determined by formula set forth in section 106 of the Act

    Origin year means the specific Federal fiscal year during which the annual grant funds were appropriated.

    8. In § 570.200, revise paragraph (g) and add paragraph (k) to read as follows:
    § 570.200 General policies.

    (g) Limitation on planning and administrative costs—(1) Origin year grant expenditure test. For origin year 2015 grants and subsequent grants, no more than 20 percent of any origin year grant shall be expended for planning and program administrative costs, as defined in §§ 570.205 and 570.206, respectively. Expenditures of program income for planning and program administrative costs are excluded from this calculation.

    (2) Program year obligation test. For all grants and recipients subject to subpart D, the amount of CDBG funds obligated during each program year for planning plus administrative costs, as defined in §§ 570.205 and 570.206, respectively, shall be limited to an amount no greater than 20 percent of the sum of the grant made for that program year (if any) plus the program income received by the recipient and its subrecipients (if any) during that program year. For origin year 2015 grants and subsequent grants, recipients must apply this test consistent with paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

    (3) Funds from a grant of any origin year may be used to pay planning and program administrative costs associated with any grant of any origin year.

    (k) Any unexpended CDBG origin year grant funds in the United States Treasury account on September 30 of the fifth Federal fiscal year after the end of the origin year grant's period of availability for obligation by HUD will be canceled. HUD may require an earlier expenditure and draw down deadline under a grant agreement.

    [§ 570.201 Amended]
    9. Amend § 570.201 as follows: a. In paragraph (e)(1), add “nonentitlement CDBG grants in Hawaii, and for recipients of insular area funds under section 106 of the Act,” following “subpart D of this part,” both times such language appears; and b. In paragraph (e)(2), remove “Federal fiscal year” and add in its place “origin year”.
    [§ 570.206 Amended]
    10. Amend § 570.206 as follows: a. In the introductory text, add “program” after “reasonable”; and b. In paragraph (a)(1) introductory text, remove “(or the grant period for grants under subpart F)”.
    [§ 570.410 Amended]
    11. Amend § 570.410 as follows: a. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), remove “federal fiscal year” and add in its place “origin year”; and b. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii), remove “(e)(3)” and add in its place “(e)(2)”, and remove “federal fiscal year” and add in its place “origin year”. 12. In § 570.480, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 570.480 General.

    (h) Any unexpended CDBG origin year grant funds in the United States Treasury account on September 30 of the fifth Federal fiscal year after the end of the origin year grant's period of availability for obligation by HUD will be canceled. HUD may require an earlier expenditure and draw down deadline under a grant agreement.

    13. In § 570.481, revise paragraph (a)(2) and add paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 570.481 Definitions.

    (a) * * *

    (2) CDBG funds means Community Development Block Grant funds, in the form of grants under this subpart including any reimbursements, program income, and loans guaranteed under section 108 of the Act.

    (3) Origin year means the specific Federal fiscal year during which the annual grant funds were appropriated.

    14. In § 570.485, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 570.485 Making of grants.

    (d) Specific conditions.—HUD may impose additional specific award conditions on States in accordance with 2 CFR 200.207.

    15. Amend § 570.489 as follows: a. Capitalize the words “state” and “state's” each time they appear; and b. In § 570.489, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (v) and (a)(2) and (3), paragraphs (e)(3) introductory text, (e)(3)(i) and (ii), and paragraph (g) and add paragraph (o) to read as follows:
    § 570.489 Program administrative requirements.

    (a) Administrative and planning costs.—(1) State administrative and technical assistance costs. (i) The State is responsible for the administration of all CDBG funds. The State may use CDBG funds not to exceed $100,000, plus 50 percent of administrative expenses incurred in excess of $100,000. Amounts of CDBG funds used to pay administrative expenses in excess of $100,000 shall not, subject to paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, exceed the sum of 3 percent of the State's annual grant; 3 percent of program income received by units of general local government during each program year, regardless of the origin year in which the State grant funds that generate the program income were appropriated (whether retained by units of general local government or paid to the State); and 3 percent of funds reallocated by HUD to the State.

    (ii) To pay the costs of providing technical assistance to local governments and nonprofit program recipients, a State may, subject to paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, use CDBG funds received on or after January 23, 2004, in an amount not to exceed the sum of 3 percent of its annual grant; 3 percent of program income received by units of general local government during each program year, regardless of the origin year in which the State grant funds that generate the program income were appropriated (whether retained by units of general local government or paid to the State); and 3 percent of funds reallocated by HUD to the State during each program year.

    (iii) The amount of CDBG funds used to pay the sum of administrative costs in excess of $100,000 paid pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section and technical assistance costs paid pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section must not exceed the sum of 3 percent of the State's annual grant; 3 percent of program income received by units of general local government during each program year, regardless of the origin year in which the State grant funds that generate the program income were appropriated (whether retained by the unit of general local government or paid to the State); and 3 percent of funds reallocated by HUD to the state.

    (v) In regard to its administrative costs, for grants before origin year 2015, the State has the option of selecting its approach for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For grants beginning with origin year 2015 grants and subsequent grants, the State must use the approach in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(A) of this section. Any State whose matching cost contributions toward State administrative expense matching requirements are in arrears must bring matching cost contributions up to the level of CDBG funds expended for such costs. A State grant may not be closed out if the State's matching cost contribution is not at least equal to the amount of CDBG funds in excess of $100,000 expended for administration. The two approaches for demonstrating compliance with this paragraph (a)(1) are:

    (A) Year-to-year tracking and limitation on drawdown of funds. The State will calculate the maximum allowable amount of CDBG funds that may be used for State administrative expenses from the sum of each origin year grant, program income received during that associated program year and reallocations by HUD to the State during that associated program year. The State will draw down amounts of those funds only upon its own expenditure of an equal or greater amount of matching funds from its own resources after the expenditure of the initial $100,000 for State administrative expenses. The State will be considered to be in compliance with the applicable requirements if the actual amount of CDBG funds spent on State administrative expenses does not exceed the maximum allowable amount, and if the amount of matching funds that the state has expended for that grant year is equal to or greater than the amount of CDBG funds in excess of $100,000 spent during that same grant year. Under this approach, the State must demonstrate that it has paid from its own funds at least 50 percent of its administrative expenses in excess of $100,000 by the closeout of each grant.

    (B) Cumulative accounting of administrative costs incurred by the State since its assumption of the CDBG program for grants before origin year 2015. Under this approach, the State will identify, for each grant it has received, the CDBG funds eligible to be used for State administrative expenses, as well as the minimum amount of matching funds that the State is required to contribute. The amounts will then be aggregated for all grants received. The State must keep records demonstrating the actual amount of CDBG funds from each grant received that was used for State administrative expenses, as well as matching amounts that were contributed by the State. The State will be considered to be in compliance with the applicable requirements if the aggregate of the actual amounts of CDBG funds spent on State administrative expenses does not exceed the aggregate maximum allowable amount and if the aggregate amount of matching funds that the State has expended is equal to or greater than the aggregate amount of CDBG funds in excess of $100,000 (for each annual grant within the subject period) spent on administrative expenses during its 3- to 5-year Consolidated Planning period. If the State grant for any grant year within the 3- to 5-year period has been closed out, the aggregate amount of CDBG funds spent on State administrative expenses, the aggregate maximum allowable amount, the aggregate matching funds expended, and the aggregate amount of CDBG funds in excess of $100,000 (for each annual grant within the subject period) will be reduced by amounts attributable to the grant year for which the State grant has been closed out.

    (2) The State may not charge fees of any entity for processing or considering any application for CDBG funds, or for carrying out its responsibilities under this subpart.

    (3)(i) Administrative costs are those described at § 570.489(a)(1) for states and, for units of general local government, are those described at sections 105(a)(12) and (a)(13) of the Act.

    (ii) For grants before origin year 2015, the combined expenditures by the State and its funded units of general local government for planning, management, and administrative costs shall not exceed 20 percent of the aggregate amount of the origin year grant, any origin year grant funds reallocated by HUD to the State, and the amount of any program income received during the program year.

    (iii) For origin year 2015 grants and subsequent grants, no more than 20 percent of any annual grant (excluding program income) shall be expended by the State and its funded units of general local government for planning, management, and administrative costs. In addition, the combined expenditures by the States and its unit of general local government for planning, management, and administrative costs shall not exceed 20 percent of any origin year grant funds reallocated by HUD to the State.

    (iv) Funds from a grant of any origin year may be used to pay planning and program administrative costs associated with any grant of any origin year.

    (e) * * *

    (3) The State may permit the unit of general local government which receives or will receive program income to retain it, subject to the requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, or may require the unit of general local government to pay the program income to the State. The State, however, must permit the unit of general local government to retain the program income if it will be used to continue the activity from which it was derived. The State will determine when an activity is being continued.

    (i) Program income paid to the State. Except as described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, the State may require the unit of general local government that receives or will receive program income to return the program income to the State. Program income that is paid to the State is treated as additional CDBG funds subject to the requirements of this subpart. Except for program income retained and used by the State for administrative costs or technical assistance under paragraph (a) of this section, program income paid to the State must be distributed to units of general local government in accordance with the method of distribution in the action plan under 24 CFR 91.320(k)(1)(i) that is in effect at the time the program income is distributed. To the maximum extent feasible, the State must distribute program income before it makes additional withdrawals from the United States Treasury, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section.

    (ii) Program income retained by a unit of general local government. A State may permit a unit of general local government that receives or will receive program income to retain it. Alternatively, a State may require that the unit of general local government pay any such income to the State unless the exception in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) of this section applies.

    (A) A State must permit the unit of general local government to retain the program income if the program income will be used to continue the activity from which it was derived. A State will determine when an activity is being continued. In making such a determination, a State may consider whether the unit of general local government is or will be unable to comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this section or other requirements of this part, and the extent to which the program income is unlikely to be applied to continue the activity within the reasonably near future. When a State determines that the program income will be applied to continue the activity from which it was derived, but the amount of program income held by the unit of general local government exceeds projected cash needs for the reasonably near future, the State may require the local government to return all or part of the program income to the State until such time as it is needed by the unit of general local government. When a State determines that a unit of local government is not likely to apply any significant amount of program income to continue the activity within a reasonable amount of time, or that it is not likely to apply the program income in accordance with applicable requirements, the State may require the unit of general local government to return all of the program income to the State for disbursement to other units of local government. A State that intends to require units of general local government to return program income in accordance with this paragraph must describe its approach in the State's action plan required under 24 CFR 91.320 of this title or in a substantial amendment if the State intends to implement this option after the action plan is submitted to and approved by HUD.

    (B) Program income that is received and retained by the unit of general local government is treated as additional CDBG funds and is subject to all applicable requirements of this subpart, regardless of whether the activity that generated the program income has been closed out. If the grant between the State and the unit of general local government that generated the program income is still open when it is generated, program income permitted to be retained will be considered part of the unit of general local government's grant that generated the program income. If the grant between the State and the unit of general local government is closed out, program income permitted to be retained will be considered to be part of the unit of general local government's most recently awarded open grant. If the unit of general local government has no open grants with the State, the program income retained by the unit of general local government will be counted as part of the State's program year in which the program income was received. A State must employ one or more of the following methods to ensure that units of general local government comply with applicable program income requirements:

    (1) Maintaining contractual relationships with units of general local government for the duration of the existence of the program income;

    (2) Closing out the underlying activity, but requiring as a condition of closeout that the unit of general local government obtain advance State approval of either a unit of general local government's plan for the use of program income or of each use of program income by grant recipients via regularly occurring reports and requests for approval;

    (3) Closing out the underlying activity, but requiring as a condition of closeout that the unit of general local government report to the State when new program income is received; or

    (4) With prior HUD approval, other approaches that demonstrate that the State will ensure compliance with the requirements of this subpart by units of general local government.

    (g) Procurement. When procuring property or services to be paid for in whole or in part with CDBG funds, the State shall follow its procurement policies and procedures. The State shall establish requirements for procurement policies and procedures for units of general local government, based on full and open competition. Methods of procurement (e.g., small purchase, sealed bids/formal advertising, competitive proposals, and noncompetitive proposals) and their applicability shall be specified by the State. Cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction costs methods of contracting shall not be used. The policies and procedures shall also include standards of conduct governing employees engaged in the award or administration of contracts. (Other conflicts of interest are covered by § 570.489(h).) The State shall ensure that all purchase orders and contracts include any clauses required by Federal statutes, Executive orders, and implementing regulations. The State shall make subrecipient and contractor determinations in accordance with the standards in 2 CFR 200.330.

    (o) Grant Closeout.—HUD will close grants to States in accordance with the grant closeout requirements of 2 CFR 200.343.

    [§ 570.503 Amended]
    16. In § 570.503, amend paragraph (b) introductory text by removing the second occurrence of the word “following”. 17. Amend § 570.506 as follows: a. In paragraph (d), add “§ 570.503(b)(7) or” before “§ 570.505”; and b. Revise paragraph (h).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 570.506 Records to be maintained.

    (h) Financial records, in accordance with the applicable requirements listed in § 570.502, including source documentation for entities not subject to 2 CFR part 200. Grantees shall maintain evidence to support how the CDBG funds provided to such entities are expended. Such documentation must include, to the extent applicable, invoices, schedules containing comparisons of budgeted amounts and actual expenditures, construction progress schedules signed by appropriate parties (e.g., general contractor and/or a project architect), and/or other documentation appropriate to the nature of the activity. Grantee records pertaining to obligations, expenditures, and drawdowns must be able to relate financial transactions to either a specific origin year grant or to program income received during a specific program year.

    18. Amend § 570.509 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a); b. Remove paragraph (b)(1) and redesignate paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) as paragraphs (b)(1) through (3), respectively; c. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2), add a sentence at the end; d. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3), remove“24 CFR part 44” and add in its place “HUD regulations implementing the Single Audit Act requirements at 2 CFR part 200”; e. Remove paragraph (c)(3) and redesignate paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (c)(3) and (4), respectively; and f. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (c)(3).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 570.509 Grant closeout procedures.

    (a) Criteria for closeout. HUD may make grant closeout determinations for individual grants or multiple grants simultaneously. A grant will be closed out when HUD determines, in consultation with the recipient, that the following criteria have been met:

    (1) All costs to be paid with CDBG funds from a given origin year's grant have been expended and drawn down, with the exception of closeout costs (e.g., audit costs) and costs resulting from contingent liabilities described in the closeout agreement pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. Contingent liabilities include, but are not limited to, third-party claims against the recipient, as well as related administrative costs.

    (2) All activities for which funds were expended from the origin year grant are physically completed, are eligible, have met a national objective under § 570.208, and the grantee has reported on all accomplishments resulting from the activity.

    (3) A final performance and expenditure report for completed activities has been submitted to HUD pursuant to 24 CFR 91.520, and HUD has determined the plan is satisfactory.

    (4) All program income received by the grantee during the grantee program year associated with the origin year grant has been expended, or identified in a more recent program year's Action Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR 91.220(l).

    (5) For origin year 2015 grants and subsequent grants, the grantee has expended no more than 20 percent of the origin year grant for planning and program administrative costs, under § 570.200(g)(1).

    (6) Other responsibilities of the recipient under the grant agreement and applicable laws and regulations appear to have been carried out satisfactorily or there is no further Federal interest in keeping the grant agreement open for the purpose of securing performance.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * * Any funds which have exceeded the statutory time limit on the use of funds will be recaptured by the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 24 CFR 570.200(k).

    (c) * * *

    (3) Description of the recipient's responsibility after closeout for:

    (i) Compliance with all program requirements, certifications, and assurances in using any remaining CDBG funds available for closeout costs and contingent liabilities;

    (ii) Use of real property assisted with CDBG funds in accordance with the principles described in §§ 570.503(b)(7) and 570.505;

    (iii) Compliance with requirements governing future program income or receivables generated from activities funded from the origin year grant, as described in § 570.504(b)(4) and (5);

    (iv) Ensuring that flood insurance coverage for affected property owners is maintained for the mandatory period; and

    19. In § 570.513, amend paragraph (b)(7) by adding after the first sentence a new second sentence to read as follows:
    § 570.513 Lump sum drawdown for financing of property rehabilitation activities.

    (b) * * *

    (7) * * * Any program income which will be governed by a new agreement must be identified in the current program year Action Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR 91.220(l). * * *

    Dated: September 18, 2015. Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Approved on: October 13, 2015. Nani A. Coloretti, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28700 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100.701 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0955] Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Seventh Coast Guard District AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the regulation pertaining to the Savannah Harbor Boat Parade of Lights and Fireworks taking place on November 28, 2015. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Savannah Harbor Boat Parade of Lights and Fireworks. During the enforcement period, the special local regulation establishes a regulated area which will prohibit all people and vessels from entering. No person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the area without permission of the Captain of the Port Savannah, or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulation in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1 will be enforced from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. on November 28, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email MST1 Cliffton Hendry, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 912-652-4353, extension 243, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Savannah Parade of Lights and Fireworks in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1 from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. on November 28, 2015.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.701 no person or vessel may enter the regulated area, unless they receive permission to do so from the Captain of the Port Savannah, or a designated representative. This temporary rule creates a regulated area that will encompass the entire Savannah River in Savannah, GA beginning at the Talmadge Bridge near River Street, coordinates 32°05′20″ N., 081°05′56.3″ W., and proceeding down river to a line drawn at 146 degrees true from day board 62, approximate coordinates are: 32°04′48.7″ N., 081°04′47.9″ W.

    Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of festival participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    Dated: October 26, 2015. A.M. Beach, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Savannah.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28792 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0648; FRL-9936-86-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Nonattainment New Source Review Permitting State Implementation Plan Revisions for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. These revisions provide updates to the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County major Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permit program. The EPA is proposing this action under section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0648. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Erica Le Doux, (214) 665-7265, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our August 27, 2015 proposal (80 FR 52003). In that notice, we proposed to approve updates to the New Mexico SIP for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting program at 20.11.60 NMAC as submitted on August 16, 2010 and July 26, 2013. These revisions were submitted to address the following federal requirements for NNSR:

    • Implementation of the NSR Program for PM2.5 (73 FR 28321);

    • PSD for PM2.5-Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) (75 FR 64864);

    • Implementation of the 8-hour Ozone (O3) NAAQS-Phase; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to NSR and PSD as They Apply to Carbon Monoxide (CO), PM and O3 NAAQS (70 FR 71612);

    • PSD and NNSR: Reasonable Possibility in Recordkeeping (72 FR 72607); and PSD and NNSR: Reconsideration of Inclusion of Fugitive Rule (76 FR 17548).

    We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.

    II. Final Action

    We are approving severable portions of SIP submittals for the New Mexico SIP for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County NNSR permitting program submitted on August 16, 2010, and July 26, 2013. The EPA has determined that the submitted rules were adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA and are consistent with our regulations and policies regarding NNSR permitting. Therefore, we are taking final action under section 110 and part D of the CAA to approve the following as revisions to the New Mexico SIP for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County:

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.1 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted on August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.2 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.6 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010, and adopted on April 10, 2013 and submitted on July 26, 2013;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.7 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010, and adopted on April 10, 2013 and submitted on July 26, 2013;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.12 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010, and adopted on April 10, 2013 and submitted on July 26, 2013;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.13 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010, and adopted on April 10, 2013 and submitted on July 26, 2013;

    • New 20.11.60.14 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • New 20.11.60.15 NMAC as adopted July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010, and revisions adopted on April 10, 2013 and submitted on July 26, 2013;

    • New 20.11.60.16 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.17 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.18 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • New 20.11.60.19 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • New 20.11.60.20 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.21 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.22 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.23 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.24 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.25 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010;

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.26 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010; and

    • Revisions to 20.11.60.27 NMAC as adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted August 16, 2010.

    The EPA finds that the August 16, 2010 and July 26, 2013, submittals together address all required NNSR elements for the implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County NNSR program does not include regulation of VOCs and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors. However, section 189(e) of the Act requires regulation of PM2.5 precursors that significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels “which exceed the standard in the area” and PM2.5 levels in the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County do not currently exceed the standard. In the event that an area is designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS or any other future PM2.5 NAAQS, New Mexico for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County will have a deadline under section 189(a)(2) of the CAA to make a submission addressing the statutory requirements as to that area, including the requirements in section 189(e) that apply to the regulation of PM2.5 precursors.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the New Mexico for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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, the 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 January 11, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed 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).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 29, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart GG—New Mexico
    2. In § 52.1620(c) the second table titled “EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations” is amended by revising the entry for “Part 60 (20.11.60)” to read as follows:
    § 52.1620 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations State citation Title/subject State
  • approval/
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environment Protection, Chapter 11—Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Board *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part 60 (20.11.60) Permitting in Nonattainment Areas 4/10/2013 11/12/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation]. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-28648 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0289; FRL-9936-65-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the District's reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under the 1997 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. This submitted SIP revision also contains ICAPCD's negative declarations for certain volatile organic compound (VOC) source categories. We are approving this document under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0289 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213) 244-1810, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. EPA Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action

    On September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52710), the EPA proposed to approve the following document into the California SIP.

    Local agency Document Adopted Submitted ICAPCD Final 2009 Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan (“2009 RACT SIP”) 07/13/10 12/21/10

    ICAPCD's submittal also included the following negative declarations which the District certified that it had no sources subject to the control techniques guidelines (CTG) documents.

    CTG Source category CTG Reference document Aerospace EPA-453/R-97-004, Aerospace CTG and MACT. Automobile and Light-duty Trucks, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA-453/R-08-006, Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. Cans and Coils, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing EPA-453/R-08-004, Controls Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing. Flat Wood Paneling, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-78-032, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. EPA-453/R-06-004, Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings. Flexible Packing Printing EPA-453/R-06-003, Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing. Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography EPA-450/2-78-033, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume III: Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography. Large Appliances, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-034, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. EPA-453/R-07-004, Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners EPA-450/3-82-009, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing EPA-453/R-06-002, Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing. Magnet Wire, Surface Coating for Insulation of EPA-450/2-77-033, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. Metal Furniture Coatings EPA-450/2-77-032, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. EPA-453/R-07-005, Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings EPA-453/R-08-003, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-78-015, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives EPA-453/R-08-005, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives. Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants Equipment Leaks EPA-450/2-83-007, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. Paper, Film and Foil Coatings EPA-453R-07-003, Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film and Foil Coatings. Petroleum Refineries EPA-450/2-77-025, Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. EPA-450/2-78-036, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. Pharmaceutical Products EPA-450/2-78-029, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products. Pneumatic Rubber Tires, Manufacture of EPA-450/2-78-030, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. Polyester Resin EPA-450/3-83-008, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. EPA-450/3-83-006, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. Shipbuilding/Repair EPA-453/R-94-032, Shipbuilding/Repair. Synthetic Organic Chemical EPA-450/3-84-015, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. EPA-450/4-91-031, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Wood Furniture EPA-453/R-96-007, Wood Furniture.

    We proposed to approve ICAPCD's 2009 RACT SIP and negative declarations because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the submitted document and our evaluation.

    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

    III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this document, including the negative declarations, into the California SIP.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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, the 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 Order 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, this approved action 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, the rules do 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. The 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 January 11, 2016. 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)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 19, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding reserved paragraph (c)(463) and adding paragraph (c)(464) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (463) [Reserved]

    (464) The following plan was submitted on December 21, 2010 by the Governor's designee.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (ii) Additional Material.

    (A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Final 2009 Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan (“2009 RACT SIP”) as adopted on July 13, 2010.

    3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as follows:
    § 52.222 Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *

    (12) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.

    (i)

    CTG Source category Negative declaration CTG reference document Aerospace EPA-453/R-97-004, Aerospace CTG and MACT. Automobile and Light-duty Trucks, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA-453/R-08-006, Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. Cans and Coils, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing EPA-453/R-08-004, Controls Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing. Flat Wood Paneling, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-78-032, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. EPA-453/R-06-004, Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings. Flexible Packing Printing EPA-453/R-06-003, Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing. Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography EPA-450/2-78-033, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume III: Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography. Large Appliances, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-034, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. EPA-453/R-07-004, Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners EPA-450/3-82-009, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing EPA-453/R-06-002, Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing. Magnet Wire, Surface Coating for Insulation of EPA-450/2-77-033, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. Metal Furniture Coatings EPA-450/2-77-032, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. EPA-453/R-07-005, Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings EPA-453/R-08-003, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-78-015, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives EPA-453/R-08-005, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives. Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants Equipment Leaks EPA-450/2-83-007, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. Paper, Film and Foil Coatings EPA-453R-07-003, Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film and Foil Coatings. Petroleum Refineries EPA-450/2-77-025, Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. EPA-450/2-78-036, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. Pharmaceutical Products EPA-450/2-78-029, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products. Pneumatic Rubber Tires, Manufacture of EPA-450/2-78-030, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. Polyester Resin EPA-450/3-83-008, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. EPA-450/3-83-006, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. Shipbuilding/Repair EPA-453/R-94-032, Shipbuilding/Repair. Synthetic Organic Chemical EPA-450/3-84-015, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. EPA-450/4-91-031, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Wood Furniture EPA-453/R-96-007, Wood Furniture.

    (ii) Submitted on December 21, 2010 and adopted on July 13, 2010.

    [FR Doc. 2015-28756 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0257; FRL-9934-89-Region 9] Approval of Air Plans; California; Multiple Districts; Prevention of Significant Deterioration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for five California air districts. The State of California (State) is required by the CAA to adopt and implement a SIP-approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. This SIP revision incorporates PSD rules for five local California air districts into the California SIP to establish a PSD permit program for pre-construction review of certain new and modified major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas located within these districts. The local air districts with PSD rules that are the subject of this action are the Feather River Air Quality Management District (Feather River or FRAQMD), Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (Great Basin or GBUAPCD), Butte County Air Quality Management District (Butte or BCAQMD), Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (Santa Barbara or SBAPCD), and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (San Luis Obispo or SLOAPCD)—collectively, the Districts.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0257 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Some docket materials, however, may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., voluminous records, maps, copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Beckham, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3811, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background II. The EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision A. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Action B. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses C. What action is the EPA finalizing? III. The EPA's Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to adopt and submit regulations for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the primary and secondary NAAQS. Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the Act require such state plans to meet the applicable requirements of section 165 relating to a pre-construction permit program for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection. The rules reviewed for this action are intended to implement a pre-construction PSD permit program as required by section 165 of the CAA for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in attainment and unclassifiable areas. Because the State does not currently have a SIP-approved PSD program within the Districts, the EPA is currently the PSD permitting authority within these Districts under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Approval of the Districts' PSD rules into the SIP will transfer PSD permitting authority from the EPA to the Districts. The EPA will then assume the role of overseeing the Districts' PSD permitting programs, as intended by the CAA.

    For a more detailed discussion of the District's rules, please refer to our proposed approval. See 80 FR 44001 (July 24, 2015).

    II. The EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision A. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Action

    On July 24, 2015 (80 FR 44001), the EPA proposed approval of the Districts' PSD rules into the California SIP. We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they satisfied the applicable CAA requirements. Our proposed rule and related Technical Support document (TSD) contain more information about the basis for this rulemaking and our evaluation of the pertinent State SIP revision submittals.

    B. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

    EPA's proposed approval action for this SIP revision provided a 30-day public comment period. We did not receive any comments on our proposed action.

    C. What action is the EPA finalizing?

    The EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for each District's portion of the California SIP, consistent with our proposed approval action. The SIP revision will be codified in 40 CFR 52.220 by incorporating by reference the rules listed in Table 1. On June 1, 2015, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested the withdrawal from its earlier SIP submittals of the portion of each District PSD rule that incorporates by reference a particular federal PSD rule provision—40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v). As such, our approval of these local District rules does not include the rules' incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v).

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Local
  • agency
  • Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
    FRAQMD 10.10 Prevention of Significant Deterioration 8/1/2011 4/22/2013 GBUAPCD 221 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major Modifications in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas 9/5/2012 2/6/2013 BCAQMD 1107 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits 6/28/2012 2/6/2013 SBAPCD 810 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 6/20/2013 2/10/2014 SLOAPCD 220 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration 1/22/2014 5/13/2014

    In addition, letters from the Districts to the EPA providing certain clarifications regarding their PSD rules and the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 will be included as additional material in 40 CFR 52.220. We are also revising 40 CFR 52.270 to reflect that upon the effective date of this final rule, each District will have a SIP-approved PSD program and will no longer be subject to the FIP for the PSD program. This SIP revision provides a federally approved and enforceable mechanism for each of the Districts to issue pre-construction PSD permits for certain new and modified major stationary sources subject to PSD review within the relevant District.

    As discussed in the EPA's proposal, with the exception of San Luis Obispo, the Districts requested approval to exercise their authority to administer the PSD program with respect to those sources located in the relevant District that have existing PSD permits issued by the EPA, including authority to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such permits (e.g., modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature), and authority to enforce such permits. Pursuant to the criteria in section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA, we have determined that the four Districts have the authority, personnel, and funding to implement the PSD program within the relevant District for existing EPA-issued permits and therefore are transferring authority for such permits to the four Districts concurrent with the effective date of the EPA's approval of the Districts' PSD program into the SIP. The EPA intends to provide a copy of each such permit to the relevant District.

    III. The EPA's Final Action

    The EPA is approving five PSD rules submitted by CARB to establish a PSD permit program for pre-construction review of certain new and modified major stationary sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas. We are approving these rules as a revision to the California SIP pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act. Specifically, we are approving the rules listed in Table 1, except for the portion of each rule that incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), which was subsequently withdrawn from CARB's request for SIP approval, as explained in more detail in our proposal. See 80 FR at 44003-04. Our determination is based, in part, on the clarifications provided by the Districts related to the implementation of the PSD program, including the clarifications related to Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and the Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMC) for PM2.5, in letters dated November 13, 2014, November 25, 2014, December 16, 2014, December 18, 2014, April 8, 2015, and April 15, 2015. See 80 FR at 44002-03. We are including these clarification letters as additional material in 40 CFR 52.220.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    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 rules listed in Table 1, with the exception of certain provisions incorporated into those rules as discussed in Section III. 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).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the 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 (Public Law 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 CAA; and

    • does not provide the 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 the 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. The 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 January 11, 2016. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 9, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(428)(i)(E) and (F), (c)(428)(ii), (c)(429)(i)(D), (c)(429)(ii), (c)(441)(i)(F), (c)(441)(ii), (c)(442)(i)(H), and (c)(442)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (428) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (E) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Rule 221, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major Modifications in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas,” except for the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) into sections C. and D3, adopted on September 5, 2012.

    (F) Butte County Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Rule 1107, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits,” except for the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) into sections 3 and 4.1, adopted on June 28, 2012.

    (ii) Additional materials.

    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Letter dated November 13, 2014 from Theodore D. Schade, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 221 and 40 CFR 51.166.

    (2) Letter dated April 15, 2015, from Phillip L. Kiddoo, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, regarding additional clarifications of District Rule 221 and 40 CFR 51.166.

    (B) Butte County Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Letter dated November 13, 2014, from W. James Wagoner, Butte County Air Quality Management District, to Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 1107 and 40 CFR 51.166.

    (2) Letter dated April 8, 2015, from W. James Wagoner, Butte County Air Quality Management District, to Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, regarding additional clarifications of District Rule 1107 and 40 CFR 51.166.

    (429) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (D) Feather River Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Rule 10.10, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” except for the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) into sections B and F.1, adopted on August 1, 2011.

    (ii) Additional materials.

    (A) Feather River Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Letter dated December 18, 2014 from Christopher D. Brown, Feather River Air Quality Management District, to Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 10.10 and 40 CFR 51.166.

    (441) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (F) San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Rule 220, “Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” except for the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) into sections B and D.3., amended on January 22, 2014.

    (ii) Additional materials.

    (A) San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Letter dated December 16, 2014 from Larry R. Allen, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 220 and 40 CFR 51.166.

    (442) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (H) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Rule 810, “Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD),” except for the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) into sections B and D.3., amended on June 20, 2013.

    (ii) Additional materials.

    (A) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Letter dated November 25, 2014 from David Van Mullem, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 810 and 40 CFR 51.166.

    3. Section 52.270 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(11) through (15) to read as follows:
    § 52.270 Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (b) * * *

    (11) The PSD program for the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD), as incorporated by reference in § 52.220(c)(428), is approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to § 52.21 to sources located in the GBUAPCD, this approval includes the authority for the GBUAPCD to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent permit actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such permits.

    (12) The PSD program for the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD), as incorporated by reference in § 52.220(c)(428), is approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to § 52.21 to sources located in the BCAQMD, this approval includes the authority for the BCAQMD to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent permit actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such permits.

    (13) The PSD program for the Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), as incorporated by reference in § 52.220(c)(429), is approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to § 52.21 to sources located in the FRAQMD, this approval includes the authority for the FRAQMD to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent permit actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such permits.

    (14) The PSD program for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), as incorporated by reference in § 52.220(c)(441), is approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act.

    (15) The PSD program for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD), as incorporated by reference in § 52.220(c)(442), is approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to § 52.21 to sources located in the SBAPCD, this approval includes the authority for the SBAPCD to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent permit actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such permits.

    [FR Doc. 2015-28624 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 97 [FRL-9936-99-OAR] Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance Year AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notice of data availability (NODA).

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of emission allowance allocations to certain units under the new unit set-aside (NUSA) provisions of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) federal implementation plans (FIPs). EPA has completed final calculations for the second round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2015 compliance year of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. EPA has posted spreadsheets showing the second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances to new units as well as the allocations to existing units of the remaining CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances not allocated to new units in either round of the 2015 NUSA allocation process. EPA will record the allocated CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances in sources' Allowance Management System (AMS) accounts by November 16, 2015.1

    1 Under 40 CFR 97.521(i), the deadline for EPA recordation of these allowances allocated under 40 CFR 97.511 and 97.512 for 2015 is November 15, 2015. However, since November 15, 2015 falls on a Sunday, under 40 CFR 97.507(c), the deadline for EPA recordation of allocations is the next business day, which is Monday, November 16, 2015.

    DATES:

    November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or [email protected] or to Kenon Smith at (202) 343-9164 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the CSAPR FIPs, a portion of each state budget for each of the four CSAPR trading programs is reserved as a NUSA from which allowances are allocated to eligible units through an annual one- or two-round process. EPA has described the CSAPR NUSA allocation process in three NODAs previously published in the Federal Register (80 FR 30988, June 1, 2015; 80 FR 44882, July 28, 2015; 80 FR 55061, September 14, 2015). In the most recent of these previous NODAs, EPA provided notice of preliminary lists of new units eligible for second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances and provided an opportunity for the public to submit objections.

    EPA received no substantive objections to the preliminary lists of new units eligible for second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances whose availability was announced in the September 14 NODA. The only written objection that EPA received concerned the format of the data rather than the substance. EPA is therefore making second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances to the new units identified on these lists in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 97.512(a)(9) and (12).

    As described in the September 14 NODA, any allowances remaining in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season NUSA for a given state and control period after the second round of NUSA allocations to new units are to be allocated to the existing units in the state according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 97.512(a)(10) and (12). EPA has determined that CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances do remain in the NUSAs for a number of states following completion of second-round 2015 NUSA allocations; accordingly, EPA is allocating these allowances to existing units. The NUSA allowances are generally allocated to the existing units in proportion to the allocations previously made to the existing units under 40 CFR 97.511(a)(1), adjusted for rounding.

    Under 40 CFR 97.512(b)(10), any allowances remaining in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Indian country NUSA for a given state and control period after the second round of Indian country NUSA allocations to new units are added to the NUSA for that state or are made available for allocation by the state pursuant to an approved SIP revision. No new units eligible for allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances from any 2015 Indian country NUSA have been identified, and no state has an approved SIP revision governing allocation of 2015 CSAPR allowances. The Indian country NUSA allowances are therefore being added to the NUSAs for the respective states and are included in the pools of allowances that are being allocated to existing units under 40 CFR 97.512(10) and (12).

    The final unit-by-unit data and allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOX_OS_2nd_Round_Final_Data_New_Units”, and “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOX_OS_2nd_Round_Final_Data_Existing_Units”, available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html.

    Pursuant to CSAPR's allowance recordation timing requirements, the allocated NUSA allowances will be recorded in sources' AMS accounts by November 16, 2015. EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances are subject to potential correction if a unit to which NUSA allowances have been allocated for a given compliance year is not actually an affected unit as of May 1 of the compliance year.2

    2See 40 CFR 97.511(c).

    Authority:

    40 CFR 97.511(b).

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Reid P. Harvey, Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28766 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 RIN 0648-XE261 Fraser River Sockeye and Pink Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Orders AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary orders; inseason orders.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS publishes Fraser River salmon inseason orders to regulate treaty and non-treaty (all citizen) commercial salmon fisheries in U.S. waters. The orders were issued by the Fraser River Panel (Panel) of the Pacific Salmon Commission (Commission) and subsequently approved and issued by NMFS during the 2015 salmon fisheries within the U.S. Fraser River Panel Area. These orders established fishing dates, times, and areas for the gear types of U.S. treaty Indian and all citizen commercial fisheries during the period the Panel exercised jurisdiction over these fisheries.

    DATES:

    The effective dates for the inseason orders are set out in this document under the heading Inseason Orders.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada concerning Pacific Salmon was signed at Ottawa on January 28, 1985, and subsequently was given effect in the United States by the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act (Act) at 16 U.S.C. 3631-3644.

    Under authority of the Act, Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart F, provide a framework for the implementation of certain regulations of the Commission and inseason orders of the Commission's Fraser River Panel for U.S. sockeye and pink salmon fisheries in the Fraser River Panel Area.

    The regulations close the U.S. portion of the Fraser River Panel Area to U.S. sockeye and pink salmon tribal and non-tribal commercial fishing unless opened by Panel orders that are given effect by inseason regulations published by NMFS. During the fishing season, NMFS may issue regulations that establish fishing times and areas consistent with the Commission agreements and inseason orders of the Panel. Such orders must be consistent with domestic legal obligations and are issued by the Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS. Official notification of these inseason actions is provided by two telephone hotline numbers described at 50 CFR 300.97(b)(1) and in 80 FR 25611 (May 5, 2015). The inseason orders are published in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after they are issued. Due to the frequency with which inseason orders are issued, publication of individual orders is impractical.

    Inseason Orders

    The following inseason orders were adopted by the Panel and issued for U.S. fisheries by NMFS during the 2015 fishing season. Each of the following inseason actions was effective upon announcement on telephone hotline numbers as specified at 50 CFR 300.97(b)(1) and in 80 FR 25611 (May 5, 2015); those dates and times are listed herein. The times listed are local times, and the areas designated are Puget Sound Management and Catch Reporting Areas as defined in the Washington State Administrative Code at Chapter 220-22.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-01: Issued 12:15 p.m., July 24, 2015 Treaty Indian Fishery

    Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Open to drift gillnets 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, July 25, 2015, to 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, July 29, 2015.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-02: Issued 11:50 a.m., July 28, 2015 Treaty Indian Fishery

    Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Extend for drift gillnets from 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, July 29, 2015, through 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 1, 2015.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-03: Issued 12:30 p.m., July 31, 2015 Treaty Indian Fishery

    Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Extend for drift gillnets from 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 1, 2015, through 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, August 5, 2015.

    Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open for net fishing from 5 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Saturday, August 1, 2015, and from 5 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Monday, August 3, 2015.

    All Citizen Fishery

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to reefnets from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday, August 1, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to purse seines from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Sunday, August 2, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to drift gillnets from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., Sunday, August 2, 2015.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-04: Issued 12:30 p.m., August 4, 2015 Treaty Indian Fishery

    Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Extend for drift gillnets from 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, August 5, 2015, to 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 8, 2015.

    Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open for net fishing from 5 a.m., Thursday, August 6, 2015, to 9 a.m., Friday, August 7, 2015.

    All Citizen Fishery

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to reefnets from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Thursday, August 6, 2015, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Friday, August 7, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to purse seines from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Wednesday, August 5, 2015, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Friday, August 7, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to drift gillnets from 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Wednesday, August 5, 2015, and from 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Friday, August 7, 2015.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-05: Issued 12:30 p.m., August 7, 2015 Treaty Indian Fishery

    Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Extend for drift gillnets from 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 8, 2015, to 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, August 12, 2015.

    Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open for net fishing from 5 a.m., Sunday, August 9, 2015, to 9 a.m., Tuesday, August 11, 2015.

    All Citizen Fishery

    Areas 7 and 7a: Open to reefnets from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday, August 8, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to purse seines from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday, August 8, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to drift gillnets from 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Saturday, August 8, 2015.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-06: Issued 8:30 p.m., August 24, 2015 Treaty Indian Fishery

    Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Open to drift gillnets from 12 p.m. (noon), Tuesday, August 25, 2015, through 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 29, 2015. Sockeye may be retained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes only.

    Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open for net fishing from 5:00 a.m., Thursday, August 27, 2015, through 9:00 a.m., Saturday, August 29, 2015. Sockeye may be retained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes only.

    All Citizen Fishery

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to reefnets, with non-retention of sockeye, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Wednesday, August 26, 2015, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Thursday, August 27, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to purse seines, with non-retention of sockeye, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, August 25, 2015, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Wednesday, August 26, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to drift gillnets, with non-retention of sockeye, from 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Tuesday, August 25, 2015, and 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Wednesday, August 26, 2015.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-07: Issued 12:30 p.m., August 28, 2015 Treaty Indian Fishery

    Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Extend for drift gillnets from 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 29, 2015, through 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, September 2, 2015. Sockeye may be retained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes only.

    Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open for net fishing from 5 a.m., Monday, August 31, 2015, through 9 a.m., Tuesday, September 1, 2015. Sockeye may be retained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes only.

    All Citizen Fishery

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to reefnets, with non-retention of sockeye, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Sunday August 30, 2015, and from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday, August 31, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to purse seines, with non-retention of sockeye, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Sunday, August 30, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to drift gillnets, with non-retention of sockeye, from 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Sunday, August 30, 2015.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-08: Issued 9:45 a.m., August 31, 2015 All Citizen Fishery

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to reefnets, with non-retention of sockeye, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, September 1, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to purse seines, with non-retention of sockeye, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, September 1, 2015.

    Areas 7 and 7A: Open to drift gillnets, with non-retention of sockeye, from 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Tuesday, September 1, 2015.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-09: Issued 11:50 a.m., September 8, 2015 Treaty Indian and All Citizen Fisheries

    Areas 4B, 5, 6, 6C, 7, and 7A, excluding the Apex: Relinquish regulatory control effective 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Tuesday, September 8, 2015. The Apex is those waters north and west of the Area 7A “East Point Line,” defined as a line projected from the low water range marker in Boundary Bay on the U.S./Canada border through the east tip of Point Roberts, WA, to the East Point Light on Saturna Island in the Canadian Province of British Columbia.

    Fraser River Panel Order Number 2015-10: Issued 3 p.m., October 8, 2015 Treaty Indian and All Citizen Fisheries

    Area 7A, the Apex: Relinquish regulatory control in the remaining portion of catch area 7A, referred to as the Apex, effective 11:59 p.m. (midnight), Friday, October 9, 2015.

    Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for the inseason orders to be issued without affording the public prior notice and opportunity for comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for comments is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is impracticable because NMFS has insufficient time to allow for prior notice and opportunity for public comment between the time the stock abundance information is available to determine how much fishing can be allowed and the time the fishery must open and close in order to harvest the appropriate amount of fish while they are available.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), of the inseason orders. A delay in the effective date of the inseason orders would not allow fishers appropriately controlled access to the available fish at that time they are available.

    This action is authorized by 50 CFR 300.97, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 3636(b).

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28673 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 150316270-5270-01] RIN 0648-XE259 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #37 Through #39 AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Modification of fishing seasons; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces three inseason actions in the ocean salmon fisheries. These inseason actions modified the commercial salmon fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to Humboldt South Jetty, CA.

    DATES:

    The effective dates for the inseason actions are set out in this document under the heading Inseason Actions. Comments will be accepted through November 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0001, by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0001, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-6349

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In the 2015 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015), NMFS announced the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, beginning May 1, 2015, and 2016 salmon fisheries opening earlier than May 1, 2016. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions). The state management agencies that participated in the consultations described in this document were: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

    Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: North of Cape Falcon (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). The inseason actions reported in this document affect fisheries north and south of Cape Falcon. Within the south of Cape Falcon area, the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) extends from Humbug Mountain, OR, to Humboldt South Jetty, CA, and is divided at the Oregon/California border into the Oregon KMZ to the north and California KMZ to the south. All times mentioned refer to Pacific daylight time.

    Inseason Actions Inseason Action #37

    Description of action: Inseason action #37 adjusted the remaining coho quota in the commercial salmon fishery from Queets River, WA, to Cape Falcon, OR, on an impact-neutral basis, from mark-selective to non-mark-selective. The adjusted non-mark-selective coho quota was 6,100.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #37 took effect on September 18, 2015, and remained in effect until the end of the commercial salmon fishing season.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to allow for increased access to the coho quota, which had not been fully utilized, while not exceeding the impact limits for protected stocks. The annual management measures (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015) provide for inseason action to modify the regulations that restrict retention of unmarked coho. To accommodate modifying the regulations from a mark-selective to non-mark-selective coho fishery while still achieving management objectives, including not exceeding allowable impacts on constraining stocks, the Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT) calculated the necessary adjustments to the coho quota on an impact-neutral basis for the constraining stocks in the Queets River to Cape Falcon area. In this instance, the constraining stock was Lower Columbia River natural coho. The RA approved the STT's impact-neutral conversion of the remaining recreational mark-selective coho quota to non-mark-selective coho quota. Modification of quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #37 occurred on September 17, 2015. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, WDFW, and ODFW. Council staff was unavailable to participate in the consultation, but was advised of the RA's decision after the consultation concluded.

    Inseason Action #38

    Description of action: Inseason action #38 modified landing and possession limits in the commercial salmon fishery between Queets River and Cape Falcon to allow retention of 80 non-mark-selective coho per vessel per open period. The previous landing limit for coho was 50 marked coho per vessel per open period.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #38 took effect on September 18, 2015, and remained in effect until the end of the commercial salmon fishing season.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to allow for increased access to the coho quota, which had not been fully utilized, while not exceeding the impact limits for protected stocks. The annual management measures (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015) provide for inseason action to modify the regulations that restrict retention of unmarked coho. The RA considered fishery effort, coho catch to date, and the non-mark-selective quota conversion implemented under inseason action #37, and determined that modifying the fishery to allow retention of unmarked coho could be implemented within the allowable impacts on the constraining stock and without exceeding the non-mark-selective coho quota. Inseason action to modify limited retention regulations is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #38 occurred on September 17, 2015. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, WDFW, and ODFW. Council staff was unavailable to participate in the consultation, but was advised of the RA's decision after the consultation concluded.

    Inseason Action #39

    Description of action: Inseason action #39 modified the open period in the commercial salmon fishery in the California KMZ from five days per week to seven days per week.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #39 took effect on September 23, 2015, and remained in effect until the end of the 2015 commercial salmon fishery.

    Reason and authorization for the action: During the preseason planning process, the open period for the commercial salmon fishery in the California KMZ, September 11 through September 30, was set at five days per week (Friday through Tuesday), to manage landings in this quota-based fishery. The RA considered fishery effort and Chinook landings to date, both of which were very low due to unfishable weather conditions and lack of productive fishing, and determined that allowing the fishery to remain open seven days per week would provide access to remaining Chinook quota without risk of exceeding the quota for the season. Modification of quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #39 occurred on September 21, 2015. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, Council, CDFW, and ODFW.

    All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2015 ocean salmon fisheries and 2016 salmon fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2016 (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015) and as modified by prior inseason actions.

    The RA determined that the best available information indicated that coho and Chinook salmon catch to date and fishery effort supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

    Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015), the West Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (Salmon FMP), and regulations implementing the Salmon FMP, 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook salmon catch and effort assessments and projections were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information, ensuring that conservation objectives and ESA consultation standards are not exceeded. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the Salmon FMP and the current management measures.

    These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28674 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 218 Thursday, November 12, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027] RIN 1904-AD31 Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of data availability (NODA).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the commercial prerinse spray valve (CPSV) energy conservation standards rulemaking on July 9, 2015. 80 FR 39486. In response to comments on the NOPR, DOE has revised its analyses. This NODA announces the availability of those updated analyses and results, and give interested parties an opportunity to comment and submit additional data to support DOE's CPSV rulemaking. At this time, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation standard for commercial prerinse spray valves. The NODA analysis is publically available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NODA submitted no later than November 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027. The regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all documents in the docket, including public comments.

    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: [email protected]

    Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7935. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves II. Current Status III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by the Department of Energy A. Engineering Analysis 1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the NODA B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis C. National Impact Analysis D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis IV. Results of the Economic Analyses A. Economic Impacts on Consumers B. Economic Impacts on the Nation C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers V. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves

    Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 941-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.2 These products include commercial prerinse spray valves (CPSVs), the subject of this rulemaking.3 EPCA, as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)), and requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to determine whether to amend CPSV standards no later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

    2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).

    3 Because Congress included commercial prerinse spray valves in Part A of Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions of Part A (not the industrial equipment provisions of Part A-1) apply to commercial prerinse spray valves. However, because commercial prerinse spray valves are commonly considered to be commercial equipment, as a matter of administrative convenience and to minimize confusion among interested parties, DOE placed the requirements for commercial prerinse spray valves into subpart O of 10 CFR part 431. [71 FR 71340, 71374 (Dec. 8, 2006)]. Part 431 contains DOE regulations for commercial and industrial equipment.

    DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves on July 9, 2015 (herein known as “the CPSV NOPR”). 80 FR 39486. DOE posted the CPSV NOPR, as well as the complete CPSV NOPR technical support document (TSD), on its Web site.4 The NOPR and associated TSD proposed new CPSV product classes based on spray force, and presented results for the engineering analysis, economic analyses, and proposed standard levels. DOE held a public meeting on July 28, 2015 to present the CPSV NOPR. At the public meeting, and during the comment period, DOE received comments that addressed issues raised in the CPSV NOPR.

    4 The CPSV NOPR notice, CPSV NOPR TSD, and CPSV NOPR analysis public meeting information are available at regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027.

    II. Current Status

    In response to comments DOE received in response to the CPSV NOPR, DOE has revised the analyses presented in the CPSV NOPR. This NODA announces the availability of those updated analyses and results and invites interested parties to submit comments or additional data to support DOE's ongoing CPSV rulemaking.

    The analysis tools described in this notice were developed to support a potential energy conservation standard for commercial prerinse spray valves. At this time, DOE intends to move forward with its traditional regulatory rulemaking activities to develop an energy conservation standard for commercial prerinse spray valves. The provisional analysis presented in today's notice is a step in this process. The final rule will include a TSD, which will contain a detailed written account of the analyses performed in support of the final rule, which will include updates to the analyses made available in this NODA.

    In this NODA, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE may revise the analysis presented in the NODA based on any new or updated information or data it obtains between now and the publication of the final rule for commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any additional data or information that may improve the analysis.

    III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by the Department of Energy

    DOE conducted analyses of commercial prerinse spray valves in the following areas: (1) Engineering, (2) manufacturer impacts, (3) life-cycle cost and payback period, and (4) national impacts. The tools used in preparing these analyses (engineering, life-cycle cost, national impacts, and manufacturer impacts spreadsheets) and their respective results are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027. Each individual spreadsheet includes an introduction describing the various inputs and outputs for the analysis, as well as operation instructions. A brief description of each of these analysis tools is provided below. The key aspects of the present analyses and DOE's updates to the CPSV NOPR analyses are described in the following sections.

    A. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the manufacturer production cost (MPC) and efficiency levels for each product class of commercial prerinse spray valves. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations performed in the other three analysis tools for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the nation.

    In the CPSV NOPR, DOE proposed three product classes that were delineated by spray force. DOE analyzed several efficiency levels of specific flow rates for each product class. DOE received feedback from interested parties opposing the three product class structure and recommending a single product class. (Chicago Faucets, No. 26 at pp. 1-2; PMI, No. 27 at p. 1; Fisher, No. 30 at p. 1; ASAP, NEEA, NRDC, No. 32 at p. 1; PG&E, SCE, SCGC, SDG&E, No. 34 at p. 1-2; AWE, No. 28 at p. 7; and T&S Brass, No. 33 at p. 2)

    DOE is required by EPCA to consider performance-related features that justify different standard levels, such as features affecting customer utility, when establishing or amending energy conservation standards. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In response to comments from interested parties, DOE reviewed the market for commercial prerinse spray valves and available data regarding their typical performance and usage characteristics in different applications.

    DOE market research shows that commercial prerinse spray valves have a range of flow rates, spray forces, and spray shapes. For example, manufacturers market commercial prerinse spray valves at lower flow rates with specific terminology such as “ultra-low-flow” or “low-flow” spray valves, indicating that there are diverse products available to satisfy different consumer needs when selecting commercial prerinse spray valves. Conversely, for commercial prerinse spray valves at higher flow rates, DOE has predominately observed shower-type units. Shower-type units contain multiple orifices, as opposed to more traditional, single-orifice CPSV unit. In the CPSV NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass stated that consumer satisfaction is very high at the upper range of the market flow rate distribution, and that the showerhead-type commercial prerinse spray valves in the upper range of the market flow rate distribution represent the majority of the market and highest level of customer satisfaction because these units prevent splash-back. (T&S, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 42-43) T&S Brass also commented that there are several applications of commercial prerinse spray valves, and all may require different spray forces. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 39) Based on the above information, DOE believes that the CPSV market offers a variety of prerinse spray valves that have different design features and different end-user applications that affect consumer utility.

    Additionally, DOE found a strong linear relationship between spray force and flow rate, indicating that spray force is an important performance related feature that affects consumer utility. The relationship between spray force and flow rate is presented in the accompanying engineering spreadsheet. DOE constructed the flow rate-spray force relationship using data primarily from DOE testing, and supplementary data from DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) WaterSense® program, and Food Service Technology Center (FSTC) reports.5 6 7 Additionally, DOE's research shows that spray force relates to user satisfaction; a WaterSense field study found that low water pressure, or spray force, is a source of user dissatisfaction. WaterSense evaluated 14 commercial prerinse spray valve models and collected 56 consumer satisfaction reviews, of which 9 indicated unsatisfactory performance. Seven of the nine unsatisfactory reviews were attributed, among other factors, to the water pressure, or the user-perceived force of the spray.8 Therefore, DOE concludes that separating commercial prerinse spray valves into product classes based on spray force is justified, because spray force is a performance-related feature that affects consumer utility, and spray force is strongly correlated with flow rate.

    5 DOE compliance certification data for commercial prerinse spray valves available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.

    6 EPA WaterSense program, September 19, 2013. WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting Statement. Version 1.0. http://www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/prsv_final.html.

    7 Food Service Technology Center test data for prerinse spray valves available at www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/.

    8 EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field Study Report, at 24-25 (Mar. 31, 2011) (Available at: www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_study_report_033111v2_508.pdf).

    To determine the number of product classes, DOE tested and analyzed a wide range of CPSV units on the market, spanning multiple manufacturers, flow rates, and spray shapes. Based on DOE's test data and additional market research, DOE found that available CPSV models could be differentiated into three distinct spray force ranges. DOE believes that each spray force range represents a specific CPSV application. This conclusion is supported by comments submitted by T&S Brass to the Framework document, suggesting three product classes: (1) An ultra low-flow commercial prerinse spray valve with a maximum flow rate of 0.8 gallons per minute (gpm), (2) a low-flow commercial prerinse spray valve with flow rates of 0.8 to 1.28 gpm, and (3) a standard commercial prerinse spray valve with flow rates of 1.28 to 1.6 gpm. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) Therefore, in this NODA, DOE maintains the three product classes presented in the CPSV NOPR. However, based on feedback from interested parties, DOE renames the product classes as product class 1, 2, and 3 instead of using the terminology “light-duty”, “standard-duty”, and “heavy-duty,” respectively. As defined, product class 1 provides distinct utility for cleaning delicate glassware and removing loose food particles from dishware, product class 2 provides distinct utility for cleaning wet foods, and product class 3 provides distinct utility for cleaning baked-on foods and preserving shower-type units, which prevent splash-back.

    For each of the product classes, DOE determined the spray force ranges based on the CPSV flow rate-spray force linear relationship. DOE's product class 1 includes units less than or equal to 5 ounce-force (ozf), product class 2 includes units greater than 5 ozf but less than or equal to 8 ozf, and product class 3 includes units greater than 8 ozf. DOE selected 8.0 ozf as the spray force cut-off between product class 2 and product class 3 based on test results of commercial prerinse spray valves with shower-type spray shapes. DOE testing showed that the upper range of the market, in terms of flow rate, predominantly includes shower-type units. DOE found that the lowest tested spray force of any shower-type unit was 8.1 ozf. Therefore, to maintain the consumer utility provided by shower-type units, DOE selected 8.0 ozf to differentiate product class 3 units from other commercial prerinse spray valves available on the market. Additionally, this spray force threshold is corroborated by T&S Brass's comments to the Framework document suggesting three product classes. T&S Brass suggested a flow rate cut-off of 1.28 gpm between the “low-flow” and “standard” commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) Converting this flow rate into spray force using the flow rate-spray force linear relationship equates 1.28 gpm to 8.5 ozf. This spray force can be conservatively rounded to 8.0 ozf.

    DOE selected 5.0 ozf as the spray force cut-off between product class 1 and product class 2 based on DOE's test data and market research, which clearly showed a cluster of CPSV units above and below that threshold. One cluster of CPSV units had spray force ranges between 4.1 and 4.8 ozf, and the other cluster was between 5.5 and 7.7 ozf. Therefore, DOE established the threshold between the two classes at 5.0 ozf. This spray force threshold is corroborated by T&S Brass's comment to the Framework document suggesting a flow rate cut-off of 0.80 gpm between the “ultra-low-flow” and “low-flow” commercial prerinse spray valves, which equates to 5.3 ozf using the flow rate-spray force linear relationship. This spray force can be conservatively rounded to 5.0 ozf.

    While DOE acknowledges the comments from interested parties regarding DOE's CPSV product class structure, DOE maintains that all available data and information from manufacturers suggests that: (1) Flow rate and spray force are strongly correlated, and (2) CPSV units with different flow rates or spray forces are available in the market, and provide distinct consumer utility in the different applications those units are designed to serve. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE has maintained the product class structure presented in the NOPR, with three product classes differentiated by spray force.

    1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the NODA

    In addition to the product class structure, DOE received comment on, and updated a number of other assumptions in its engineering analysis presented in this NODA. In addition, DOE conducted additional testing of CPSV units to gather more data on the range of CPSV products available in the market. Specifically, DOE's revised updates include the following:

    • Based on new test data, DOE updated the flow rate-spray force relationship, which is presented in the accompanying engineering spreadsheet.

    • Based on new test data, DOE updated the approach to define baseline levels for product class 1 and product class 2 to be the higher flow rate of either (1) the tested least-efficient unit or (2) the theoretical least-efficient unit at the intersection of the flow rate-spray force linear relationship and the spray force bounds. In product class 1, DOE revised the baseline to 1.00 gpm, which is a tested unit with a flow rate of 0.97 gpm, rounded-up to a whole number. This is greater than the theoretical flow rate at the intersection of the flow rate-spray force linear relationship and the spray force bound of 5.0 ozf, which is 0.75 gpm. In product class 2, DOE revised the baseline level to 1.20 gpm, which is the intersection of the flow rate-spray force linear relationship and the 8.0 ozf spray force bound. The baseline for product class 3 is the current DOE standard of 1.6 gpm.

    • Based on new test data, DOE revised the max-tech levels from 0.65, 0.97, and 1.24 gpm to 0.62, 0.73, and 1.13 gpm for product class 1, product class 2 and product class 3, respectively.

    • Based on the updates to the baseline and max-tech levels, DOE updated the EL 1 and EL 2 flow rates in product class 1 and product class 2 to reflect a 15 percent and 25 percent improvement, respectively, over the baseline efficiency. Table III.1 through Table III.3 provide the updated efficiency levels for all product classes.

    Table III.1—Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 1 [Spray force ≤ 5 ozf] Efficiency level Description Flow rate (gpm) Level 0 Baseline 1.00 Level 1 15% improvement over baseline 0.85 Level 2 25% improvement over baseline 0.75 Level 3 Maximum available (“max tech”) 0.62 Table III.2—Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 2 [5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf] Efficiency level Description Flow rate
  • (gpm)
  • Level 0 Baseline 1.20 Level 1 15% improvement over baseline 1.02 Level 2 25% improvement over baseline 0.90 Level 3 Maximum available (“max tech”) 0.73
    Table III.3—Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 3 [Spray force > 8 ozf] Efficiency level Description Flow rate (gpm) Level 0 Baseline 1.60 Level 1 10% improvement over baseline 1.44 Level 2 WaterSense Level; 20% improvement over baseline 1.28 Level 3 Maximum available (max-tech) 1.13 B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    The life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis determines the economic impact of potential standards on individual consumers. The LCC is the total cost of purchasing, installing and operating a commercial prerinse spray valve over the course of its lifetime. The LCC analysis compares the LCC of a commercial prerinse spray valve designed to meet possible energy conservation standards with the LCC of a commercial prerinse spray valve likely to be installed in the absence of standards. DOE determines LCCs by considering (1) total installed cost to the consumer (which consists of manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, and sales taxes), (2) the range of annual energy consumption of commercial prerinse spray valves that meet each of the efficiency levels considered as they are used in the field, (3) the operating cost of commercial prerinse spray valves (e.g., energy cost), (4) CPSV lifetime, and (5) a discount rate that reflects the real consumer cost of capital and puts the LCC in present-value terms. The PBP represents the number of years needed to recover the typically increased purchase price of higher-efficiency commercial prerinse spray valves through savings in operating costs. PBP is calculated by dividing the incremental increase in installed cost of the higher efficiency product, compared to the baseline product, by the annual savings in operating costs. In this analysis, because more efficient products do not cost more than baseline efficiency products, the PBP is zero, meaning that consumers do not have any incremental product costs to recover via lower operating costs.

    For commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE performed an energy and water use analysis that calculated energy and water use of commercial prerinse spray valves at each efficiency level within each product class identified in the engineering analysis. DOE determined the range of annual energy consumption and annual water consumption using the flow rate of each EL within each product class from the engineering analysis, the average annual operating time, and the energy required to heat a gallon of water used at the commercial prerinse spray valve. Recognizing that several inputs to the determination of consumer LCC and PBP are either variable or uncertain (e.g., annual energy consumption, product lifetime, electricity price, discount rate), DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis by modeling both the uncertainty and variability in the inputs using a Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions.

    The primary outputs of the LCC and PBP analysis are (1) average LCCs, (2) median PBPs, and (3) the percentage of consumers that experience a net cost for each product class and efficiency level. The average annual energy consumption derived in the LCC analysis is used as an input to the National Impact Analysis (NIA).

    C. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA estimates the national energy savings (NES), national water savings (NWS), and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential new standards at each trial standard level (TSL). DOE defined four TSLs in the CPSV NOPR, and in this NODA provides three additional TSLs. The new TSLs analyzed in this NODA are shown in Table III.4. DOE defined these three TSLs based on flow rates for each product class that would not induce consumers to switch product classes (as discussed in the CPSV NOPR) as a result of a standard at those TSLs. That is, DOE selected flow rates that would allow consumers to maintain provided utility without purchasing units from a different product class.

    Table III.4—Efficiency Levels by Product Class and TSL TSL Product class 1 Product class 2 Product class 3 A 0 0 1 B 0 0 2 C 0 0 3

    DOE calculated NES, NWS, and NPV for each TSL as the difference between a no-new-standards case scenario (without new standards) and the standards-case scenario (with standards). Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES determined over the lifetime of commercial prerinse spray valves shipped during the analysis period. Energy savings reported include the full-fuel cycle energy savings (i.e., inclusive of the energy needed to extract, process, and deliver primary fuel sources such as coal and natural gas, and the conversion and distribution losses of generating electricity from those fuel sources). Similarly, cumulative water savings are the sum of the annual NWS determined over the lifetime of commercial prerinse spray valves shipped during the analysis period. The NPV is the sum over time of the discounted net savings each year, which consists of the difference between total operating cost savings and any changes in total installed costs. NPV results are reported for discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.

    To calculate the NES, NWS, and NPV, DOE projected future shipments and efficiency distributions (for each TSL) for each CPSV product class. After further research and consideration of public comments regarding product shipments (T&S, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 81), DOE updated its shipments projections from the NOPR to more accurately characterize the CPSV market. The most significant update was allocating more of the overall market share to product class 3 products relative to product classes 1 and 2. Other inputs to the NIA include the estimated CPSV lifetime, final installed costs, and average annual energy and water consumption per unit from the LCC. For detailed NIA results for the newly-added TSLs, see Table IV.4 and Table IV.5.

    The purpose of this NODA is to notify industry, manufacturers, consumer groups, efficiency advocates, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to the provisional analysis of potential energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. Stakeholders should contact DOE for any additional information pertaining to the analyses performed for this NODA.

    D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    For the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), DOE used the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to assess the economic impact of potential standards on CPSV manufacturers. DOE developed key industry average financial parameters for the GRIM using publicly available data from corporate annual reports. Additionally, DOE used this and other publicly available information to estimate and account for the aggregate industry investment in capital expenditures and research and development required to produce compliant products at each efficiency level.

    The GRIM uses this information in conjunction with inputs from other analyses including manufacturer production costs from the engineering analysis; shipments from the shipments analysis; and price trends from the national impact analysis (NIA) to model industry annual cash flows from the base year through the end of the analysis period. The primary quantitative output of this model is the industry net present value (INPV), which DOE calculates as the sum of industry cash flows discounted to the present day using industry specific weighted average costs of capital.

    Standards affect INPV by requiring manufacturers to make investments in manufacturing capital and product development. Under potential standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose a portion of their INPV, which is calculated as the difference between INPV in the no-new-standards case (absent new energy conservation standards) and in the standards case (with new energy conservation standards in effect). DOE examines a range of possible impacts on industry by modeling scenarios with various levels of investment.

    IV. Results of the Economic Analyses A. Economic Impacts on Consumers

    Table IV.1 through Table IV.3 provide LCC and PBP results for the newly added TSLs discussed in section III.C.

    Table IV.1—Product Class 1 LCC and PBP Results Product Class 1
  • (spray force ≤ 5 ozf)
  • TSL Efficiency level Average costs
  • (2014$)
  • Installed cost First year's
  • operating cost
  • Lifetime
  • operating cost
  • LCC * Simple
  • payback
  • period
  • (years)
  • A,B,C 0 76 487 2,229 2,305 0.0 1 76 414 1,895 1,971 0.0 2 76 366 1,672 1,748 0.0 3 76 302 1,382 1,458 0.0
    Product Class 1
  • (spray force ≤ 5 ozf)
  • TSL Efficiency level Life-cycle cost savings ** % of customers that experience net cost Average
  • savings
  • (2014$)
  • A,B,C 0 0 0 1 0 334 2 0 557 3 0 352
    Table IV.2—Product Class 2 LCC and PBP Results Product Class 2
  • (spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf)
  • TSL Efficiency level Average costs
  • (2014$)
  • Installed cost First year's
  • operating cost
  • Lifetime
  • operating cost
  • LCC * Simple
  • payback
  • period
  • (years)
  • A,B,C 0 76 585 2,675 2,751 0.0 1 76 497 2,274 2,350 0.0 2 76 439 2,006 2,082 0.0 3 76 356 1,627 1,704 0.0
    Product Class 2
  • (spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf)
  • TSL Efficiency level Life-cycle cost savings ** % of customers
  • that experience
  • net cost
  • Average
  • savings
  • (2014$)
  • A,B,C 0 0 0 1 0 401 2 0 446 3 0 825
    Table IV.3—Product Class 3 LCC and PBP Results Product Class 3
  • (spray force > 8 ozf)
  • TSL Efficiency level Average costs
  • (2014$)
  • Installed cost First year's
  • operating cost
  • Lifetime
  • operating cost
  • LCC * Simple
  • payback
  • period
  • (years)
  • 0 76 780 3,566 3,643 0.0 A 1 76 702 3,210 3,286 0.0 B 2 76 624 2,853 2,929 0.0 C 3 76 551 2,519 2,595 0.0
    Product Class 3
  • (spray force > 8 ozf)
  • TSL Efficiency level Life-cycle cost savings ** % of customers that experience net cost Average
  • savings
  • (2014$)
  • 0 0 0 A 1 0 357 B 2 0 547 C 3 0 766
    B. Economic Impacts on the Nation

    Table IV.4 provides energy and water impacts associated with the newly-added TSLs. Table IV.5, also for these selected TSLs, provides NPV results.

    Table IV.4—Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Products Shipped in 2019-2048 TSL Product class National energy savings
  • (quads) *
  • Primary Full-fuel cycle National water
  • savings
  • (billion gallons)
  • A 1 (≤5 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000 3 (>8 ozf) 0.032 0.035 41.590 Total TSL 1 0.032 0.035 41.590 B 1 (≤5 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000 3 (>8 ozf) 0.093 0.101 119.572 Total TSL 4 0.093 0.101 119.572 C 1 (≤5 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000 3 (>8 ozf) 0.166 0.180 212.175 Total TSL 5 0.166 0.180 212.175 * “quad” = one quadrillion British thermal units.
    Table IV.5—Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products Shipped in 2019-2048 TSL Product class Net present value
  • (billion $2014)
  • 7-Percent
  • discount rate
  • 3-Percent
  • discount rate
  • A 1 (≤5 ozf) 0.000 0.000 2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 3 (>8 ozf) 0.250 0.513 Total TSL 1 0.250 0.513 B 1 (≤5 ozf) 0.000 0.000 2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 3 (>8 ozf) 0.718 1.476 Total TSL 4 0.718 1.476 C 1 (≤5 ozf) 0.000 0.000 2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 3 (>8 ozf) 1.274 2.619 Total TSL 4 1.274 2.619
    C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

    Table IV.6 provides manufacturer impacts associated with the newly added TSLs under the sourced materials conversion cost scenario. Table IV.7, also for these selected TSLs, provides manufacturer impacts under the fabricated materials conversion cost scenario.

    Table IV.6—Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Under the Sourced Materials Conversion Cost Scenario Units No-standards case Trial standard level A B C INPV 2014$ MM 8.6 8.4 8.1 8.1 Change in INPV $ 2014$ MM (0.2) (0.5) (0.5) Change in INPV % % (2.5) (5.5) (6.0) Product Conversion Costs 2014$ MM 0.4 0.8 0.8 Capital Conversion Costs 2014$ MM 0.1 0.1 Total Investment Required 2014$ MM 0.4 0.9 0.9 Table IV.7—Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Under the Fabricated Materials Conversion Cost Scenario Units No-standards case Trial standard level A B C INPV 2014$ MM 8.6 8.0 7.6 7.5 Change in INPV $ 2014$ MM (0.6) (0.9) (1.1) Change in INPV % % (6.5) (11.1) (12.6) Product Conversion Costs 2014$ MM 0.4 0.8 0.8 Capital Conversion Costs 2014$ MM 0.4 0.6 0.8 Total Investment Required 2014$ MM 0.8 1.4 1.6 V. Public Participation

    DOE is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of the data and analysis presented in the NODA and supporting documentation that can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/54.

    A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this notice. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will only be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below.

    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail will also be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in portable document format (PDF) (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 and 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 5, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28675 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4811; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-104-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack (AOA) transducers installed in the stall protection system. This proposed AD would require replacement of affected AOA transducers. We are proposing this AD to detect and replace incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect calibration of the transducers could result in late activation of the stick pusher.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4811; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4811; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-104-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-18, effective July 16, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was discovered that a number of [angle of attack] AOA transducers installed on Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24, and CL-600-2E25 aeroplanes were incorrectly calibrated due to a quality control problem at both the production and repair facilities. Incorrect calibration of the AOA transducer could result in a late activation of the stick pusher.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the incorrectly calibrated AOA transducer.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4811.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated March 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the transducers with correctly calibrated AOA transducers. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,136,000, or $10,340 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-4811; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-104-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 28, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Bombardier, Inc. airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10999 inclusive.

    (2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15990 inclusive.

    (3) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19990 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack (AOA) transducers installed in the stall protection system. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect calibration of the transducers could result in late activation of the stick pusher.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Replacement

    Within 2,500 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, replace the AOA transducers identified in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated March 30, 2015, with correctly calibrated AOA transducers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated March 30, 2015.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an AOA transducer having a part number or serial number identified in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated March 30, 2015.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-18, dated July 16, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4811.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28562 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4809; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-012-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235-200 and CN-235-300 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of false engine fire warning events, which consequently led to engine in-flight shut down. This proposed AD would require modification of the location and routing of the engine fire detection system. We are proposing this AD to prevent unnecessary engine in-flight shut down, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55 05; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.eads.net. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4809; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4809; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-012-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0011, dated January 20, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235-200 and CN-235-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several cases of false engine fire warning events were reported, which consequently led to engine in-flight shut down (IFSD) executed by the flightcrew using the appropriate emergency procedures. Subsequent investigation determined that these false engine fire warnings were the result of insufficient insulation capability of the engine fire detection system. This allowed penetration of moisture into the fire detector connectors, reducing the insulation resistance between the inner electrode and connector housing below the required values.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further cases of unnecessary engine IFSD, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS-CASA issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB235-26-0006 providing modification instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the location and routing of the engine fire detection system.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4809.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EADS CASA has issued Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0006, dated July 8, 2014. The service information describes procedures for modifying the engine fire detection system. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 24 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 75 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,577 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $190,848, or $7,952 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Docket No. FAA-2015-4809; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-012-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 28, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235-200 and CN-235-300 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers C-018 through C-211 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire Protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of false engine fire warning events, which consequently led to engine in-flight shut down. We are issuing this AD to prevent unnecessary in-flight-shutdown of an engine, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Modification of Engine Fire Extinguishing/Detection System

    Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the location and routing of the engine fire detection system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0006, dated July 8, 2014.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or EADS CASA's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0011, dated January 20, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4809.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55 05; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.eads.net.You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28560 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4810; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-090-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of blockage of Angle of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. This activation could cause a continuous nose-down pitch rate that cannot be stopped with backward sidestick input, even in the full backward position. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require replacing certain AOA sensors (probes) with certain new AOA sensors. For certain other airplanes, this proposed AD would also require inspections and functional heat testing of certain AOA sensors for discrepancies, and replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent erroneous AOA information and Alpha Prot activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in a continuous nose-down command and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4810; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4810; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-090-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0134, dated July 8, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully. It was determined that the affected AOA probes are also fitted on A330 and A340 aeroplanes.

    When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AOA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    Investigation results indicated that aeroplanes equipped with certain UTC Aerospace (UTAS, formerly known as Goodrich) AOA sensors, or equipped with certain SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensors, appear to have a greater susceptibility to adverse environmental conditions than aeroplanes equipped with the latest Thales AOA sensor, Part Number (P/N) C16291AB, which was designed to improve AOA indication behaviour in heavy rain conditions.

    Having determined that replacement of these AOA sensors is necessary to achieve and maintain the required safety level of the aeroplane, EASA issued AD 2015-0089, to require modification of the aeroplanes by replacement of the affected P/N sensors, and, after modification, prohibits (re-) installation of those P/N AOA sensors. That [EASA] AD also required repetitive detailed visual inspections (DET) and functional heating tests of certain Thales AOA sensors and provided an optional terminating action for those inspections.

    Since EASA AD 2015-0089 was issued, based on further analysis results, Airbus issued Operators Information Transmission (OIT) Ref. 999.0017/15 Revision 1, instructing operators to speed up the removal from service of UTAS P/N 0861ED2 AOA sensors.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0089, which is superseded, but reduces the compliance times for aeroplanes with UTAS P/N 0861ED2 AOA sensors installed.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4810.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin A330-34-3215, Revision 02, dated March 29, 2010.

    • Service Bulletin A330-34-3228, dated October 7, 2009.

    • Service Bulletin A330-34-3315, dated March 26, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-4215, Revision 02, dated March 29, 2010.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-4234, dated October 7, 2009.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-4294, dated March 26, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-5062, Revision 01, dated March 29, 2010.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-5070, dated October 9, 2009.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-5105, dated March 26, 2015.

    The service information describes procedures for replacing certain pitot probes with certain new pitot probes. The service information also describes procedures for inspections and functional heat testing of certain pitot probes, and replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Replacement 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 $0 $425 $23,375 Inspection/test 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 0 $255 per inspection/test cycle 14,025

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-4810; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-090-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 28, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of blockage of two Angle of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. This activation could cause a continuous nose-down pitch rate that cannot be stopped with backward sidestick input, even in the full backward position. We are issuing this AD to prevent erroneous AOA information and Alpha Prot activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in a continuous nose-down command and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Replacement of Certain UTAS AOA Sensors

    For airplanes on which any UTAS AOA sensor having part number (P/N) 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 is installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, replace all Captain and First Officer AOA sensors (probes) having P/N 0861ED or 0861ED2 with AOA sensors having Thales P/N C16291AB, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3315, dated March 26, 2015 (for Model A330 airplanes).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4294, dated March 26, 2015 (for Model A340-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5105, dated March 26, 2015 (for Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes).

    (h) Compliance Times for the Requirements of Paragraph (g) of This AD

    Do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes with AOA sensors having P/N 0861ED: Within 22 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes with AOA sensors having P/N 0861ED2: Within 7 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Replacement of Certain SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA Sensors

    For airplanes on which any SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor having P/N 45150320 is installed: Within 22 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensors (probes) having P/N 45150320 with AOA sensors having Thales P/N C16291AB, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3228, dated October 7, 2009 (for Model A330-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4234, dated October 7, 2009 (for Model A340-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (j) Repetitive Inspections/Tests of Certain Thales AOA Sensors

    For airplanes on which one or more Thales AOA sensor having P/N C16291AA is installed: Before the accumulation of 17,000 total flight hours on the AOA sensor since first installation on an airplane, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,800 flight hours; do a detailed inspection of the three AOA sensors at FINs 3FP1, 3FP2, and 3FP3 for discrepancies (e.g., the vane of the sensor does not deice properly), and a functional heating test of each AOA sensor having P/N C16291AA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3215, Revision 02, dated March 29, 2010 (for Model A330-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4215, Revision 02, dated March 29, 2010 (for Model A340-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5062, Revision 01, dated March 29, 2010 (for Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes).

    (k) Corrective Actions

    If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, or if any test is failed during the heating test required by paragraph (j) of this AD: Before further flight, replace all affected AOA sensors with sensors identified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Replace with AOA sensors having Thales P/N C16291AA, on which the inspection and test required by paragraph (j) of this AD were passed.

    (2) Replace with AOA sensors having Thales P/N C16291AB.

    (l) Airplanes Excluded From Certain Requirements

    (1) The actions specified in paragraphs (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are not required, provided that the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i), (l)(1)(ii), and (l)(1)(iii) of this AD are met.

    (i) Airbus Modification 58555 (installation of Thales P/N C16291AB AOA sensors) has been embodied in production.

    (ii) Airbus Modification 46921 (installation of UTAS AOA sensors) has not been embodied in production.

    (iii) No AOA sensor having SEXTANT/THOMSON P/N 45150320 or UTAS P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 has been installed on the airplane since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

    (2) The actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD are not required, provided that all conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), and (l)(2)(iii) of this AD are met.

    (i) Only AOA sensors with P/Ns approved after the effective date of this AD have been installed.

    (ii) The AOA sensor P/N is approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (iii) The installation is accomplished in accordance with airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (m) Optional Terminating Modification

    Replacement of all Thales AOA sensors having P/N C16291AA with Thales AOA sensors having P/N C16291AB, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (m)(1), (m)(2), or (m)(3) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections and functional heating tests required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3228, dated October 7, 2009 (for Model A330-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4234, dated October 7, 2009 (for Model A340-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5070, dated October 9, 2009 (for Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes).

    (n) Parts Installation Prohibitions

    (1) For airplanes on which only Thales P/N C16291AB AOA sensors are installed as of the effective date of this AD: No person may install, on any airplane, a Thales AOA sensor having P/N C16291AA as of the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes on which the modification specified in paragraph (m) of this AD has been done: No person may install, on any airplane, a Thales AOA sensor having P/N C16291AA after accomplishing the specified modification.

    (3) For airplanes on which Thales P/N C16291AA or P/N C16291AB AOA sensors are installed as of the effective date of this AD: No person may install, on any airplane, a UTAS AOA sensor having P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2, or a SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor having P/N 45150320, as of the effective date of this AD.

    (4) For airplanes on which the replacement required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done: No person may install, on any airplane, a UTAS AOA sensor having P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2, or a SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor having P/N 45150320, after accomplishing the replacement.

    (5) For airplanes on which the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done: No person may install, on any airplane, a UTAS AOA sensor having P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2, or a SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor having P/N 45150320, after accomplishing the replacement, except that a UTAS AOA sensor having P/N 0861ED may be installed in the standby position of that airplane.

    (o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0134, dated July 8, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4810.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28559 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4212; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-010-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the main fitting of the nose landing gear (NLG) and a determination that a new safe-life limitation for affected NLG main fittings has not been mandated. This proposed AD would require replacing affected NLG main fittings that have exceeded the safe-life limitation with a new or serviceable fitting. We are proposing this AD to prevent collapse of the NLG, which if not corrected, could lead to degradation of direction control on the ground or an un-commanded turn to the left, and a consequent loss of control of the airplane on the ground, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4212; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4212; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0191R1, dated November 6, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several occurrences of the aeroplane`s Nose Landing Gear (NLG) Main Fitting cracking have been reported. Subsequently in different cases, NLG Main Fitting crack lead to collapsed NLG, locked NLG steering and an aeroplane`s un-commanded steering to the left.

    Cracks in the NLG Bell Housing are not detectable with the NLG fitted to the aeroplane and are difficult to detect during overhaul without substantial disassembly of the gear.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to degradation of directional control on the ground or an un-commanded turn to the left and a consequent loss of control of the aeroplane on the ground, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    Prompted by these findings, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued Inspection Service Bulletin (ISB) 32-186 (hereafter referred to as the ISB) to introduce a new safe life of 16,000 flight cycles (FC) for certain NLG main fittings, having a Part Number (P/N) as identified in Paragraph 1A, tables 1, 2 and 3 of the ISB.

    To correct this unsafe condition, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2012-0191 to require implementation of the new safe-life limitation for the affected NLG main fittings and replacement of fittings that have already exceeded the new limit.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4212.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.32-186, dated April 12, 2012. This service information describes procedures for determining the compliance times for replacing the NLG main fittings. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    Related Rulemaking

    On August 4, 2014, we issued AD 2014-16-18, Amendment 39-17942 (79 FR 51234, August 28, 2014). AD 2014-16-18 requires revising the maintenance program by incorporating a new safe-life limitation for the NLG main fitting on all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. Since we issued AD 2014-16-18, Amendment 39-17942 (79 FR 51234, August 28, 2014), we have determined that the new safe-life limitation for affected NLG main fittings has not been mandated because the safe-life limitation was not incorporated in Subject 05-10-15, Aircraft Equipment Airworthiness Limitations, of Section 05-10, Time Limits, of Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited BAe 146 Series/Avro 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 108, dated September 14, 2012 (which was referred to as the appropriate source of service information for incorporating the safe-life limitation into the maintenance or inspections program). Therefore, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to require the replacement of NLG main fittings that have exceeded the safe-life limitation with a new or serviceable fitting.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 36 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost $81,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $336,240, or $84,060 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2015-4212; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-010-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 28, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category, all models, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the main fitting of the nose landing gear (NLG) and a determination that a new safe-life limitation for affected NLG main fittings has not been mandated. We are issuing this AD to prevent collapse of the NLG, which if not corrected could lead to degradation of direction control on the ground or an uncommanded turn to the left, and a consequent loss of control of the airplane on the ground, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Replacement of Nose Landing Gear (NLG) Main Fitting

    At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD: Replace each affected nose landing gear (NLG) main fitting, having a part number (P/N) as identified in paragraph 1.A, tables 1., 2., and 3. of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.32-186, dated April 12, 2012, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of that BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.32-186, dated April 12, 2012. Thereafter, before the accumulation of 16,000 flight cycles on any affected NLG main fitting having a part number as identified in paragraph 1.A, tables 1., 2., and 3. of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.32-186, dated April 12, 2012, replace each affected nose landing gear (NLG) main fitting, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of that BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.32-186, dated April 12, 2012.

    (1) For NLG main fittings that have accumulated 29,000 flight cycles or more since first installation on an airplane: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For NLG main fittings that have 20,000 flight cycles or more but less than 29,000 flight cycles since first installation on an airplane: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) For NLG main fittings that have 16,000 flight cycles or more but less than 20,000 flight cycles since first installation on an airplane: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) For NLG main fittings that have accumulated less than 16,000 flight cycles since first installation on an airplane: Before accumulating 16,000 flight cycles since first installation on an airplane or within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (h) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an NLG main fitting having a part number identified in paragraph 1.A., Tables 1., 2., and 3., of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.32-186, dated April 12, 2012, unless that fitting is in compliance with the requirements of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012-0191R1, dated November 6, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4212.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28561 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 101 [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1207] Use of the Term “Natural” in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the establishment of a docket to receive information and comments on the use of the term “natural” in the labeling of human food products, including foods that are genetically engineered or contain ingredients produced through the use of genetic engineering. We are taking this action in part because we received three citizen petitions asking that we define the term “natural” for use in food labeling and one citizen petition asking that we prohibit the term “natural” on food labels. We also note that some Federal courts, as a result of litigation between private parties, have requested administrative determinations from FDA regarding whether food products containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering or foods containing high fructose corn syrup may be labeled as “natural.” We are working with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service and Food Safety and Inspection Service to also examine the use of the term “natural” in meat, poultry, and egg products, and are considering areas for coordination between FDA and USDA. We invite public comment on the term “natural” in the context of food labeling and on specific questions contained in this document.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1207 for “Use of the Term “Natural” in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Loretta Carey, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. What has been FDA's position regarding the use of the term “natural?”

    Under section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1)), a food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Section 201(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)) defines the term “food” to mean articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, chewing gum, and articles used for components of any such article. Subject to certain exceptions, dietary supplements are generally considered to be foods under the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)). Section 201(n) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(n)) provides that labeling is misleading if, among other things, it fails to reveal facts that are material in light of representations made or suggested in the labeling, or material with respect to consequences that may result from the use of the food to which the labeling relates under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. Section 201(m) of the FD&C Act defines “labeling” as all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers or accompanying such article.

    We have a longstanding policy for the use of the term “natural” on the labels of human food. We previously considered establishing a definition for the term “natural” when used in food labeling. In the preamble of a proposed rule we published in the Federal Register (56 FR 60421, November 27, 1991), we stated that the word “natural” is often used to convey that a food is composed only of substances that are not manmade and is, therefore, somehow more wholesome. We also said that we have not attempted to restrict use of the term “natural” except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors under § 101.22 (21 CFR 101.22) (56 FR 60421 at 60466). Further, we said that we have considered “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including colors regardless of source) is included in, or has been added to, the product that would not normally be expected to be there (56 FR 60421 at 60466).

    We also noted that the term “natural” is used on a variety of products to mean a variety of things. Because of its widespread use, and the evidence that consumers regard many uses of this term as non-informative, we said, back in 1991, that we were considering establishing a definition for this term (56 FR 60421 at 60466). We said that we believed that defining the term “natural” could remove some ambiguity surrounding use of the term that results in misleading claims (56 FR 60421 at 60466).

    We invited comments on several questions, including whether we should establish a meaningful definition for “natural” so that this term would have a common consumer understanding, and whether it should prohibit “natural” claims entirely on the grounds that they are false or misleading (56 FR 60421 at 60467). In the preamble to the subsequent final rule, we noted that we had received many comments on the subject, but that “[n]one of the comments provided FDA with a specific direction to follow for developing a definition regarding the use of the term ‘natural.’ ” (58 FR 2302 at 2407, January 6, 1993). We stated that at that time we would not be engaging in rulemaking to define “natural,” but that we would maintain our policy not to restrict the use of the term “natural” except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors. We further stated that we would maintain our policy to interpret the term “natural” as meaning that “nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food” (58 FR 2302 at 2407).

    When we established our policy concerning the use of the term “natural,” as described previously in this document, it was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of genetic engineering or other forms of genetic modification, the use of pesticides, or the use of specific animal husbandry practices, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation. Furthermore, we did not consider whether the term “natural” should describe any nutritional or other health benefit.

    B. What recent events prompted FDA to request comment?

    In a citizen petition (now filed under docket number FDA-2014-P-0312) dated March 14, 2014, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) requests that we “issue a regulation authorizing statements such as `natural' on foods that are or contain foods derived from biotechnology” (see Citizen Petition from the Grocery Manufacturers Association to the Food and Drug Administration (“Petition”) at page 1). Specifically, GMA requests that we issue a regulation “that it is neither false nor misleading to label a food as `natural' or similar terms solely because the food is or contains a food derived from biotechnology” (Petition at page 3). GMA requests that FDA issue a regulation establishing that the term(s) “natural,” “all natural,” “100% natural,” “from nature,” “naturally grown,” or “naturally sourced” may accompany the common or usual name of a food, or the name of a standardized food, or appear elsewhere on the label or in labeling of such foods, and that such a food shall not be deemed to be misbranded solely because the food contains a food derived from biotechnology (Petition at page 3).

    Alternatively, GMA requests that we amend § 101.4 (Food; designation of ingredients.) by adding a new paragraph stating that: A food bearing a claim that its ingredient or ingredients are “natural,” “all natural,” “100% natural,” “from nature,” “naturally grown,” or “naturally sourced” shall not be deemed misbranded solely because the ingredient or ingredients are derived from biotechnology (Petition at page 3, footnote 2). The GMA citizen petition also describes, in the petitioner's view, the legal and factual basis for a regulation and why rulemaking is in the public interest (see Petition at pages 5 through 15).

    The GMA citizen petition follows earlier communications to FDA regarding the use of the term “natural” on the labels of food containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering. For example, three Federal district courts referred to us, for an administrative determination under 21 CFR 10.25(c), the question of whether food products containing ingredients produced using bioengineering may be labeled as “Natural,” “All Natural,” and/or “100% Natural.” See Letter from Leslie Kux, Assistant Commissioner for Policy, to the Honorable Yvonne Gonzales Rogers, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, and the Honorable Kevin McNulty, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (January 6, 2014) (“Courts Letter”); see also Letter from Karin F. R. Moore, Vice President and General Counsel, Grocery Manufacturers Association, to Elizabeth H. Dickinson, Esq., Chief Counsel, FDA (December 5, 2013) (mentioning the district courts' referrals to FDA and stating that FDA has authority to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled “natural”). Although we declined to make a determination for the courts regarding whether and under what circumstances food products containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering may or may not be labeled “natural,” we informed the courts that, if we were inclined to revoke, amend, or revise our policy regarding use of the term “natural,” we would likely engage in a public process and work with other Federal entities, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (see Courts Letter at page 2). We issued a similar response to a Federal district court, in 2010, when it asked whether high fructose corn syrup qualified as a “natural” ingredient. See Letter from Michael M. Landa, Acting Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, to the Honorable Jerome B. Simandle, U.S. District Court Judge, District of New Jersey (September 16, 2010).

    On October 3, 2014, we received a citizen petition from Consumers Union (see FDA-2014-P-1650) requesting that we prohibit use of the term “natural” on food labels altogether. The Consumers Union citizen petition asserts that there is a “drastic” difference between FDA's current policy for use of the term “natural” and “what people think the `natural' label should mean” (Citizen Petition from the Consumers Union to FDA (“Petition”) at page 1). More specifically, Consumers Union requests that FDA issue the following interpretive rule prohibiting use of the term “natural” in food labeling: “The term ‘natural,’ or any derivation of the term, such as ‘naturally grown,’ ‘naturally sourced’ or ‘from nature,’ is vague and misleading and should not be used” [emphasis in the original] (see Petition at page 3).

    The Consumers Union citizen petition relies on Consumer Reports National Research Center survey data to support its position that consumers are misled by the term “natural.” 1 According to the petition, the survey suggests that nearly two-thirds of U.S. consumers are currently misled by use of the term “natural” on certain food labels and nearly 90 percent expect it to “mean much more than it does” (see Petition at page 2 and pages 4 through 9). For example, according to the petition, “Sixty-six percent of consumers think `natural' processed food products mean no toxic pesticides were used, 66% think no artificial ingredients or colors were used, 65% think no chemicals were used during processing and 64% think no GMOs were used” (see Petition at page 2). Also, according to the petition, when consumers were asked what they thought the term natural should mean, “87% believe no artificial materials or chemicals should be used during processing, 86% believe no artificial ingredients or colors should be used, 86% believe no toxic pesticides should be used, and 85% believe no GMOs should be used” (see Petition at page 2).

    1 Consumer Reports National Research Center Survey Research Report re Citizen Petition from Consumers Union, FDA-2014-P-1650-0002. According to Consumers Union, the survey was a nationally representative phone survey of over 1000 adult U.S. residents.

    Consumers Union asserts that it has observed a push from industry to allow the use of the term “natural” on food labels that do not represent what their survey indicates consumers believe the term natural should mean (see Petition at page 3). Consumers Union further states that “consumers demand far more from the `natural' label, in line with what they expect from the `organic' label” such that the term “natural” in food labeling “should be banned altogether” (see Petition at page 3).

    We also have received two other citizen petitions concerning the use of the term “natural” on food labels. One citizen petition, from the Sara Lee Corp. (see FDA-2007-P-0007), asks that we work with USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to devise and adopt a unified policy, as a statement of policy, governing use of the term “natural” such that use of the term “natural” may be used to describe a food or food ingredient that does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient (regardless of source), or any artificial or synthetic ingredient that is included within or not normally expected in the product (see Petition at page 2). Further, the Sara Lee Corp. asserts that the degree of processing necessary to produce the food or food ingredient should be considered in determining consumer expectation.

    Another citizen petition, submitted by The Sugar Association (see FDA-2006-P-0206), asks that we engage in rulemaking to define the term “natural” with respect to food and beverages. The citizen petition asks for consistency across Federal Agencies with respect to such definition and requests that we define the term “natural” based on FSIS's definition in its Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book for “natural” claims for meat products and poultry products (see Petition at page 1).

    The definition of “natural claims” in the FSIS's Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, in relevant part, states that the term “natural” may be used on labeling for meat products and poultry products if the applicant for such labeling demonstrates that: (1) The product does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient, chemical preservative (as defined in § 101.22), or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient and (2) the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed. The FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book further explains that minimal processing may include traditional processes used to make food edible or to preserve it or to make it safe for human consumption, e.g., smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, and fermenting or physical processes which do not fundamentally alter the raw product and/or which only separate a whole, intact food into component parts, e.g., grinding meat, separating eggs into albumen and yolk, and pressing fruits to produce juices. The FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book also states that relatively severe processes, such as solvent extraction, acid hydrolysis, and chemical bleaching, would be considered more than minimal processing, so the use of a natural flavor or flavoring in compliance with § 101.22 that has undergone more than minimal processing would place a product in which it is used outside the scope of the FSIS guidelines. However, the FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book states that the presence of an ingredient that has been more than minimally processed would not necessarily preclude the product from being promoted as natural, and that exceptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis if it can be demonstrated that the use of such an ingredient would not significantly change the character of the product to the point that it could no longer be considered a natural product. In such cases, the natural claim is to be qualified to clearly and conspicuously identify the ingredient, e.g., “all natural or all natural ingredients except dextrose, modified food starch, etc.”

    The FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book also states that all products claiming to be natural or a natural food should be accompanied by a brief statement that explains what is meant by the term natural, i.e., that the product is a natural food because it contains no artificial ingredients and is only minimally processed. The statement is to appear directly beneath or beside all natural claims or, if elsewhere on the principal display panel, an asterisk should be used to tie the explanation to the claim.

    Moreover, the FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book specifies that FSIS's decision to approve or deny use of a natural claim may be affected by the specific context in which the claim is made. The FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book contains an example showing that claims indicating that a product is natural food, e.g., “Natural chili” or “chili—a natural product” would be unacceptable for a product containing beet powder, which artificially colors the finished product, but states that a claim such as “all natural ingredients” might be an acceptable claim for such a product (see Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, FSIS, at 116, August 2005).

    Both the Sara Lee Corp. and The Sugar Association citizen petitions also state that defining or establishing a policy on “natural” would provide consistency for consumers and food manufacturers.

    II. Request for Comments and Information

    We invite interested persons to comment on the use of the term “natural” in the labeling of human food products, including when, if ever, the use of the term is false or misleading (FDA-2014-N-1207). We are particularly interested in responses to the following questions:

    • Should we define, through rulemaking, the term “natural?” Why or why not?

    • Should we prohibit the term “natural” in food labeling? Why or why not?

    • If we define the term “natural,” what types of food should be allowed to bear the term “natural?”

    • Should only raw agricultural commodities be able to bear the term? Why or why not? Section 201(r) of the FD&C Act defines the term “raw agricultural commodity” as “any food in its raw or natural state, including all fruits that are washed, colored, or otherwise treated in their unpeeled natural form prior to marketing.”

    • Should only single ingredient foods, e.g., bottled water or bagged spinach, be able to bear the term? Why or why not?

    • If multi-ingredient foods should be able to bear the term, what type(s) of ingredients would disqualify the food from bearing the term? Please explain why such disqualification would be warranted.

    • We are interested in any data or other information to suggest that consumers associate, confuse, or compare the term “natural” with “organic” (the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service administers the National Organic Program, which enforces laws and regulations regarding certified organic foods). We are interested in data and other information about consumers' understanding of foods labeled “natural” versus “organic.” Is the term “natural” on food labels perceived by consumers the same way as “organic?” Or is “natural” perceived by consumers to be “better” (or not as good as) “organic?” Please provide consumer research or other evidence to support your comment.

    • If we were to revise our policy regarding the use of the term “natural” or engage in rulemaking to establish a regulatory definition for “natural,” should certain production practices used in agriculture, for example, genetic engineering, mutagenesis, hybridization, the use of pesticides, or animal husbandry practices, be a factor in defining “natural?” Why or why not?

    • We are interested in any data or other information to suggest that consumers associate, confuse, or compare the term “natural” with “healthy.” We have a regulation that defines the term “healthy” when used as an implied nutrient content claim with specific conditions related to the food's nutrient profile that must be met in order to use the term on the label or in labeling of a food (see § 101.65(d)). We are interested in data and other information about consumers' understanding of foods labeled “natural” versus “healthy.” Is the term “natural” on food labels perceived by consumers the same way as “healthy?” Or is “natural” perceived by consumers to be “better” (or not as good as) “healthy?” Do consumers view “natural” and “healthy” as synonymous terms? Please provide consumer research or other evidence to support your comment.

    • Should manufacturing processes be considered in determining when a food can bear the term “natural?” For example, should food manufacturing processes, such as drying, salting, marinating, curing, freezing, canning, fermenting, pasteurizing, irradiating, or hydrolysis, be a factor in defining “natural?”

    • Should the term “natural” only apply to “unprocessed” foods? If so, how should “unprocessed” and “processed” be defined for purposes of bearing the claim? If the term natural should include some processing methods, what should those methods be? In making determinations related to processing, should one look at the process to make a single ingredient of a food, or does one evaluate the process done to the formulated finished food product (or both)?

    • The current policy regarding use of the term “natural” hinges in part on the presence or absence of synthetic ingredients. For example, under the current policy synthetic forms of Vitamin D would not be used in a food claiming to be “natural,” whereas naturally sourced Vitamin D (e.g., from salmon or egg yolks) could be. Should the manner in which an ingredient is produced or sourced affect whether a food containing that ingredient may be labeled as “natural?” Please explain your reasoning.

    • What can be done to ensure that consumers have a consistent and accurate understanding of the term “natural” in food labeling to ensure that it is not misleading?

    • What are the public health benefits, if any, of defining the term “natural” in food labeling? Please provide supporting data and other information to support your comment.

    • Should “natural” have some nutritional benefit associated with it? If so, what should be the benefit? What nutrients should be considered? What data are available to support the association between “natural” and a given nutritional benefit, and/or between “natural” and certain nutrients?

    • How might we determine whether foods labeled “natural” comply with any criteria for bearing the claim?

    Dated: November 6, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28779 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900-AP06 Ensuring a Safe Environment for Community Residential Care Residents AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document proposes to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations governing the approval of a community residential care facility (CRC). We would prohibit a CRC from employing an individual who has been convicted in a court of law of certain listed crimes against a person or property, or has had a finding entered into an applicable state registry or with the applicable licensing authority concerning abuse, neglect, mistreatment of individuals or misappropriation of property. VA also proposes to require CRCs to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The proposed rule would also require CRCs to report and investigate any allegations of abuse or mistreatment. In addition, the proposed rule would require the CRC to screen and monitor individuals who are not CRC residents, but have direct access to a veteran living in a CRC. The revisions would improve the safety and help prevent the neglect or abuse of veteran residents in CRCs. In addition, we propose to amend the rule regarding the maximum number of beds allowed in a resident's bedroom.

    DATES:

    Comment Date: Comments must be received by VA on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted through www.regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP06—Ensuring a Safe Environment for Community Residential Care Residents.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Richard Allman, Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services (10P4G), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-6750. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    VA is authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1730 to assist veterans by referring them for placement, and aiding veterans in obtaining placement, in CRCs. A CRC is a form of enriched housing that provides health care supervision to eligible veterans not in need of hospital or nursing home care, but who, because of medical, psychiatric and/or psychosocial limitations as determined through a statement of needed care, are not able to live independently and have no suitable family or significant others to provide the needed supervision and supportive care. Examples of CRC's enriched housing may include, but are not limited to: Medical Foster Homes, Assisted Living Homes, Group Living Homes, Family Care Homes, and psychiatric CRC Homes. CRC care consists of room, board, assistance with activities of daily living (ADL), and supervision as required on an individual basis. The size of a CRC can vary from one bed to several hundred. VA maintains a list of approved CRCs. The cost of community residential care is financed by the veteran's own resources. A veteran may elect to reside in any CRC he or she wants; however, VA will only recommend CRCs that apply for approval and meet VA's standards. Once approved, the CRC is placed on VA's referral list and VA refers veterans for whom CRC care is an option to the VA-approved CRCs when those veterans are determining where they would like to live. VA may provide care to a veteran at the CRC when it is medically appropriate to provide such home-based care. The provision of such home-based care is not contingent upon VA approval of a CRC; a veteran's right to such care exists independent of the veteran's residence in a CRC. Employees of the CRC are not VA employees, and no employment relationship exists between employees of the CRC and VA.

    To become approved, a CRC must meet the specified criteria in 38 CFR 17.63, which sets forth standards relating to the physical integrity of the facility, the health care provided at the CRC, the standard of living therein, costs charged directly to veteran residents of the CRC, and other criteria for approval.

    VA has authority under 38 U.S.C. 1730(b)(2) to establish criteria for approval of a CRC that will ensure the health, safety and welfare of veterans residing in that facility. Current § 17.63(j) requires CRCs to maintain sufficient, qualified staff on duty who are available to care for residents and ensure the health and safety of each resident. The CRC provider and staff must have adequate education, training, or experience to maintain the facility. However, VA believes that other issues are also important in determining whether a veteran residing in a CRC is receiving an appropriate standard of care. A veteran residing in a CRC is unable to live independently and has no suitable family or significant others to provide the needed supervision and supportive care, and the CRC serves as that veteran's primary place of residence. VA believes that the CRC should be an environment in which the veteran is physically safe and where the veteran is not at risk of damage, theft, or loss of personal property. To ensure the safety and welfare of veterans residing in CRCs, VA proposes to establish standards that will require CRCs to investigate individuals in CRCs who have direct access to veteran residents and/or veteran resident property.

    VA considered several approaches to address the issue of the background and behavior of individuals in CRCs. For example, on the national level, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, established a state grant program for conducting federal and state criminal background checks on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and providers that accept Medicare and Medicaid patients (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l). However, not all states participate and it is applicable to only long-term care facilities. A survey of approved CRCs reflects that only a small percentage of those facilities are approved to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. Another Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7, excludes an individual from participating in any federal health care program if that individual has been convicted of certain listed crimes. However, a person working in a CRC, or an individual with direct resident access, would not be considered a participant in a federal health care program.

    Employees, contractors and volunteers working in VA-operated facilities, such as community living centers or nursing homes, must undergo a background screening as required by Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations at 5 CFR parts 731 and 736. If the employee or contractor has access to federally maintained records or databases, the level of scrutiny is greater. CRC staff and others with direct resident access are not federal employees, contractors or volunteers, and do not have access to VA records or databases. Therefore, OPM's federal background screening requirements are inapplicable.

    We reviewed state requirements for licensing residential care facilities as well as state screening requirements for employment to work with the elderly or disabled. The states vary in how these issues are addressed. Some require licensing only for facilities that have a minimum number of beds (i.e., five or more beds). Many of the VA-approved CRCs have one to three resident beds. Some state laws and regulations do not use the term “residential care facility” and it is unclear whether a VA-approved CRC would be covered. Several state licensing laws or regulations do not address hiring requirements. Some do not have any general screening requirements for individuals assigned to duties caring for the elderly or disabled. In those states that do have screening requirements, the level of screening varies from criminal history checks at the county or state level only, to both state and federal-level checks.

    While state laws vary on the requirement for background screenings on individuals working with the elderly or disabled, all states maintain a long-term care ombudsman program charged with investigating reports of elder abuse. In addition, all states maintain registries for licensed health care professionals such as nurses and nurse aides to track reports of patient abuse or neglect. However, many individuals employed in a VA approved CRC are not licensed health care professionals and states do not maintain any type of registry that would capture information pertaining to all the types of CRC employees.

    Due to these variations, we do not believe we can rely on state law to ensure that veterans can trust and rely on VA-recommended CRCs to provide a certain, uniform minimum level of safety and care. VA believes that all veterans residing in a CRC should have the same level of assurance that a CRC staff member or other covered individual does not have a criminal history, regardless of where that facility is located.

    In considering possible national standards, we reviewed existing regulations governing other VA programs. State Veterans Homes are owned, operated, and managed by state governments and provide nursing home, domiciliary, or adult day care to eligible veterans. Regulations governing State Veterans Homes are found at 38 CFR parts 51 through 59. We believe that the State Veterans Home program is meaningfully similar to the community residential care program because it serves a similar veteran population and provides similar services; however, there are two important differences. A State Veterans Homes is owned, operated and managed by the state government while a CRC is a privately owned entity. States exercise a layer of control over State Veterans Homes that is not present in CRCs. In addition, persons living in some CRCs who are not obtaining services from that facility regularly interact with CRC residents and sometimes provide services to residents. State Veterans Homes provide resident services through employees of the state home, many of which are professionals licensed by the state. Nonetheless, VA believes it is appropriate to look to how resident safety and welfare is addressed in the State Veterans Homes program as a guide on how to proceed in the CRC program.

    We propose to amend § 17.63 by adding a new paragraph (j)(3) which would require the CRC to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. This would ensure that each facility has a policy in place to address these issues. In addition, it would serve to inform both employees and CRC residents of the prohibited practices and inform CRC residents about procedures for reporting alleged mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property.

    Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i)(A)(1) would prohibit the CRC from employing an individual who has been convicted by a court of law of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating individuals. VA published a similar rule at § 51.90(c) for State Veterans Homes. That rule has been in place since February 7, 2000, and we believe it has been effective in ensuring the safety of veterans residing in those facilities. We believe a similar standard should be applied to employment in CRCs. The terms “abuse” and “neglect” are defined in § 51.90(b), and would have the same meaning here.

    Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i)(A)(2) would prohibit the CRC from employing individuals who have had a finding entered into an applicable State registry or with the applicable licensing authority concerning abuse, neglect, mistreatment of individuals or misappropriation of property. Examples of applicable state registries include, but are not limited to, state sex offender registries and registries of criminal offenders which are maintained by some states. Typical licensing authorities include, but are not limited to, state boards or agencies that license or certify Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA), nursing aides or medication aides. State laws and regulations typically require employers to report abuse, neglect, mistreatment of individuals or misappropriation of property alleged to have been committed by certain licensed health care professionals. These reports are made part of the relevant State registry, and the registry may contain information on incidents that were not forwarded to law enforcement for prosecution. VA believes that such information would be relevant to the issue of whether a particular individual should have direct access to a veteran residing in a CRC.

    The CRC would be required by proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i)(B) to immediately, meaning no more than 24 hours after the provider becomes aware of the alleged violation, report all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property to the approving official. In proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i)(B)(1)-(6), we would set out the minimum information that must be contained in a report of an alleged violation. The intent of the proposed rule is to place the approving official on notice of any alleged violation so that appropriate follow-up measures can be initiated. Follow-up measures may include contacting veteran residents, ensuring any affected veteran resident receives a medical evaluation from a VA health care provider, or conduct necessary interim monitoring as provided for in § 17.65(a). Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i)(C) would require the CRC to have evidence that all alleged violations are documented and thoroughly investigated. The facility would be required to prevent further potential abuse while the investigation is in progress. The proposed rule would require that the results of all investigations be reported to the approving official within 5 working days of the incident, and to other officials in accordance with State law, and that appropriate corrective action be taken if the alleged violation is verified. The proposed requirements in paragraphs (j)(3)(i)(B) and (C) are consistent with those already in effect for State Veterans Homes under § 51.90(c).

    VA currently receives reports of alleged mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property on an ad hoc basis. The proposed rule would formalize a reporting requirement and would ensure that VA is notified of any such allegation so that appropriate steps can be taken to ensure the safety and health of veterans residing in the CRC. The requirement that the investigation be completed within 5 working days and reported to both VA and other officials in accordance with State law would ensure that the investigation is completed in a timely manner, and that corrective action is taken to prevent further violations.

    We propose in paragraph (j)(3)(i)(D) that employees accused of alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse or misappropriation of resident property, must be removed from all duties requiring direct veteran resident contact during the pendency of the facility's investigation. VA believes that removing such employee from duties involving direct resident contact until the facility completes its investigation is a prudent step to ensure veteran resident safety and to provide assurance to veteran residents that the accused employee would not be allowed direct access to them until the alleged incident is investigated and any necessary corrective steps are taken, if needed.

    Proposed paragraph (j)(4) would define the three classes of individuals considered to be employees of the CRC for purposes of this proposed rule. Proposed paragraph (j)(4)(i) would establish that non-VA health care providers at CRCs would be considered employees. Non-VA health care providers may have frequent contact with veteran residents, and are not subject to direct VA control or management. In addition, proposed paragraph (j)(4)(ii) would establish that the term “employee” would include CRC staff who are not health care providers. CRCs employ a variety of personnel that may include, for example, contractors or janitorial staff. These individuals have access to veteran residents, and some may be in a unique position to take advantage of veterans.

    Proposed paragraph (j)(4)(iii) would include persons with direct resident access in the definition of “employee.” The term “person with direct resident access” would mean an individual living in the facility who is not receiving services from the facility, who may have access to the resident or the resident's property, or may have one-on-one contact with the resident. This could include relatives of live-in staff members. These individuals with direct resident access are most commonly found in medical foster homes, which are typically small CRCs located in a family home, with no more than three consumer residents that are run by certain members of a family, while other family members are not employed by the CRC but continue to live in the home. They do not provide care or services to veteran residents, but may have regular contact with, or access to, veteran residents and their property. We do not include fellow residents who are receiving services from the CRC in the definition of “person with direct resident access” because we believe that it is inappropriate to consider the background of patients.

    In proposed paragraph (j)(5), we would define the term “convicted” for purposes of this proposed rule. An employee would be considered “convicted” of a criminal offense when a judgment of conviction has been entered against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court, regardless of whether there is an appeal pending or whether the judgment of conviction or other record relating to criminal conduct has been expunged. It would also include a finding of guilt against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court. The term “convicted” would also include a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the individual has been accepted by a Federal, State, or local court. Finally, the term would also encompass participation in a first offender, deferred adjudication, or other arrangement or program where judgment of conviction has been withheld. The proposed definition covers the spectrum of outcomes possible when a court of competent jurisdiction finds that a defendant has committed a criminal act. It recognizes that the act that resulted in the conviction, as well as the conviction itself, is relevant to the issue of safety and health of veterans residing in CRCs.

    Proposed paragraph (j)(6) would provide that, for purposes of proposed paragraph (j)(3), the terms “abuse” and “neglect” would have the same meaning set forth in 38 CFR 51.90(b). That paragraph describes residents' right to be free from mental, physical, sexual, and verbal abuse or neglect, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion. Mental abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse are also further defined.

    The proposed rule would be enforced through the normal VA inspection and approval process established in § 17.65. This section states that VA may approve a CRC meeting all of the standards in § 17.63 based on the report of a VA inspection and any findings of necessary interim monitoring of the facility. CRCs are inspected by VA at least every 12 months, and an approval is valid for a 12-month period. A CRC may gain provisional approval if that facility does not meet one or more of the standards in § 17.63, provided the deficiencies do not jeopardize the health or safety of residents, and the facility and VA agree to a plan for correcting the deficiencies in a specified amount of time.

    If the approving official determines that a CRC does not comply with all of the standards in § 17.63, the facility is provided notice of the discrepancy and an opportunity for a hearing. Approval of a CRC may be revoked following a hearing as provided for in § 17.71. When revocation occurs, VA ceases referring veterans to the CRC and notifies any veteran residing in that facility of the revocation. Although this proposed rule would not change the process of inspection, approval, or revocation of approval of CRCs established in current 38 CFR 17.61 through 17.72, we have provided the above discussion to show as a practical matter how CRCs would be affected by this proposed rule. The public is invited to comment on whether the proposed new standards in paragraphs (e) and (j) should be enforced in the same manner as every other standard in § 17.63.

    The proposed changes to paragraph (j) require a CRC to maintain certain records, develop and implement written policies and procedures prohibiting mistreatment, neglect, abuse of residents, and misappropriation of resident property. The approving VA official may request these records and policies to ensure compliance with VA standards. Current paragraph (i) addresses records that must be maintained by the CRC. We propose to amend paragraph (i) to include the new recordkeeping requirement. We would also reorganize this paragraph to consolidate all resident-related record requirements into a single subparagraph.

    Proposed paragraph (i)(1) would state that the CRC must maintain records on each resident in a secure place. Resident records must include a copy of all signed agreements with the resident. Resident records may be disclosed only with the permission of the resident, or when required by law. This mirrors current paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2)(ii), and (i)(3).

    In paragraph (i)(2), we would state that the CRC must maintain and make available, upon request of the approving official, records establishing compliance with paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section; written policies and procedures required under paragraph (j)(3) of this section; and, emergency notification procedures. A CRC is required to hire qualified and properly trained staff, per current paragraphs (j)(1) and (2). VA verifies compliance with this standard during routine facility inspections. The proposed rule would prohibit a CRC from employing certain individuals and would require a CRC to develop and implement certain policies and to investigate and document certain allegations of abuse or neglect. The proposed change to paragraph (i) would address the need to maintain records reflecting compliance with these standards, and would ensure that the approving official may access these records upon request. Current paragraph (i)(2)(i) already requires a CRC to maintain records regarding emergency notification procedures. This proposal would consolidate this with other recordkeeping requirements that are not resident-specific.

    In addition, we propose to amend § 17.63(e)(1), regarding the maximum number of beds allowed in a resident's bedroom. Current standards provide that resident bedrooms must contain no more than four beds, and multiresident rooms must provide each resident at least 80 square feet of living space. We propose to limit the number of resident beds in newly established bedrooms in approved facilities and facilities seeking approval. Limiting the number of beds to up to two per bedroom would ensure that veterans receive an appropriate amount of privacy and would appropriately minimize the impact of visits from guests, care providers, etc., on the veteran's quality of life. Under the proposed rule, facilities approved before the effective date of the rule that already have bedrooms with more than two beds would be able to retain that configuration, but could not establish any new bedrooms with more than two beds in a room. Bedrooms in facilities approved after the effective date of the final rule, or newly established bedrooms in facilities approved before the effective date of the final rule, would not be permitted to provide more than two beds. We would allow currently approved configurations because we do not want to negatively impact veteran residents placed in those CRCs who are satisfied with their arrangement.

    Effect of Rulemaking

    The Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised by this proposed rulemaking, would represent the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures would be authorized. All VA guidance would be read to conform with this proposed rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance would be superseded by this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule includes provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking to OMB for review. OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Proposed § 17.63(i) and (j) would require a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If OMB does not approve the collection of information as requested, VA will immediately remove the provisions containing a collection of information or take such other action as is directed by OMB.

    Comments on the collection of information contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies sent by mail or hand-delivery to: Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or fax to (202) 273-9026; or submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP06—Ensuring a Safe Environment for Community Residential Care Residents.”

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment on the proposed rule.

    VA considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—

    • Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of VA functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluating the accuracy of VA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    The collection of information contained in 38 CFR 17.63(i) and (j) is described immediately following this paragraph.

    Title: Ensuring a Safe Environment for Community Residential Care Residents.

    Summary of collection of information: Current § 17.63(i) addresses recordkeeping requirements for a CRC. Information collection under this paragraph was approved by OMB under OMB control number 2900-0491; however that approval has expired. We propose amending paragraph (i) to address not only the recordkeeping requirements currently in that paragraph, but also recordkeeping requirements under paragraphs (j)(1) through (3).

    Paragraph (i)(1) would require the CRC to maintain records on each resident, to include a copy of all signed agreements with the resident. We estimate the annual burden related to this information collection to be one hour per year.

    Paragraph (i)(2) would state that the CRC must maintain and make available upon request of the approving official, records establishing compliance with paragraphs (j)(1) and (2). These paragraphs relate to CRC staff requirements, and provide that the CRC must have sufficient, qualified staff must be on duty and available to care for the resident and ensure the health and safety of each resident. The CRC provider and staff must have adequate education, training, or experience to maintain the facility. We estimate that the annual burden related to information collection required to establish that the CRC has sufficient, qualified staff, and that the CRC provider and staff have adequate training and education, would be two hours.

    Paragraph (i)(2) would also require the CRC to maintain records related to proposed paragraph (j)(3). Proposed § 17.63(j)(3) would require CRCs to immediately, meaning no more than 24 hours after the provider becomes aware of the alleged violation, report all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property to the approving official. We would require that the report, at a minimum, must include the facility name, address, telephone number, and owner; the date and time of the alleged violation; a summary of the alleged violation; the name of any public or private officials or VHA program offices that have been notified of the alleged violations, if any; whether additional investigation is necessary to provide VHA with more information about the alleged violation; and contact information for a person who can provide additional details at the community residential care provider, including a name, position, location, and phone number.

    We would require the CRCs to document and thoroughly investigate evidence of an alleged violation. The results of all investigations must be reported to the approving official within 5 working days of the incident and to other officials in accordance with State law. It would also require facilities to develop and implement written policies and procedures to prohibit the mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The approving VA official may request the facility to produce such written policies and procedures.

    The most current data available to VA (Q4 FY2012) reflects that we have 1,293 approved CRCs, 493 of which are Medical Foster Homes at the 1 to 3 bed size. The total number of staff working in these facilities is 5,614. This aggregate number of CRC staff is distributed in CRCs as follows: 2.5 staff for a 1 to 3 bed facility, 4 staff for a 4 to 15 bed facility, 5 staff for a 15 to 26 bed facility and 11 staff for a 26 to 100+ bed facility.

    CRCs would be required to report information under this proposed rule when the facility: (1) Has an alleged violation involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property; or, (2) is reporting the results of an investigation into that alleged violation. The CRCs would also be required to document and investigate evidence of any alleged violation. We view the reporting, documenting, and investigating of an alleged incident and the subsequent report of the results of the investigation to be one collection of information, as it focuses on one set of alleged facts and the facility's investigation of those facts.

    VA does not currently require CRCs to report to the approving official allegations of resident abuse or neglect. VA surveyed CRC coordinators at the VA medical facilities that approve CRC sponsors. Based on information from CRC coordinators, we believe that VA currently receives fewer than one report of alleged mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, or misappropriation of resident property from CRCs in any given year. This proposed rule would formalize the reporting and investigation requirement and we believe this would more likely than not result in an increase in the number of reports of alleged abuse mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, or misappropriation of resident property per year. However, for purposes of this estimate, we will assume that a CRC will have one incident per year related to an alleged violation involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property; or, reporting the results of an investigation into that alleged violation. The estimated average burden for an alleged violation response is three hours.

    All approved CRCs would be required to develop and implement written policies and procedures to prohibit the mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. On inspection of a CRC, VA would require the facility to produce such written policies and procedures. The written policies would have to be developed once, although it is possible that a promulgated policy could require revision in the future. VA intends to develop sample policies and boilerplate that could be adapted by a CRC to meet the facility's individual requirements. This would decrease the burden of this proposed information collection. VA estimates that the information collection burden on a CRC utilizing a sample policy or boilerplate developed by VA would be two hours.

    Finally, paragraph (i)(2) would require the CRC to maintain a record of emergency notification procedures. This is consistent with current § 17.63(i)(2)(i). Once emergency notification procedures are in place, there may be instances in which the CRC may periodically review and modify the existing procedures. We estimate the annual burden of this information collection to be 0.5 hours.

    Description of need for information and proposed use of information: VA needs this information to ensure the health and safety of veterans placed in these facilities. In CRCs, where VA involvement is less intensive and to which VA does not provide any payments or services, we believe that information obtained under the proposed rule would provide necessary protection for veteran residents.

    Description of Likely Respondents: Operators of CRCs currently listed or that request future listing on VA's approved CRCs referral list.

    Estimated Number of Respondents per Year: 1,293 operators of CRCs.

    Estimated Frequency of Responses: Once in a 12-month period.

    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 8.5 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden: 10,990.5 hours.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This proposed rule would be small business neutral as it applies only to those CRCs seeking inclusion on VA's list of approved CRCs. The costs associated with this proposed rule are minimal, consisting of the administrative requirement to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property; ensure that no employees are employed in contravention to the proposed rule; report to VA any alleged violation involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property; and investigate alleged resident abuse, take steps to prevent further harm, and implement appropriate corrective measures.

    A CRC may elect to order background checks on employees from commercial sources or local law enforcement agencies. The cost of an individual background check varies dependent on the vendor, but VA believes the average cost is $50. VA believes that 75 percent of CRCs are required to, or could obtain, criminal background checks on employees through one or more existing federal or state programs. This includes: (1) The state grant program administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for conducting federal and state criminal background checks on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and providers (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l); (2) the CMS requirement applicable to facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds; and (3) various state laws or regulations mandating criminal background screening for employment to work with the elderly or disabled. In addition, many CRCs that are currently servicing veterans already, voluntarily, have policies and procedures in place to review the backgrounds of their employees and make employment decisions consistent with this rulemaking as one way to ensure resident safety.

    The remaining 25 percent of CRCs (324) would more likely than not opt to obtain criminal background checks on CRC staff in order to be approved by VA. The median number of staff in CRCs currently approved by VA is five. We estimate the cost that would be incurred for obtaining criminal background checks on CRC staff is $250 per CRC.

    On this basis, the Secretary certifies that the adoption of this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 to FYTD.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; and 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on November 5, 2015, for publication

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Government programs-veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.

    Dated: November 6, 2015. Jeffrey M. Martin, Office Program Manager, Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 as follows:

    PART 17—MEDICAL 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.

    2. Amend § 17.63 by revising paragraph (e)(1) and paragraph (i) and adding paragraphs (j)(3) through (6) to read as follows:
    § 17.63 Approval of community residential care facilities.

    (e) * * *

    (1) Contain no more than four beds:

    (i) Facilities approved before [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] may not establish any new resident bedrooms with more than two beds per room;

    (ii) Facilities approved on or after [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] may not provide resident bedrooms containing more than two beds per room.

    (i) Records. (1) The facility must maintain records on each resident in a secure place. Resident records must include a copy of all signed agreements with the resident. Resident records may be disclosed only with the permission of the resident, or when required by law.

    (2) The facility must maintain and make available, upon request of the approving VA official, records establishing compliance with paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section; written policies and procedures required under paragraph (j)(3) of this section; and, emergency notification procedures. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2900-XXXX.)

    (j) * * *

    (3) The community residential care provider must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property.

    (i) The community residential care provider must do all of the following:

    (A) Not employ individuals who—

    (1) Have been convicted by a court of law of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of individuals; or

    (2) Have had a finding entered into an applicable State registry or with the applicable licensing authority concerning abuse, neglect, mistreatment of individuals or misappropriation of property.

    (B) Ensure that all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property are reported to the approving official immediately, which means no more than 24 hours after the provider becomes aware of the alleged violation. The report, at a minimum, must include—

    (1) The facility name, address, telephone number, and owner;

    (2) The date and time of the alleged violation;

    (3) A summary of the alleged violation;

    (4) The name of any public or private officials or VHA program offices that have been notified of the alleged violations, if any;

    (5) Whether additional investigation is necessary to provide VHA with more information about the alleged violation; and

    (6) Contact information for a person who can provide additional details at the community residential care provider, including a name, position, location, and phone number.

    (C) Have evidence that all alleged violations of this paragraph (j) are documented and thoroughly investigated, and must prevent further abuse while the investigation is in progress. The results of all investigations must be reported to the approving official within 5 working days of the incident and to other officials in accordance with State law, and appropriate corrective action must be taken if the alleged violation is verified.

    (D) Remove all duties requiring direct resident contact with veteran residents from any employee alleged to have violated this paragraph (j) during the investigation of such employee.

    (4) For purposes of paragraph (j)(3) of this section, the term “employee” includes a:

    (i) Non-VA health care provider at the community residential care facility;

    (ii) Staff member of the community residential care facility who is not a health care provider, including a contractor; and

    (iii) Person with direct resident access. The term “person with direct resident access” means an individual living in the facility who is not receiving services from the facility, who may have access to a resident or a resident's property, or may have one-on-one contact with a resident.

    (5) For purposes of paragraph (j)(3) of this section, an employee is considered “convicted” of a criminal offense—

    (i) When a judgment of conviction has been entered against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court, regardless of whether there is an appeal pending or whether the judgment of conviction or other record relating to criminal conduct has been expunged;

    (ii) When there has been a finding of guilt against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court;

    (iii) When a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the individual has been accepted by a Federal, State, or local court; or

    (iv) When the individual has entered into participation in a first offender, deferred adjudication, or other arrangement or program where judgment of conviction has been withheld.

    (6) For purposes of paragraph (j)(3) of this section, the terms “abuse” and “neglect” have the same meaning set forth in 38 CFR 51.90(b).

    (The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection provisions in this section under control number 2900-XXXX.)
    [FR Doc. 2015-28749 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0622; FRL-9936-84-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source Regulations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of state regulations establishing standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new on-road and new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines. The EPA is proposing to approve these regulations because they meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and are relied upon by various California plans intended to provide for the attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0622], by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to the EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3959, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background II. The State's Submittal A. What regulations did the state submit? B. Are there other versions of these regulations? C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulations? D. What requirements do the regulations establish? III. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the regulations? B. Do the state regulations meet CAA SIP evaluation criteria? 1. Did the state provide adequate public notification and comment periods? 2. Does the state have adequate legal authority to implement the regulations? 3. Are the regulations enforceable as required under CAA section 110(a)(2)? 4. Do the regulations interfere with reasonable further progress and attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act? 5. Will the state have adequate personnel and funding for the regulations? 6. EPA's Evaluation Conclusion C. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Under the Clean Air Act (“Act” or CAA), the EPA establishes national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare, and has established such ambient standards for a number of pervasive air pollutants including ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and particulate matter. Under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states must submit plans that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS within each state. Such plans are referred to as state implementation plans (SIPs) and revisions to those plans are referred to as SIP revisions. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA sets forth the content requirements for SIPs. Among the various requirements, SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(a).

    As a general matter, the CAA assigns mobile source regulation to the EPA through title II of the Act and assigns stationary source regulation and SIP development responsibilities to the states through title I of the Act. In so doing, the CAA preempts various types of state regulation of mobile sources as set forth in section 209(a) (preemption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles and engines), section 209(e) (preemption of state emissions standards for new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines),1 and section 211(c)(4)(A) [preemption of state fuel requirements for motor vehicle emission control, i.e., other than California's motor vehicle fuel requirements for motor vehicle emission control—see section 211(c)(4)(B)]. For certain types of mobile source emission standards, the State of California may request a waiver (for motor vehicles) or authorization (for off-road engines and equipment) for standards relating to the control of emissions and accompanying enforcement procedures. See CAA sections 209(b) (new motor vehicles) and 209(e)(2) (most categories of new and in-use off-road vehicles).

    1 EPA regulations refer to “nonroad” vehicles and engines whereas California regulations refer to “off-road” vehicles and engines. These terms refer to the same types of vehicles and engines, and for the purposes of this action, we will be using the state's chosen term, “off-road,” to refer to such vehicles and engines.

    Over the years, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has submitted many requests for waiver or authorization of its standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new on-road and new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines, and the EPA has granted many such requests. For example, the EPA has granted waivers for CARB's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) criteria pollutant standards for light- and medium duty vehicles, and has authorized emissions standards for such off-road vehicle categories as commercial harbor craft, and forklifts and other industrial equipment. See 78 FR 2112 (January 9, 2013) (advanced clean cars), 76 FR 77521 (December 13, 2011) (commercial harbor craft), and 77 FR 20388 (April 4, 2012) (forklifts and other industrial equipment).

    Also over the years, CARB has submitted, and the EPA has approved, many local or regional California air district rules regulating stationary source emissions as part of the California SIP. See, generally, 40 CFR 52.220(c). With respect to mobile sources in general, California has submitted, and the EPA has approved, certain specific state regulatory programs, such the in-use, heavy-duty, diesel-fueled truck rule, various fuels regulations, and the vehicle inspection and maintenance program (I/M, also known as “smog check”). See, e.g., 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012) (in-use truck and bus regulation), 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010) (revisions to California on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations), and 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010) (revisions to California motor vehicle I/M program).

    California relies on these local, regional, and state stationary and mobile source regulations to meet various CAA requirements and includes the corresponding emissions reductions in the various regional air quality plans developed to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The EPA generally allows California to take credit for the corresponding emissions reductions relied upon in the various regional air quality plans because, among other reasons, the regulations are approved as part of the SIP and are thereby federally enforceable as required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).

    However, California also relies on emissions reductions from the regulations for which the EPA has previously granted waivers or authorizations, and historically, the EPA has approved regional air quality plans that take credit for emissions reductions from such regulations, notwithstanding the fact that California has not submitted these particular regulations as part of the California SIP.

    The EPA's longstanding practice of approving California plans that rely on emissions reductions from such “waiver measures,” notwithstanding the lack of approval as part of the SIP, was challenged in several petitions filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit held in favor of the petitioners on this issue and concluded that CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that all state and local control measures on which SIPs rely to attain the NAAQS be included in the SIP and thereby subject to enforcement by the EPA and members of the general public. See Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).

    In response to the decision in Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, CARB submitted a SIP revision on August 14, 2015 consisting of state mobile source regulations that establish standards and other requirements for the control of emissions from various new on-road and new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines for which the EPA has issued waivers or authorizations and that are relied upon by California regional plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The EPA is proposing action today under CAA section 110(k) on CARB's August 14, 2015 SIP revision submittal.

    II. The State's Submittal A. What regulations did the state submit?

    On August 14, 2015, CARB submitted a SIP revision that included a set of state mobile source regulations for which waivers or authorizations have been granted by the EPA under section 209 of the CAA. The SIP revision consists of the regulations themselves and documentation of the public process conducted by CARB in approving the regulations as part of the California SIP. Table 1 below presents the contents of the SIP revision by mobile source category and provides, for each such category, a listing of the relevant sections of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) that establish standards and other requirements for control of emissions from new or in-use vehicles or engines; the corresponding date of CARB's hearing date or Executive Officer (EO) action through which the regulations or amendments were adopted; and the notice of decision in which the EPA granted a waiver or authorization for the given set of regulations.2

    2 CARB's August 14, 2015 SIP submittal included a table that lists the specific sections of the CCR included in the submittal. By email dated October 23, 2015, CARB identified a few typographic errors in the table: (1) 13 CCR sections 2456(d)(3), 2456(d)(5), and 2456(d)(6) (i.e., not sections 2455(d)(3), 2455(d)(5), and 2455(d)(6)) are excluded from the submittal of regulations establishing standards and other requirements for the portable equipment registration program (PERP); (2) 13 CCR section 2485(1)(B) (not just section 2385(1)(A)) is excluded from the submittal of regulations related to truck idling; (3) and 13 CCR section 2474 is to be included in the submittal of regulations related to spark-ignition marine engines. See email from Alex Wong, CARB, to Jefferson Wehling, EPA Region IX, dated October 23, 2015.

    Table 1—CARB SIP Revision Submittal Summary Source category Relevant sections of California Code of Regulations Date of relevant CARB hearing date(s) or Executive Officer action EPA Notice of decision On-Road Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles (LEV II) Amendments to 13 CCR §§ 1961, 1965, and 1978 and the documents incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 12/04/03; and amendments to 13 CCR §§ 1961, 1976, 1978, and documents incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 2/17/07 12/12/02, 6/22/06 70 FR 22034 (4/28/05); 75 FR 44948 (7/30/10) On-Road Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles (LEV III) and Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) Adoption of 13 CCR §§ 1961.2 and 1962.2 (excluding subsection 1962.2(g)(6)) and amendments to 13 CCR §§ 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1961, 1962.1, 1962.2 (re-numbered to 1961.3), 1965, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2145, 2147, and 2235 and the documents incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 08/07/12; amendments to 13 CCR §§ 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1961, 1961.2, 1962.1, 1962.2 (excluding subsection 1962.2(g)(6)(C)), and 1976 and the documents incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 12/31/12 01/26/12, 11/15/12 78 FR 2112 (1/9/13) On-Road Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines 13 CCR § 1956.8 and the document incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 12/4/03 12/12/02, 9/5/03 (EO) 75 FR 70237 (11/17/10) On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines Amendments to 13 CCR § 1956.8, and the document incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 11/17/02 10/25/01 70 FR 50322 (8/26/05) On-Road Motorcycles Amendments to 13 CCR §§ 1900, 1958 (excluding 1958(a)(1)), and 1965, and the document incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 11/22/99 12/10/98 71 FR 44027 (8/3/06) On-Road Heavy-Duty Engines—On-Board Diagnostic System (HD OBD) 13 CCR §§ 1971.1 and 1971.5, effective for state law purposes on 6/17/10 5/28/09 77 FR 73459 (12/10/12) On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles—engine or vehicle idle controls 13 CCR §§ 1956.8, 2404, 2424, 2425, and 2485 (excluding subsections 2485(c)(1)(A), 2485(c)(1)(B), and 2485(c)(3)(B)), and the document incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 11/15/2006 10/20/05 77 FR 9239 (2/16/12) In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units 13 CCR § 2477, as amended, effective for state law purposes on 3/7/11 11/18/10 78 FR 38970 (6/28/13) Commercial Harbor Craft 17 CCR § 93118.5 (excluding subsection 93118.5(e)(1)), effective for state law purposes on 11/19/08. 11/15/07, 9/2/08 (EO) 76 FR 77521 (12/13/11) Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines New LSI engine emissions standards: 13 CCR §§ 2430, 2431, 2433, 2434, and 2438; LSI fleet requirements: 13 CCR §§ 2775, 2775.1 and 2775.2, and the documents incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 5/12/07 5/25/06, 3/2/07 (EO) 77 FR 20388 (4/4/12) Auxiliary Diesel Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels 13 CCR § 2299.3 and 17 CCR § 93118.3, effective for state law purposes on 01/02/09 12/6/07, 10/16/08 (EO) 76 FR 77515 (12/13/11) In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets 13 CCR §§ 2449 (excluding subsection 2449(d)(2)) 2449.1, and 2449.2, effective for state law purposes on 12/14/11 5/25/07, 7/26/07, 12/11/08, 1/22/09, 7/23/09, 12/17/10 78 FR 58090 (9/20/13) Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) 13 CCR § 2479 (excluding subsections (e)(2) and (e)(4)), as amended, effective for state law purposes on 10/14/12 9/22/11 80 FR 26249 (5/7/15) Small Off-Road Engines (SORE) 13 CCR §§ 2401, 2403, 2404, 2405, 2406, 2408, 2408.1, and 2409, and the document incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 5/5/10 11/21/08 80 FR 26041 (5/6/15) Off-Road Compression—Ignition (CI) Engines 13 CCR §§ 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2425.1, 2426, and 2427, and the documents incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 1/6/06 1/27/00, 12/9/04 75 FR 8056 (2/23/10) In-Use Portable Diesel-Fueled Engines (PDE) 17 CCR §§ 93116 through 93116.5 (excluding subsection 93116.3(a)), effective for state law purposes on 3/11/05 2/26/04 77 FR 72846 (12/6/12) Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) 13 CCR §§ 2451, 2452, 2453, 2455 (excluding subsections 2455(a) and 2455(b)), 2456 (excluding subsections 2456(a), 2456(d)(3), 2456(d)(5), and 2456(d)(6)), 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, and 2462, as amended, effective for state law purposes on 9/12/07 3/27/97, 7/31/07 (EO), 12/10/98, 2/26/04, 6/22/06, 3/22/07 77 FR 72851 (12/6/12) Spark-Ignition Marine Engines and Boats (Marine SI) 13 CCR §§ 2111, 2112, Appendix A therein, 2139, 2147, 2440, 2442, 2443.1, 2443.2, 2444.1, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2447 and 2474, and the documents incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 08/16/09 7/24/08, 6/5/09 (EO) 80 FR 26032 (5/16/15) Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines (OHRV) 13 CCR §§ 2111, 2112, 2411, 2412, and 2413, and the document incorporated by reference (see table 2 below), effective for state law purposes on 8/15/07 7/20/06 79 FR 6584 (2/4/14)

    The regulations submitted by CARB and listed in table 1 incorporate by reference certain documents that establish test procedures and labeling specifications, among other things, and CARB submitted the documents as part of the overall SIP revision. Table 2 lists the incorporated documents included in the SIP submittal.

    Table 2—Documents Incorporated by Reference in CARB Regulations Listed in Table 1, Above, and Submitted as Part of SIP Revision On-Road Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (LEV II): California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles, as last amended September 5, 2003. California Motor Vehicle Emission Control and Smog Index Label Specifications for 1978 through 2003 Model Year Motorcycles, Light-, Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” as last amended September 5, 2003. California Smog Index Label Specifications for 2004 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks,” adopted September 5, 2003. California Refueling Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles, as last amended September 5, 2003. California Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles, as amended June 22, 2006. California Refueling Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles, as last amended June 22, 2006. California Exhaust Emission Standards Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, as last amended June 22, 2006. On-Road Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (LEV III) and Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV): California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles, as last amended March 22, 2012. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engines, as last amended March 22, 2012. California Non-Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures, as last amended March 22, 2012. California 2001 through 2014 Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2009 through 2016 Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, as last amended March 22, 2012, excluding GHG-related provisions. California Environmental Performance Label Specifications for 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles, as last amended March 22, 2012. California Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles, as last amended March 22, 2012. California Refueling Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles, as last amended March 22, 2012. Specifications for Fill Pipes and Openings of 1977 through 2014 Model Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks, as last amended March 22, 2012. Specifications for Fill Pipes and Openings of 2015 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks, adopted March 22, 2012. California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, adopted March 22, 2012, excluding GHG-related provisions. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 through 2017 Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes, as last amended March 22, 2012, excluding GHG-related provisions. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2018 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes, adopted March 22, 2012, excluding GHG-related provisions. California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, as last amended December 6, 2012, excluding GHG-related provisions. California 2001 through 2014 Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2009 through 2016 Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, as last amended December 6, 2012, excluding GHG-related provisions. California Non-Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures, as last amended December 6, 2012. California Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles, as last amended December 6, 2012. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engines, as last amended December 6, 2012. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles, as last amended December 6, 2012. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 through 2017 Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes, as last amended December 6, 2012. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2018 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes, adopted December 6, 2012, excluding GHG-related provision. On-Road Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines: California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Otto-cycle Engines, as last amended December 12, 2002. On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines: California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1985 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles, as last amended October 25, 2001. On-Road Motorcycles: California Motor Vehicle Emission Control and Smog Index Label Specifications, as last amended October 22, 1999. On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles—Reduced Idling: California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, as last amended September 1, 2006. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines: California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2001 through 2006 Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines, Parts I and II, adopted September 1, 1999 and as last amended March 2, 2007. California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines, (2007-2009 Test Procedure 1048), adopted March 2, 2007. California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines, (2010 and Later Test Procedure 1048), adopted March 2, 2007. California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines (Test Procedures 1065 and 1068), adopted March 2, 2007. Small Off-Road Engines (SORE): California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2005 and Later Small Off-Road Engines, as last amended February 24, 2010. Off-Road Compression-Ignition (CI) Engines: California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2000 and Later Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines, Part I-B, adopted January 28, 2000 and as last amended October 20, 2005. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 1996 and Later Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines, Part II, adopted May 12, 1993 and as last amended October 20, 2005. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2008 and Later Tier 4 Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines, Part I-C, adopted October 20, 2005. Spark-Ignition Marine Engines and Boats (Marine SI): California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Model Year and Later Spark-Ignition Marine Engines, as last amended June 5, 2009. Procedures for Exemption of Add-On and Modified Parts for Off-Road Categories, as last amended June 5, 2009. Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines (OHRV): California Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test Procedures for 1997 and Later Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles, and Engines, as last amended August 15, 2007.

    It is important to note that CARB has expressly excluded from the August 14, 2015 SIP submittal certain sections or subsections of California code that have been authorized or waived by the EPA under CAA section 209. The excluded provisions pertain to:

    • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) exhaust emission standards for 2009 through 2016 Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and 2017 and subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles; and

    • GHG related provisions incorporated in the test procedures. Also, CARB has expressly excluded certain sections or subsections of California code that are not subject to preemption under CAA section 209 and thus not included in the related waiver or authorization by the EPA. These provisions pertain to:

    • Fuel requirements;

    • Idling restrictions on drivers;

    • Opacity standards;

    • Daily mass emission limits (from the PERP regulations); and

    • Certain labeling and consumer notification requirements.

    Section III.B.4 below provides further discussion of these excluded provisions.

    B. Are there other versions of these regulations?

    As noted previously, the CAA generally assigns to the EPA the responsibility of establishing standards for the control of emissions from mobile sources. However, the State of California was a pioneer in establishing standards for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles, and, in part due to the state's pioneering efforts, Congress established in 1967 a process under which California, alone among the states, would be granted a waiver from preemption (if certain criteria are met) and thereby enforce its own standards and other requirements for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress extended a similar process that had been established under section 209 for new motor vehicles to new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines. See CAA section 209(e)(2). Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the EPA must authorize California standards for the control of emissions of off-road vehicles and engines if certain criteria are met.

    The first waiver granted was for California's On-Road Emissions Standards for Model Year 1968. (See 33 FR 10160, July 16, 1968.) Since then, there have been dozens of waivers and authorizations granted by the EPA for new and amended CARB mobile source regulations. The EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality maintains a Web site that provides a general description of the waiver and authorization process and lists all of the various waivers and authorizations granted by the Agency to CARB over the years. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

    Historically, as noted above, CARB regulations subject to the section 209 waiver or authorization process were not submitted to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. Thus, for the purposes of the California SIP, there are no previous versions of the rules addressed in today's proposed action.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulations?

    Historically, California has experienced some of the most severe and most persistent air pollution problems in the country. Under the CAA, based on ambient data collected at numerous sites throughout the state, the EPA has designated areas within California as nonattainment areas for the ozone NAAQS and the particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) NAAQS. See, generally, 40 CFR 81.305. California also includes a number of areas that had been designated as nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide NAAQS that the EPA has redesignated as attainment areas because they have attained the standard and are subject to an approved maintenance plan demonstrating how they will maintain the carbon monoxide standard into the future.

    Mobile source emissions constitute a significant portion of overall emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) in the various air quality planning areas within California, and thus, the purpose of CARB's mobile source regulations is to reduce these emissions and thereby reduce ambient concentrations to attain and maintain the NAAQS throughout California.3 At elevated levels, ozone and PM harm human health and the environment by contributing to premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems.

    3 VOC and NOX are precursors responsible for the formation of ozone, and NOX and SO2 are precursors for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). SO2 belongs to a family of compounds referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). PM2.5 precursors also include VOC and ammonia. See 40 CFR 51.1000.

    D. What requirements do the regulations establish?

    Table 3 below describes the applicability of the regulations listed in table 1 above and summarizes some of the key emissions control requirements contained in the rules.

    Table 3—General Description of Requirements Established in the Mobile Source Regulations Included in the August 14, 2015 SIP Revision Source category Description of requirements in submitted regulation On-Road Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles (LEV II) CARB's “LEV II” regulations establish exhaust and evaporative emissions standards (and test procedures) for model year (MY) 2004 through 2014 passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The LEV II regulations also include the adoption of Compliance Assurance Program “CAP 2000” amendments that establish new motor vehicle certification and in-use test requirements—developed jointly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—applicable to 2001 and subsequent model motor vehicles. For more information about CARB's LEV II regulations, see 68 FR 19811 (April 22, 2003), 70 FR 22034 (April 28, 2005), and 75 FR 44948 (July 30, 2010). On-Road Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles (LEV III) and Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) CARB's LEV III and ZEV amendments combine the control of criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for MY 2015 through 2025 passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The requirements amend the exhaust and evaporative emissions standards, the test procedures, and the on-board diagnostic system specifications. (The standards related to GHG emissions are not included in the SIP revision submittal.) For more information about CARB's LEV III and ZEV amendments, see 78 FR 2112 (January 9, 2013). On-Road Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines CARB's on-road heavy-duty gasoline engine regulations establish exhaust emission standards for heavy-duty Otto-cycle engines and vehicles above 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) for the 2004, 2005 through 2007, and the 2008 and subsequent MYs. These regulations align each of California's exhaust emission standards and test procedures with its federal counterpart in an effort to streamline and harmonize the California and federal programs. For more information about CARB's on-road heavy-duty gasoline engine regulations, see 75 FR 70237 (November 17, 2010). On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines CARB's On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine regulations establish heavy-duty diesel regulations for 2007 and subsequent model year vehicles and engines (2007 California Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards) and related test procedures including the not-to-exceed (NTE) and supplemental steady state tests (supplemental test procedures) to determine compliance with applicable standards. CARB's 2007 California Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards primarily align California's standards and test procedures with the federal standards and test procedures for 2007 and subsequent model year on-road heavy-duty vehicles and engines. For more information about CARB's On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine regulations, see 70 FR 50322 (August 26, 2005) On-Road Motorcycles CARB's regulations establish exhaust emissions standards and test procedures for new on-road motorcycles and motorcycle engines. For additional information about CARB's motorcycle regulations, see 71 FR 44027 (August 3, 2006). On-Road Heavy-Duty Engines—On-Board Diagnostic System (HD OBD) CARB's HD OBD regulations establish requirements for onboard diagnostic systems (OBD systems) that are installed on 2010 and subsequent model-year engines certified for sale in heavy-duty applications in California. The OBD systems, through the use of an onboard computer(s), monitor emission systems in-use for the actual life of the engine and are capable of detecting malfunctions of the monitored emission systems, illuminating a malfunction indicator light (MIL) to notify the vehicle operator of detected malfunctions, and storing fault codes identifying the detected malfunctions. For more information about CARB's HD OBD regulations, see 77 FR 73459 (December 10, 2012). On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles—engine or vehicle idle controls As submitted, CARB's truck idling requirements consist of “New engine requirements” that require new California-certified 2008 and subsequent model year on-road diesel engines in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds (i.e., heavy-duty diesel vehicles or “HDDV”s) be equipped with a system that automatically shuts down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling. For more information about CARB's truck idling requirements, see 77 FR 9239 (February 16, 2012). In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) Establishes in-use performance standards for diesel-fueled TRUs and TRU generator sets operating in California, and facilities where TRUs operate. In-use TRU engines are required, through one of the compliance options set forth in the regulations (e.g., retrofit or replacement), to meet specific performance standards that vary by horsepower range, and that have two levels of stringency that are phased in over time—the Low Emission TRU Standards, beginning in 2008, and the Ultra-Low Emission TRU Standards beginning in 2010. More stringent performance standards are required at 7-year intervals until the Ultra-Low TRU standards are met. For more information about CARB's in-use TRU regulations, see 74 FR 3030 (January 16, 2009) and 78 FR 38970 (June 28, 2013). Commercial Harbor Craft CARB's commercial harbor craft regulations establish emissions standards, requirements related to control of emissions, and enforcement provisions applicable to diesel propulsion and auxiliary engines on new and in-use commercial harbor craft. For new harbor craft, each propulsion and auxiliary diesel engine on the vessel is required to be certified to the most stringent federal new marine engine emission standards for that engine's power rating and displacement in effect at the time of sale, lease, rent, or acquisition. The regulation imposes additional requirements for larger new ferries (with the capacity to transport seventy-five or more passengers), either by using best available control technology (“BACT”), or by using a federal Tier 4 certified propulsion engine. For in-use harbor craft, new or in-use diesel engines may not be sold, offered for sale, leased, rented, or acquired unless the diesel propulsion or auxiliary engines are certified to at least the federal Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine emission standards for new engines of the same power rating and displacement. In-use emission requirements are imposed on Tier 0 and Tier 1 marine engines in ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, towboats, push boats, and multipurpose harbor craft. Those harbor craft are required to meet emission limits equal to or cleaner than the federal new marine engine certification standards in effect for the year that in-use engine compliance is required. For more information about CARB's commercial harbor craft regulations, see 76 FR 77521 (December 13, 2011). Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines CARB's LSI regulations establish more stringent emissions standards for new off-road LSI engines (25 hp or greater, gasoline- or LPG-powered, excluding construction and farm equipment) beginning in 2007 (increasing in stringency in 2010), and in-use fleet requirements for forklifts and other industrial equipment with LSI engines. The fleet average in-use emission standards apply to operators of large- and medium-sized fleets of forklifts, sweepers/scrubbers, airport ground supported equipment (GSE), and industrial two tractors with engine displacements of greater than one liter. For more information about CARB's LSI regulations, see 77 FR 20388 (April 4, 2012). Auxiliary Diesel Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels CARB's “At-Berth” regulation contains requirements that apply, with limited exceptions, to any person who owns or operates any container vessel, passenger vessel, or refrigerated cargo vessel that visits any of six specified California ports. It also contains requirements that affect any person who owns or operates those ports or terminals located at them. CARB's At-Berth regulation requires fleets of container vessels, passenger vessels and refrigerated cargo vessels to either: (1) Limit the amount of time they operate their auxiliary diesel engines by connecting to shore power for most of a vessel's stay at port (“Shore Power Option”); or (2) achieve equivalent emission reductions by employing other emission control techniques (“Equivalent Emission Reduction Option”). Fleet operators who elect the Shore Power Option are required to obtain the power that would otherwise be provided by a vessel's auxiliary engines by connecting to shore power for a percentage of the fleet's annual port visits. The required percentage of shore power connected port visits increases over the life of the regulation. Specifically, fifty percent of a fleet's total visits must be connected to shore power by 2014, followed by seventy percent by 2017, and eighty percent by 2020. For more information about CARB's At-Berth regulation, see 76 FR 77515 (December 13, 2011). In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets CARB's In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation applies to fleets with off-road compression-ignition vehicles or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation takes effect beginning as early as 2014, depending on fleet size. It requires fleet operators to meet a progressively more stringent combined PM and NOX standard, or to reduce emissions through technology upgrades such as retrofit or replacement. For more information about CARB's In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, see 78 FR 58090 (September 20, 2013). Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) CARB's mobile CHE regulation sets performance standards for engines equipped in newly purchased, leased, or rented (collectively known as “newly acquired”), as well as in-use, mobile cargo handling equipment used at ports or intermodal rail yards in California. The standards vary depending on the type of vehicle, whether the engine is used in off-road equipment or a vehicle registered as an on-road motor vehicle, and whether they are newly acquired or already in-use. For more information about CARB's mobile CHE regulation, see 77 FR 9916 (February 21, 2012) and 80 FR 26249 (May 7, 2015). Small Off-Road Engines (SORE) CARB's SORE regulations establish emissions standards for new spark ignition utility and lawn and garden equipment engines 25 horsepower and under. For more information about CARB's SORE regulations, see 80 FR 26041 (May 6, 2015). Off-Road Compression -Ignition (CI) Engines CARB's Off-Road CI Engine Regulations establish emissions standards for new off-road diesel-powered engines and equipment. For more information about CARB's Off-Road CI Engine Regulations, see 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010). In-Use Portable Diesel-Fueled Engines (PDE) CARB's PDE regulation establishes requirements for in-use portable diesel-fueled engines 50 brake-horsepower (hp) and greater. Specifically, starting on January 1, 2010, all portable engines in California must be certified to meet a federal or California standard for newly manufactured off-road engines. More stringent requirements apply beginning on January 1, 2020. Fleets of portable engines must comply with increasingly more stringent weighted PM emission fleet averages that apply on three different deadlines (January 1, 2013, January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020). For more information about CARB's PDE regulation, see 77 FR 72846 (December 6, 2012). Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) PERP is a voluntary statewide program that enables registration of off-road engines and equipment that operate at multiple locations across California, so that the engine and equipment owners can operate throughout California without obtaining permits from local air pollution control districts. The PERP sets out four general requirements applicable to all registered equipment: (1) Registered equipment may not operate in a manner that causes a nuisance; (2) registered equipment may not interfere with attainment of national or state ambient air quality standard; (3) registered equipment many not cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard; and (4) owners of registered equipment must provide notice and comply with requirements for prevention of significant deterioration if it would constitute a major modification of that source. The PERP also has specific requirements for both registered engines and certain types of equipment units. For more information about CARB's PERP regulations, see 77 FR 72851 (December 6, 2012). Spark-Ignition Inboard and Sterndrive Marine Engines CARB's Inboard and Sterndrive Marine Engine regulations establish tier II hydrocarbon (HC) and NOX exhaust emissions standards for new inboard and sterndrive engines. For more information about CARB's Marine SI Engine regulations, see 72 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007) and 76 FR 24872 (May 3, 2011). Spark-Ignition Marine Engines and Boats (Marine SI) CARB's Marine SI Engine regulations establish HC and NOX exhaust emissions standards for outboard, inboard, and sterndrive engines and personal watercraft. For more information about CARB's Marine SI Engine regulations, see 72 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007), 76 FR 24872 (May 3, 2011), and 80 FR 26032 (May 6, 2015). Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines (OHRV) CARB's OHRV regulations establish exhaust and evaporative emission standards and test procedures for OHRVs. The regulations also establish a “red tag” program under which OHRVs not meeting the applicable emissions standards could be certified subject to use restrictions (i.e., use in specified areas during specified times of the year). For more information about CARB's OHRV regulations, see 79 FR 6584 (February 4, 2014). III. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the regulations?

    The EPA has evaluated the submitted regulations discussed above against the applicable procedural and substantive requirements of the CAA for SIPs and SIP revisions and has concluded that they meet all of the applicable requirements. Generally, SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the Act [see CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)]; must provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out such SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out such SIP) [see CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)]; must be adopted by a state after reasonable notice and public hearing [see CAA section 110(l)], and must not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act [see CAA section 110(l)].4

    4 CAA section 193, which prohibits any pre-1990 SIP control requirement relating to nonattainment pollutants in nonattainment areas from being modified unless the SIP is revised to insure equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutants, does not apply to these regulations because they would be new to the California SIP, and thus, do not constitute an amendment to a pre-1990 SIP control requirement.

    B. Do the state regulations meet CAA SIP evaluation criteria? 1. Did the state provide adequate public notification and comment periods?

    Under CAA section 110(l), SIP revisions must be adopted by the state, and the state must provide for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption. In 40 CFR 51.102(d), we specify that reasonable public notice in this context refers to at least 30 days.

    All of the submitted regulations have gone through extensive public comment processes including CARB's workshop and hearing processes prior to state adoption of each rule. Also, the EPA's waiver and authorization processes provide an opportunity for the public to request public hearings to present information relevant to the EPA's consideration of CARB's request for waiver or authorization under section 209 of the CAA and to submit written comment.

    In addition, on June 19, 2015, CARB published a notice of public meeting to be held on July 23, 2015 to consider adoption and submittal of the adopted regulations for which the EPA has granted waivers or authorization as a revision to the California SIP. CARB held the public hearing on July 23, 2015. No written comments were submitted to CARB in connection with the proposed SIP revision, and no public comments were made at the public hearing. CARB adopted the SIP revision at the July 23, 2015 Board Hearing (Board Resolution 15-40), and submitted the relevant mobile source regulations to the EPA on August 14, 2015 along with evidence of the public process conducted by CARB in adopting the SIP revision. We conclude that CARB's August 14, 2015 SIP revision submittal meets the applicable procedural requirements for SIP revisions under the CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.

    2. Does the state have adequate legal authority to implement the regulations?

    CARB has been granted both general and specific authority under the California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) to adopt and implement these regulations. California H&SC sections 39600 (“Acts required”) and 39601 (“Adoption of regulation; Conformance to federal law”) confer on CARB the general authority and obligation to adopt regulations and measures necessary to execute CARB's powers and duties imposed by state law. California H&SC sections 43013(a) and 43018 provide broad authority to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective emission reductions from all mobile source categories. Regarding in-use motor vehicles, California H&SC sections 43600 and 43701(b), respectively, grant CARB authority to adopt emission standards and emission control equipment requirements. Further, California H&SC section 39666 gives CARB authority to adopt airborne toxic control measures to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants from new and in-use non-vehicular sources.

    As a general matter, as noted above, the CAA assigns mobile source regulation to the EPA through title II of the Act and assigns stationary source regulation and SIP development responsibilities to the states through title I of the Act. In so doing, the CAA preempts various types of state regulation of mobile sources as set forth in section 209(a) (preemption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles and engines), section 209(e) (preemption of state emissions standards for new and in-use nonroad vehicles and engines) and section 211(c)(4)(A) [preemption of state fuel requirements for motor vehicles, i.e., other than California's motor vehicle fuel requirements for motor vehicle emission control—section 211(c)(4)(B)]. For certain types of mobile source standards, the State of California may request a waiver (for motor vehicles) or authorization (for off-road vehicles or engines) for standards relating to the control of emissions and accompanying enforcement procedures. See CAA sections 209(b) (new motor vehicles) and 209(e)(2) (most categories of new and in-use off-road vehicles).

    The mobile source regulations that are the subject of today's proposed rule are those for which California has sought a waiver or authorization and for which the EPA has granted such waiver or authorization and thus the regulations proposed for approval today are not preempted under the CAA.5 For additional information regarding California's motor vehicle emission standards, please see the EPA's “California Waivers and Authorizations” Web page at URL address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm. This Web site also lists relevant Federal Register notices that have been issued by the EPA is response to California waiver and authorization requests.

    5 We recognize that our authorization (78 FR 58090, September 20, 2013) for CARB's in-use off-road diesel-fueled fleet regulations has been challenged in both the D.C. Circuit and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Dalton Trucking, Inc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir., No 13-1283) and Dalton Trucking, Inc. v. EPA (9th Cir., No. 13-74019). The D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case on November 9, 2015. (The Ninth Circuit is holding the cased in abeyance pending a decision by the D.C. Circuit concerning jurisdiction.) An adverse decision from the D.C. Circuit or Ninth Circuit that remands or vacates our authorization of CARB's in-use off-road diesel-fueled fleet regulations will prompt reconsideration of our approval of the regulations as part of the SIP because, absent authorization, CARB will be prohibited from enforcing the regulations and thus will no longer be able to provide the necessary assurances called for in CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) for the subject regulations.

    In addition, the EPA is unaware of any non-CAA legal obstacle to CARB's enforcement of the regulations and thus we conclude that the state has provided the necessary assurances that the state has adequate authority under state law to carry out the SIP revision (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out such SIP) and thereby meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to legal authority.

    3. Are the regulations enforceable as required under CAA section 110(a)(2)?

    We have evaluated the enforceability of the submitted mobile source regulations with respect to applicability and exemptions; standard of conduct and compliance dates; sunset provisions; discretionary provisions; and test methods, recordkeeping and reporting,6 and have concluded for the reasons given below that the proposed regulations would be enforceable for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2).

    6 These concepts are discussed in detail in an EPA memorandum from J. Craig Potter, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al., titled “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,” dated September 23, 1987.

    First, with respect to applicability, we find that the submitted regulations would be sufficiently clear as to which persons and which vehicles or engines are affected by the regulations. See, e.g., 13 CCR section 2430 (applicability provision for off-road LSI engine emission standard regulation); 13 CCR section 2449(b) (applicability provision for in-use off-road diesel-fueled fleets regulation).

    Second, we find that the submitted regulations would be sufficiently specific so that the persons affected by the regulations would be fairly on notice as to what the requirements and related compliance dates area. For instance, see the performance requirements for in-use off-road diesel-fueled fleets in 13 CCR section 2449(d). Third, none of the submitted regulations contain sunset provisions that automatically repeal the emissions limits by a given date or upon the occurrence of a particular event, such as the change in the designation of an area from nonattainment to attainment.7

    7 The only such provisions in any of the submitted regulations are a sunset provision for alternative requirements in the ZEV regulations at 13 CCR section 1962.1(b)(2)(B)(3.), and a sunset review of the on-road motorcycle standards at 13 CCR section 1958(h). The latter provision requires CARB to review the on-road motorcycle standards in section 1958 to determine whether they should be retained, revised, or repealed. Any such revision or rescission would not be become effective automatically, but would require rulemaking by CARB, and may also require a waiver from the EPA depending on the nature or the revision.

    Fourth, a number of the submitted regulations contain provisions that allow for discretion on the part of CARB's Executive Officer. Such “director's discretion” provisions can undermine enforceability of a SIP regulation, and thus prevent full approval by the EPA. However, in the instances of “director's discretion” in the submitted regulations, the discretion that can be exercised by the CARB Executive Officer is reasonably limited under the terms of the regulations. For instance, the regulation establishing standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions from commercial harbor craft includes alternative control of emissions (ACE) provisions that allow a person to be deemed in compliance by implementing an alternative emission control strategy (AECS) subject to the approval of the Executive Officer. See 13 CCR section 93118.5(f). The regulation specifies the application process for such an AECS, requires a number of demonstrations to be included (such as equivalent emissions reduction), and provides for public review. With such constraints on discretion, the “director's discretion” contained in the submitted regulations would not significantly undermine enforceability of the rules by citizens or the EPA.

    Lastly, each of the submitted regulations identifies appropriate test methods and includes adequate recordkeeping and reporting requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The technical support document provides more detail concerning the contents of the submitted regulations.

    4. Do the regulations interfere with reasonable further progress and attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act?

    All of the state's reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment, and maintenance plans rely to some extent on the emission reductions from CARB's mobile source program, including the emissions standards and other requirements for which the EPA has issued waivers or authorizations. For some plans, the reliance is substantial and for others the reliance is less. CARB's mobile source program is reflected in the emissions estimates for mobile sources that are included in the emissions inventories that form the quantitative basis for the RFP, attainment, and maintenance demonstrations. As such, CARB's mobile source regulations submitted for approval as a revision to the California SIP support the various RFP, attainment, and maintenance plans, and would not interfere with such requirements for the purposes of CAA section 110(l).

    As noted above, CARB expressly excluded certain sections or subsections of California code from consideration as part of the SIP revision. These provisions relate to GHG motor vehicle emissions standards and test procedures, fuel requirements, idling limits, opacity standards, daily mass emission limits, and certain labeling and consumer notification requirements. We understand that the GHG provisions have been excluded because they provide minimal emissions reductions over the time period covered by the current generation of California RFP, attainment, and maintenance plans. With respect to the non-preempted provisions, we understand that they were not included in the August 14, 2015 SIP submittal because they are not “waiver measures” and thus are not relevant for the purposes of responding to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA. However, we note the general principle that state emissions limitations and other control measures that are relied upon to meet CAA SIP requirements, such as RFP, attainment or maintenance demonstrations, must be approved into the SIP to comply with the requirement for such limitations and other control measures to be enforceable for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). Thus, we encourage CARB to review the RFP, attainment, and maintenance plans for the various air quality planning areas in California to ensure that the plans do not rely on the associated emissions reductions from the provisions excluded from the August 14, 2015 SIP submittal.

    5. Will the state have adequate personnel and funding for the regulations?

    In its SIP revision submittal, CARB refers to the annual approval by the California Legislature of funding and staff resources for carrying out CAA-related responsibilities and notes that a large portion of CARB's budget has gone toward meeting CAA mandates.8 CARB indicates that a majority of CARB's funding comes from dedicated fees collected from regulated emission sources and other sources such as vehicle registration fees and vehicles license plate fees and that these funds can only be used for air pollution control activities. Id. For the 2014-2015 budget cycle, CARB had over 700 positions and almost $500 million dedicated for the mobile source program developing and enforcing regulations. Id. Given the longstanding nature of CARB's mobile source program, and its documented effectiveness at achieving significant reductions from mobile sources, we find that CARB has provided necessary assurances that the state has adequate personnel and funding to carry out the mobile source regulations submitted for approval as part of the California SIP.

    8 Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, August 14, 2015.

    6. EPA's Evaluation Conclusion

    Based on the above discussion, we believe these regulations are consistent with the relevant CAA requirements, and with relevant EPA policies and guidance.

    C. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, and for the reasons given above, we are proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by CARB on August 14, 2015 that includes certain sections of title 13 and title 17 of the California Code of Regulations that establish standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new and in-use on-road and off-road vehicles and engines. We are proposing to approve these regulations as part of the California SIP because we believe they fulfill all relevant CAA requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until December 14, 2015. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP for the State of California.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference certain sections of title 13 and title 17 of the California Code of Regulations that establish standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new and in-use on-road and off-road vehicles and engines, as described in section II 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).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposed 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 proposed action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • 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 the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28614 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0431; FRL-9936-68-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of New Mexico/Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport SIP 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of New Mexico on behalf of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The submittal addresses how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). This i-SIP ensures that the State's SIP for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County is adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA, including the four CAA requirements for interstate transport of SO2 emissions.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0431, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.

    Email: Tracie Donaldson at [email protected]

    Mail or delivery: Mary Stanton, Chief, Air Grants Section (6PD-S), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0431. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional information on submitting comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tracie Donaldson, telephone 214-665-6633, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Tracie Donaldson or Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background

    On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS (hereafter the 2010 SO2 NAAQS) to establish a new 1-hour standard, with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520). Each state must submit an i-SIP within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a list of specific elements the i-SIP must meet. EPA issued guidance addressing the i-SIP elements for NAAQS on September 13, 2013.1 The Secretary of the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) submitted an i-SIP revision on behalf of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County to address this revised NAAQS on June 11, 2015.

    1 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    EPA is proposing to approve the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico i-SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,2 as meeting the requirements of an i-SIP.

    2 Additional information on: The history of SO2, its levels, forms and, determination of compliance; EPA's approach for reviewing i-SIPs; the details of the SIP submittal and EPA's evaluation; the effect of recent court decisions on i-SIPs; the statute and regulatory citations in the New Mexico SIP specific to this review; the specific i-SIP applicable CAA and EPA regulatory citations; Federal Register Notice citations for New Mexico SIP approvals; New Mexico's minor New Source Review program and EPA approval activities; and, New Mexico's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD).

    II. EPA's Evaluation of New Mexico's i-SIP Submittal

    Below is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico i-SIP for each applicable element of 110(a)(2) A-M. The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (Air Board) provided a demonstration of how the existing Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico SIP met all the requirements of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on June 11, 2015.

    (A) Emission limits and other control measures: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act, and other related matters as needed to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS.3

    3 The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations or emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Those SIP provisions are due as part of each state's attainment plan, and will be addressed separately from the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.

    Legislative authority for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's air quality program, codified in Chapter 74 Environmental Improvement, Article 2, Air Pollution, of the New Mexico statutes, gives the Air Board and the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department's Air Quality Program (AQP) the authority to implement the CAA in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Enforceable emission limitations and other control measures are authorized by the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (AQCA), which established the Air Board and those provisions of New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20, Environmental Protection, Chapter 11, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board. They can adopt emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to regulated entities; emission standards and limitations and any other measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of national standards; and, enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief within the boundaries of Bernalillo County. This authority has been employed to adopt and submit multiple revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan. The approved SIP for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico is documented at 40 CFR part 52.1620, Subpart GG.4

    4http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=64943a7422504656d8d72e9d6f87f177&mc=true&node=sp40.5.52.ss&rgn=div6.

    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: The SIP must provide for establishment and implementation of ambient air quality monitors, collection and analysis of monitoring data, and providing such data to EPA upon request.

    The AQCA provides AQP with the authority to monitor ambient air quality in the county (NMSA 1978, section 74-2-5). AQP maintains a monitoring network for the NAAQS and submits an annual Network Assessment to EPA. AQP's 2014 Air Monitoring Network Plan is the most recently EPA-approved network monitoring plan—approved by EPA on February 3, 2015. All monitoring data is measured using EPA approved methods and subject to the EPA quality assurance requirements. AQP submits all required data to EPA, following the EPA regulations. The monitoring network was approved into the SIP (46 FR 4005, August 6, 1981) and undergoes annual review by the EPA.5 In addition, AQP conducts an assessment of the monitoring network every 5 years. The most recent of these 5-year monitoring network assessments was conducted by AQP and approved by EPA. Data is available upon request and in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database.

    5 A copy of the 2014 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and EPA's approval letter dated February 3, 2015, are included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    (C) Program for enforcement The SIP must include the following three elements: (1) A program providing for enforcement of the measure in paragraph A above; (2) a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of minor sources); and (3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting requirements of the CAA (for areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS in question).6

    6 As discussed in further detail in the TSD.

    (1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. As noted in (A), the state statutes provide authority for the AQP to enforce the requirements of the AQCA within Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, and any regulations, permits, or final compliance orders. Its statutes also provide the AQP with general enforcement powers. Among other things, they can file lawsuits to compel compliance with the statutes and regulations; commence civil actions; issue field citations; conduct investigations of regulated entities; collect criminal and civil penalties; develop and enforce rules and standards related to protection of air quality; issue compliance orders; pursue criminal prosecutions; investigate, enter into remediation agreements; and issue emergency cease and desist orders. The AQCA also provides additional enforcement authorities and funding mechanisms.

    (2) Minor New Source Review (NSR). The SIP is required to include measures to regulate construction and modification of stationary sources to protect the NAAQS. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's minor NSR permitting requirements are approved as part of the SIP.7

    7 EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's existing minor NSR program to the extent that it may be inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure SIP for element C (e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079, July 13, 2011). EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs.

    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's PSD portion of the SIP covers all NSR regulated pollutants as well as the requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and has been approved by EPA.8 EPA approved revisions that address the requirements of the EPA's May 2008, July 2010, and October 2012 PM2.5 PSD Implementation Rules and to incorporate revisions consistent with the EPA's March 2011 Fugitives Interim Rule, July 2011 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Biomass Deferral Rule, and July 2012 GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG PALs Rule (80 FR 52401, August 31, 2015).

    8 As discussed further in the TSD.

    (D) Interstate and international transport: The requirements for interstate transport of SO2 emissions are that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions to other states which will (1) contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS, (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, (3) interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration or (4) interfere with measures to protect visibility (CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)).

    With respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the scarcity of major sources of SO2, the minimal amount of emissions from these sources, and the large geographic distance between those sources and other states, we find that Albuquerque-Bernalillo County does not contribute to nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance NAAQS.

    With respect to the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), we note that Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas with regards to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS have been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). Two revisions to the SIP to update the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD SIP permitting program consistent with federal requirements have been approved (80 FR 52401, August 31, 2015). These approvals contain revisions to address the requirements of the EPA's May 2008, July 2010, and October 2012 PM2.5 PSD Implementation Rules and to incorporate revisions consistent with the EPA's March 2011 Fugitives Interim Rule, July 2011 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Biomass Deferral Rule, and July 2012 GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG PALs Rule.

    For sources not subject to PSD for any one of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has adopted the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) provisions required for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and other NAAQS at 20.11.60 NMAC—Permitting in Nonattainment Areas.

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this requirement was met by our approval of the regional haze and visibility component of the SIP.

    There are no final findings by EPA that New Mexico air emissions affect other countries. Therefore, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico has no international obligations. If EPA makes such a finding, AQP will consult with EPA.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP ensure compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively. Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the State. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County regulations require that affected states, tribes and federal land managers receive notice prior to the commencement of any construction or significant modification of a major source. In addition, no sources located in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County have been identified by EPA as having any interstate impacts under section 126 in any pending actions relating to any air pollutant.

    Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against New Mexico with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the State's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the requirements of section 115.

    Based upon review of the County's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in New Mexico's SIP, EPA believes that Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has the adequate infrastructure needed to address sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the June 11, 2015, submission.

    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight: The SIP must provide for the following: (1) Necessary assurances that the state (and other entities within the state responsible for implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2) requirements relating to state boards; and (3) necessary assurances that the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of any plan provision for which it relies on local governments or other entities to carry out that portion of the plan.

    Both elements A and E address the requirement that there is adequate authority to implement and enforce the SIP and that there are no legal impediments.

    This i-SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS describes the SIP regulations governing the various functions of personnel within the AQP and the Air Board, including the administrative, technical support, planning, enforcement, and permitting functions of the program.

    With respect to funding, the resources to carry out the plan are provided through General Funds, Permit Fees and the CAA grant process. Permit Fees are collected under the authority of section 74-2-7.

    As required by the CAA and the Environmental Improvement Act (EIA), the SIP stipulates that any members of the board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. NMSA 1978 section 74-1-4 provides the Air Board contain at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to or who appear before the board on issues related to the CAA or the AQCA. Board members are required to recuse themselves from rule-makings in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

    With respect to assurances that the Air Board has responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, the EIA and the AQCA designate the Air Board as the primary air pollution control agency within Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. The statutes allow for local agencies to carry out some or all of the Act's responsibilities.

    The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board assumes jurisdiction for local administration and enforcement of the AQCA in Bernalillo County. There are Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP provisions which are part of the New Mexico SIP.9

    9 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP http://yosemite.epa.gov/r6/Sip0304.nsf/home!OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Collapse=4.4#4.4 or https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/52.1620.

    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: The SIP requires the establishment of a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports. It must require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources, to monitor emissions from sources. The SIP shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from sources, and require that the state correlate the source reports with emission limitations or standards established under the CAA. These reports must be made available for public inspection at reasonable times.

    Requirements in 20.11.47 NMAC, Emission Inventory Requirements provide for the reporting of emissions inventories in a format established by AQP on a schedule prescribed by the regulation. There also are SIP state regulations pertaining to sampling and testing and requirements for reporting of emissions inventories. In addition, SIP rules establish general requirements for maintaining records and reporting emissions. This information is used to track progress towards measuring the NAAQS, developing control and maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission levels, and determining compliance with SIP regulations and additional EPA requirements.

    (G) Emergency authority: The SIP must provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment and to include contingency plans to implement such authorities as necessary.

    The AQCA provides the New Mexico Environment Department with authority to address environmental emergencies, inclusive of contingency plans to implement emergency episode provisions.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, on January 26, 1989, the Air Board adopted the Air Pollution Contingency Plan for Bernalillo County [August 21, 1991, 56 FR 38074; 40 CFR 52.1639, Prevention of Air Emergency Episodes], which is part of the SIP, and covers air pollution episodes and the occurrence of an emergency due to the effects of the pollutants on the health of persons.

    (H) Future SIP revisions: States must have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.

    Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's SIP is a compilation of regulations, plans and submittals that act to improve and maintain air quality in accordance with national standards. The authority to develop or revise the SIP is based on the authority to adopt new regulations and revise existing regulations to meet the NAAQS. NMSA 1978 section 74-7-5 gives the board the authority to perform these functions. Section 74-7-5 also gives the board the authority to adopt regulations to abate, control and prohibit air pollution throughout Bernalillo County in accordance with the State Rules Act. Nothing in New Mexico's statutory or regulatory authority prohibits Albuquerque-Bernalillo County from revising the SIP in the event of a revision to the NAAQS. The AQCA specifically requires revisions to the SIP if the scenarios set forth in Section 110(a)(2)(H) occur.

    (I) Nonattainment areas: The CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas.

    As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking process governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.

    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: The SIP must meet the following three requirements: (1) Relating to interagency consultation regarding certain CAA requirements; (2) relating to public notification of NAAQS exceedances and related issues; and, (3) prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection.

    (1) Interagency consultation: As required by the AQCA, there must be a public hearing before the adoption of any regulations or emission control requirements and all interested persons must be given a reasonable opportunity to submit data, view documents, or argue orally or in writing and to examine testimony of witnesses from the hearing. In addition, the AQCA provides for the power and duty to “advise, consult, contract with and cooperate with local authorities, other states, the federal government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control . . .” Furthermore, New Mexico's PSD SIP rules mandate public participation and notification regarding permitting applications to any other state or local air pollution control agencies, local government officials of the city or county where the source will be located, tribal authorities, and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification. The State's Transportation Conformity SIP rules also provide procedures for interagency consultation, resolution of conflicts, and public notification.

    (2) Public Notification: The i-SIP provides the SIP regulatory citations requiring the Air Board to regularly notify the public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded, advise the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances, and enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and ways in which the public can participate in efforts to improve air quality. 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures—Air Quality Control Board, stipulates notice requirements for rulemaking and is used as a guide for notice requirements when adopting SIPs.

    (3) PSD and Visibility Protection: The PSD requirements here are the same as those addressed under (C). The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico SIP requirements relating to visibility and regional haze are not affected when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes that there are no new visibility protection requirements due to the revision of the NAAQS, and consequently there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to infrastructure element J after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.

    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: The SIP must provide for performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of any NAAQS pollutant, and for submission of such data to EPA upon request.

    AQP has the duty, authority and technical capability to conduct air quality modeling, pursuant to the AQCA, in order to assess the effect on ambient air quality of relevant pollutant emissions; and can provide relevant data as part of the permitting and NAAQS implementation process. AQP follows EPA guidelines for air dispersion modeling. Upon request, AQP will submit current and future data relating to air quality modeling to EPA.

    (L) Permitting Fees: The SIP must require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, to cover the cost of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a fee program established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, relating to operating permits, is approved by EPA.

    The fee requirements of 20.11.2 NMAC have been approved by EPA as meeting the CAA requirements and were incorporated into the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico SIP (45 FR 24468, April 10, 1980,). Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's title V operating permit program codified at 20.11.42 NMAC, Operating Permits, was approved by EPA on September 8, 2004 (69 FR 54244-47). In addition, see element (E) above for the description of the mandatory collection of permitting fees outlined in the SIP.

    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: The SIP must provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

    New Mexico State Statute Section 74-2-5.2 State Air Pollution Control Agency; Specific Duties and Powers of the Department, states that, “The department is the state air pollution control agency for all purposes under federal legislation relating to pollution. The department is required to “advise, consult, contract and cooperate with local authorities, other states, the federal government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control.” Also see element (J) above for a discussion of the SIP's public participation process, the authority to advise and consult, and the PSD SIP's public participation requirements.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the June 11, 2015, infrastructure SIP submission from Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is not proposing action pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions as EPA believes these need not be addressed in the i-SIP. Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in these submissions or referenced in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico's SIP, EPA believes that Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico has the infrastructure in place to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) to ensure that the 2010 SO2 NAAQS are implemented in the county. We also are proposing to approve the State's demonstration that it meets the four statutory requirements for interstate transport of SO2 emissions.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 CAA; 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 proposed 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).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide (SO2).

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 27, 2015. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28353 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 48 CFR Parts 722, 729, 731, and 752 RIN 0412-AA78 Various Administrative Changes and Clauses to the USAID Acquisition Regulation AGENCY:

    U.S. Agency for International Development.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) seeks public comment on a proposed rule that would revise the Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) to maintain consistency with Federal and Agency regulations and incorporate current and new USAID clauses into the regulation.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to Marcelle J. Wijesinghe, Bureau for Management, Office of Acquisition and Assistance, Policy Division (M/OAA/P), Room 867J, SA-44, Washington, DC 20523-2052. Submit comments, identified by title of the action and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) by any of the following methods:

    1. Through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by following the instructions for submitting comments.

    2. By Email: Submit electronic comments to both [email protected] and [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION for file formats and other information about electronic filing.

    3. By Mail addressed to: USAID, Bureau for Management, Office of Acquisition & Assistance, Policy Division, Room 867J, SA-44, Washington, DC 20523-2052.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lyudmila Bond, Telephone: 202-567-4753 or Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Instructions

    All comments must be in writing and submitted through one of the methods specified in the Addresses section above. All submissions must include the title of the action and RIN for this rulemaking. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address in the text of the message.

    Comments submitted by email must be included in the text of the email or attached as a PDF file. Please avoid using special characters and any form of encryption. Please note that USAID recommends sending all comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal because security screening precautions have slowed the delivery and dependability of surface mail to USAID/Washington.

    Three days after receipt of a comment and until finalization of the action, all comments will be made available at http://www.regulations.gov for public review without change, including any personal information provided. We recommend you do not submit information that you consider Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any information that is otherwise protected from disclosure by statute.

    USAID will only address comments that explain why the rule would be inappropriate, ineffective or unacceptable without a change. Comments that are insubstantial or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered.

    B. Background

    USAID is seeking comments on the proposed rule as described below:

    • FAR subpart 22.8 prohibits federal contractors performing in the U.S. from discrimination with regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, or veteran status. As a matter of policy, the Agency encourages all USAID contractors performing and recruiting entirely outside the United States to apply these same standards of nondiscrimination in their workplace. The provision entitled “Nondiscrimination” contains language that encourages contractors performing and recruiting entirely outside the United States to establish comprehensive nondiscrimination polices for their workplaces. The provision was implemented on an interim basis in 2012 through Agency policy found in ADS 302 Mandatory Reference, Special Provisions for Acquisition and is hereby formally incorporated in the AIDAR without revision at 752.222-71. The Agency believes that the transfer of the clause from the internal Agency policy into the AIDAR will have no impact on contractors.

    • Section 579 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of FY 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7) and similar sections in subsequent acts require certain steps to prevent countries from imposing taxes [defined as Value Added Tax (VAT) or customs duties] on U.S. foreign assistance. If taxes or customs duties are imposed, the foreign government must reimburse the amount of such taxes and duties to the U.S. Government. The Act also requires certain reporting to Congress.

    The provision at 752.229-71 entitled “Reporting of Foreign Taxes”, implemented on an interim basis in 2007 through Agency policy found in ADS 302 Mandatory Reference, Special Provisions for Acquisition, specifies that the contractor must submit certain reports to the Contracting Officer's Representative, with copies to the relevant Embassy, the Mission, or the Bureau for Management, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Cash Management and Payments Division. AIDAR part 729, subpart 729.4 and sections 729.204-70 and 752.229-70 are added to formally incorporate this requirement into the AIDAR. The Agency believes that the transfer of the clause from the internal Agency policy into the AIDAR will have no impact on contractors.

    • The Executive Order 13589 “Promoting Efficient Spending” dated November 9, 2011, directed agencies to reduce administrative costs by improving operations, increasing efficiency, and cutting unnecessary spending. To achieve savings, agencies were to improve efficiencies in various administrative areas, including conference expenditures. OMB memorandums M-11-35 “Eliminating Excess Conference Spending and Promoting Efficiency in Government” dated September 21, 2011, and M-12-12 “Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations” dated May 11,2012, further instructed all agencies “to conduct a thorough review of the policies and controls associated with conference-related activities and expenses” and to “exercise discretion and judgment in ensuring that conference expenses are appropriate, necessary, and managed in a manner that minimizes expense to taxpayers”.

    To mitigate the risk of inappropriate spending, USAID revised Automated Directive System (ADS) 580 on agency internal policies and procedures pertaining to conferences funded by USAID and implemented a new clause entitled “Conference Planning and Required Approvals”, applicable to all contracts with an anticipated need for USAID-funded conferences. The clause requires contractors to obtain USAID approval prior to committing costs related to conferences funded in whole or in part with USAID funds when:

    (1) Twenty (20) or more USAID employees are expected to attend.

    (2) The net conference expense funded by USAID will exceed $100,000 (excluding salary of employees), regardless of the number of USAID participants.

    The clause was implemented on an interim basis in 2013 through Agency policy found at ADS 302 Mandatory Reference, Special Provisions for Acquisition and is hereby formally incorporated into the AIDAR without revision. The Agency believes that the transfer of the clause from the internal Agency policy into the AIDAR will have no impact on contractors.

    • In support of USAID's procurement reform and to expedite award modifications that affect multiple awards, the Bureau for Management, Office of Acquisition and Assistance (M/OAA) has created a separate online portal for Implementing Partner Notices (IPN) for acquisition awards. The IPN Portal, located at https://sites.google.com/site/usaidipnforacquisitions/, is the single point where USAID uploads proposed universal bilateral modifications for awards, which can be accessed electronically by registered contractors. The IPN Portal is also used to provide notices to USAID contractors who register with the IPN Portal. The AIDAR clause 752.7036, entitled “USAID Implementing Partner Notices (IPN) Portal for Acquisition”, directs contractors to register with the IPN Portal. Registered contractors will receive automatic email notifications when the IPN Portal is updated with proposed award modifications and/or notices. Partners may download and sign the proposed modification, and send it to the contracting officer for signature (execution) and distribution in accordance with the terms of the clause.

    Proposed bilateral modifications provided through the IPN Portal are not effective until the contractor and the contracting officer sign the modification. The requirement to register in the IPN portal applies to all contracts except for orders under indefinite delivery contracts issued pursuant to (48 CFR) FAR subpart 16.5; orders under Federal Supply (GSA) Schedules issued pursuant to (48 CFR) FAR subpart 8.4; and contracts and purchase orders awarded under the simplified acquisitions procedures of (48 CFR) FAR part 13. The clause was implemented on an interim basis in July 2014 through Agency policy found at ADS 302 Mandatory Reference, Special Provisions for Acquisition and is hereby formally incorporated into the AIDAR without revision. The Agency believes that the transfer of the clause from the internal agency policy into the AIDAR will have no impact on contractors.

    • Research indicates that persons with a history and proclivity to abusing children will often seek professional positions which could give them access to vulnerable individuals. Often they will seek employment within countries with social welfare, protection, and judicial systems too weak or underdeveloped to protect children and other vulnerable populations against abuse and exploitation. Many USAID missions and projects are located in countries with ineffective systems. To protect children involved in or coming into contact with USAID programs from abuse, exploitation or neglect, USAID has established Child Safeguarding Standards. These standards are designed to complement the USAID Counter Trafficking in Persons (C-TIP) Code of Conduct by expanding the range of actions prohibited by USAID under the C-TIP Code of Conduct to include abuse, exploitation, or neglect of children. The mandatory requirements established by these standards satisfy obligations established in the U.S. Government Action Plan on Children in Adversity and the provisions of Public Law 109-95—The Assistance for Orphans and other Vulnerable Children Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-95).

    The standards applicable to USAID contractors are implemented through a new clause at 752.7037, Child Safeguarding. The clause requires contractors to: (1) Ensure compliance with local child welfare and protection legislation or international standards; (2) prohibit all personnel from engaging in child abuse, exploitation, or neglect; (3) consider child safeguarding in project planning and implementation; (4) apply measures to reduce the risk of child abuse, exploitation, or neglect; (5) promote child-safe screening procedures for personnel; and (6) establish procedures to ensure that contractor personnel recognize child abuse, exploitation, or neglect, report and investigate allegations and take appropriate actions in response to such allegations.

    C. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule has been determined to be “nonsignificant” under the Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993 and, therefore, is not subject to review. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed rule does not establish a new collection of information as contemplated by the Paperwork Reduction Act nor will it have an impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 722, 729, 731, and 752

    Government procurement.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, USAID proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 7 as set forth below:

    CHAPTER 7—AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUBCHAPTER D—SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS PART 722—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 722 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435.

    Subpart 722.8—Equal Employment Opportunity 2. Revise 722.810 to read as follows:
    722.810 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (a) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 752.222-70, USAID Disability Policy in section I of all solicitations and resulting contracts.

    (b) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 752.222-71, Nondiscrimination in section I of all solicitations and resulting contracts.

    SUBCHAPTER E—GENERAL CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS 3. Add part 729 to subchapter E to read as follows. PART 729—TAXES Subpart 729.4—Contract Clauses
    729.402-70 Foreign contracts. Authority:

    Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435.

    Subpart 729.4—Contract Clauses
    729.402-70 Foreign contracts.

    (a) Section 579 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of FY 2003 requires certain steps to prevent countries from imposing taxes [defined as Value Added Tax (VAT) or customs duties] on U.S. foreign assistance, or if imposed, requires the countries to reimburse the assessed taxes or duties. The Act also requires certain reporting to Congress. The Department of State has published guidance for implementing this section of the Act.

    (b) Contracting Officers (COs) must insert the clause at 752.229-71, Reporting of Foreign Taxes in section I of solicitations and resulting contracts that obligate or subobligate FY 2003 or later funds except for the following:

    (1) Contracts funded with Operating Expense, Public Law 480 funds, or trust funds; or

    (2) Contracts where there will be no commodity transactions in a foreign country over the amount of $500.

    PART 731—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 4. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 731 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435.

    Subpart 731.2—Contracts With Commercial Organizations 5. Add 731.205-43 to read as follows.
    731.205-43 Trade, business, technical and professional activity costs—USAID conference approval requirements.

    (a) The contractor must receive prior written approval from the contracting officer, or the contracting officer's representative (COR), if delegated in the Contracting Officer's Representative Designation Letter, for costs related to conferences funded in whole or in part with USAID funds when:

    (1) Twenty (20) or more USAID employees are expected to attend.

    (2) The net conference expense funded by USAID will exceed $100,000 (excluding salary of employees), regardless of the number of USAID participants.

    (b) Contracting officers must insert the clause at 752.231-72 in all USAID-funded solicitations and contracts anticipated to include a requirement for a USAID-funded conference. See (48 CFR) AIDAR 752.231-72 for the definition of a conference and specific requirements and procedures.

    SUBCHAPTER H—CLAUSES AND FORMS PART 752—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 6. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 752 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435.

    7. Add 752.222-71 to read as follows:
    752.222-71 Nondiscrimination

    As prescribed in (48 CFR) AIDAR 722.810(b), insert the following clause in section I of all solicitations and resulting contracts.

    Nondiscrimination (June 2012)

    FAR Part 22 and the clauses prescribed in that part prohibit contractors performing in or recruiting from the U.S. from engaging in certain discriminatory practices. USAID is committed to achieving and maintaining a diverse and representative workforce and a workplace free of discrimination. Based on law, Executive Order, and Agency policy, USAID prohibits discrimination in its own workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, disability, age, veteran's status, sexual orientation, genetic information, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, and any other conduct that does not adversely affect the performance of the employee. USAID does not tolerate any type of harassment, either sexual or nonsexual, of any employee or applicant for employment. Contractors are required to comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of the FAR.

    In addition, the Agency strongly encourages all its contractors (at all tiers) to develop and enforce comprehensive nondiscrimination policies for their workplaces that include protection on these expanded bases, subject to applicable law.

    (End of clause)
    8. Add 752.229-71 to read as follows:
    752.229-71 Reporting of foreign taxes.

    As prescribed in (48 CFR) AIDAR 729.402-70, insert the following clause in section I of applicable solicitations and resulting contracts. The contracting officer must insert address and point of contact at the Embassy, Mission, or M/CFO/CMP as appropriate under section (d) of this clause.

    Reporting of Foreign Taxes (July 2007)

    (a) The contractor must annually submit a report by April 16 of the next year.

    (b) Contents of Report. The report must contain:

    (1) Contractor name.

    (2) Contact name with phone, fax number and email address.

    (3) Contract number(s).

    (4) Amount of foreign taxes assessed by a foreign government [each foreign government must be listed separately] on commodity purchase transactions valued at $500 or more financed with U.S. foreign assistance funds under this agreement during the prior U.S. fiscal year.

    (5) Only foreign taxes assessed by the foreign government in the country receiving U.S. assistance are to be reported. Foreign taxes by a third party foreign government are not to be reported. For example, if a contractor performing in Lesotho using foreign assistance funds should purchase commodities in South Africa, any taxes imposed by South Africa would not be reported in the report for Lesotho (or South Africa).

    (6) Any reimbursements received by the contractor during the period in paragraph (b)(4) of this clause regardless of when the foreign tax was assessed and any reimbursements on the taxes reported in paragraph (b)(4) of this clause received through March 31.

    (7) Report is required even if the contractor did not pay any taxes during the reporting period.

    (8) Cumulative reports may be provided if the contractor is implementing more than one program in a foreign country.

    (c) Definitions. For purposes of this clause:

    (1) Agreement includes USAID direct and country contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and interagency agreements.

    (2) Commodity means any material, article, supply, goods, or equipment.

    (3) Foreign government includes any foreign governmental entity.

    (4) Foreign taxes means value-added taxes and customs duties assessed by a foreign government on a commodity. It does not include foreign sales taxes.

    (d) Where. Submit the reports to: [CO must insert address and point of contact at the Embassy, Mission, or CFO/CMP as appropriate].

    (e) Subagreements. The contractor must include this reporting requirement in all applicable subcontracts and other subagreements.

    (f) For further information see http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/d/rm/c10443.htm.

    (End of clause)
    9. Add 752.231-72 to read as follows:
    752.231-72 Conference planning and required approvals.

    As prescribed in (48 CFR) AIDAR 731.205-43, insert the following clause in section I of all solicitations and resulting contracts anticipated to include a requirement for a USAID-funded conference, as defined in the clause.

    Conference Planning and Required Approvals (AUG 2013)

    (a) Definitions:

    Conference means a seminar, meeting, retreat, symposium, workshop, training activity or other such event that requires temporary duty travel of USAID employees. For the purpose of this policy, an employee is defined as a U.S. direct hire; personal services contractor, including U.S. PSCs, Foreign Service National (FSN)/Cooperating Country National (CCN) and Third Country National (TCN); or a Federal employee detailed to USAID from another government agency.

    (b) The contractor must obtain USAID approval prior to committing costs related to conferences funded in whole or in part with USAID funds when:

    (1) Twenty (20) or more USAID employees are expected to attend.

    (2) The net conference expense funded by USAID will exceed $100,000 (excluding salary of employees), regardless of the number of USAID participants. Conferences approved at the time of award will be incorporated into the award. Any subsequent requests for approval of conferences must be submitted by the contractor to the USAID contracting officer representative (COR). The COR will obtain the required agency approvals and communicate such approvals to the contractor in writing.

    (c) The request for conference approval must include:

    (1) A brief summary of the proposed event;

    (2) A justification for the conference and alternatives considered, e.g., teleconferencing and videoconferencing;

    (3) The estimated budget by line item (e.g., travel and per diem, venue, facilitators, meals, equipment, printing, access fees, ground transportation);

    (4) A list of USAID employees attending and a justification for each; and the number of other USAID-funded participants (e.g., institutional contractors);

    (5) The venues considered (including government-owned facility), cost comparison, and justification for venue selected if it is not the lowest cost option;

    (6) If meals will be provided to local employees (a local employee would not be in travel status), a determination that the meals are a necessary expense for achieving Agency objectives; and

    (7) A certification that strict fiscal responsibility has been exercised in making decisions regarding conference expenditures, the proposed costs are comprehensive and represent the greatest cost advantage to the U.S. Government, and that the proposed conference representation has been limited to the minimum number of attendees necessary to support the Agency's mission.

    (End of clause)
    10. Add 752.7036 to read as follows:
    752.7036 USAID Implementing Partner Notices (IPN) portal for acquisition.

    Insert the clause at 752.7036 in section I of all solicitations and resulting contracts, except for orders under indefinite delivery contracts issued pursuant to (48 CFR) FAR subpart 16.5; orders under Federal Supply (GSA) Schedules issued pursuant to (48 CFR) FAR subpart 8.4; and contracts and purchase orders awarded under the simplified acquisitions procedures of (48 CFR) FAR part 13.

    USAID Implementing Partner Notices (IPN) Portal for Acquisition (July 2014)

    (a) Definitions:

    Universal bilateral modification means a bilateral modification, as defined in FAR subpart 43.1, affecting all USAID awards or a class of awards, as specified in the Agency notification of such modification, that updates or incorporates new FAR or AIDAR clauses, other terms and conditions, or special requirements.

    USAID Implementing Partner Notices (IPN) Portal for Acquisition (IPN Portal) means the single point where USAID uploads universal bilateral modifications, which can be accessed electronically by registered USAID contractors. The IPN Portal is located at https://sites.google.com/site/ipnforacquisitions/.

    IPN Portal Administrator means the USAID official designated by the M/OAA Director, who has overall responsibility for managing the USAID Implementing Partner Notices Portal for Acquisition.

    (b) By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor acknowledges the requirement to:

    (1) Register with the IPN Portal if awarded a contract resulting from this solicitation, and

    (2) Receive universal bilateral modifications of this contract and general notices through the IPN Portal.

    (c) Procedure to register for notifications.

    Go to: https://sites.google.com/site/usaidipnforacquisitions/ and click the “Register” button at the top of the page. Contractor representatives must use their official organization email address when subscribing, not personal email addresses.

    (d) Processing of IPN portal modifications.

    (1) The contractor may access the IPN Portal at any time to review all IPN Portal modifications; however, the system will also notify the contractor by email when the USAID IPN Portal Administrator uploads a universal bilateral modification for contractor review and signature. Proposed IPN Portal modifications distributed through the IPN Portal are applicable to all awards, unless otherwise noted in the proposed modification.

    (2) Within 15 calendar days from receipt of the notification email from the IPN Portal, the contractor must do one of the following:

    (i) (A) Verify applicability of the proposed modification to their award(s) per the instructions provided with each modification;

    (B) Download the modification and incorporate the following information on the SF30 form: Contract number, organization name, and organization mailing address as it appears in the basic award;

    (C) Sign the hardcopy version; and

    (D) Send the signed modification (by email or hardcopy) to the CO for signature.

    Note:

    The contractor must not incorporate any other changes to the IPN Portal modification. Bilateral modifications provided through the IPN Portal are not effective until the both the contractor and the CO sign the modification;

    (ii) Notify the Contracting Officer in writing if the modification requires negotiation of additional changes to terms and conditions of the contract; or

    (iii) Notify the Contracting Officer that the contractor declines to sign the modification.

    (3) Within 30 calendar days of receipt of a signed modification from the contractor, the CO must provide the fully executed modification to the contractor or initiate discussions with the contractor.

    (End of clause)
    11. Add 752.7037 to read as follows:
    752.7037 Child safeguarding standards.

    Insert the clause at 752.7037, Child Safeguarding Standards, in section I of all solicitations and contracts other than those for commercial items.

    Child Safeguarding Standards (Date)

    (a) Implementation of activities under this award may involve children, or personnel engaged in the implementation of the award may come into contact with children, which could raise the risk of child abuse, exploitation, or neglect within this award. The contractor agrees to abide by the following child safeguarding core principles:

    (1) Ensure compliance with host country and local child welfare and protection legislation or international standards, whichever gives greater protection, and with U.S. law where applicable;

    (2) Prohibit all personnel from engaging in child abuse, exploitation, or neglect;

    (3) Consider child safeguarding in project planning and implementation to determine potential risks to children that are associated with project activities and operations;

    (4) Apply measures to reduce the risk of child abuse, exploitation, or neglect, including, but not limited to, limiting unsupervised interactions with children; prohibiting exposure to pornography; and complying with applicable laws, regulations, or customs regarding the photographing, filming, or other image-generating activities of children;

    (5) Promote child-safe screening procedures for personnel, particularly personnel whose work brings them in direct contact with children; and

    (6) Have a procedure for ensuring that personnel and others recognize child abuse, exploitation, or neglect; mandating that personnel and others report allegations; investigating and managing allegations; and taking appropriate action in response to such allegations, including, but not limited to, dismissal of personnel.

    (b) The contractor must also include in the code of conduct for all personnel implementing USAID-funded activities, the child safeguarding principles in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this clause.

    (c) The following definitions apply for purposes of this clause:

    (1) Child: A child or children are defined as persons who have not attained 18 years of age.

    (2) Child abuse, exploitation, or neglect: Constitutes any form of physical abuse; emotional ill-treatment; sexual abuse; neglect or insufficient supervision; trafficking; or commercial, transactional, labor, or other exploitation resulting in actual or potential harm to the child's health, well-being, survival, development, or dignity. It includes, but is not limited to: Any act or failure to act which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm to a child, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm to a child.

    (3) Emotional abuse or ill treatment: Constitutes injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of the child caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics. Emotional abuse may include, but is not limited to: Humiliation, control, isolation, withholding of information, or any other deliberate activity that makes the child feel diminished or embarrassed.

    (4) Exploitation: Constitutes the abuse of a child where some form of remuneration is involved or whereby the perpetrators benefit in some manner. Exploitation represents a form of coercion and violence that is detrimental to the child's physical or mental health, development, education, or well-being.

    (5) Neglect: Constitutes failure to provide for a child's basic needs within USAID-funded activities that are responsible for the care of a child in the absence of the child's parent or guardian.

    (6) Physical abuse: Constitutes acts or failures to act resulting in injury (not necessarily visible), unnecessary or unjustified pain or suffering without causing injury, harm or risk of harm to a child's health or welfare, or death. Such acts may include, but are not limited to: Punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, or hitting (regardless of object used), or burning. These acts are considered abuse regardless of whether they were intended to hurt the child.

    (7) Sexual abuse: Constitutes fondling a child's genitals, penetration, incest, rape, sodomy, indecent exposure, and exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials.

    (d) The contractor must insert this clause in all subcontracts under this award.

    (End of clause)
    Dated: August 25, 2015. Deborah Broderick, Acting Chief Acquisition Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27977 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
    80 218 Thursday, November 12, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service El Dorado County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The El Dorado County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Placerville, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: www.fs.usda.gov/eldorado.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. on December 14-15, 2015.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the El Dorado Center of Folsom Lake College, Community Room, 6699 Campus Drive, Placerville, California.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Eldorado National Forest (ENF) Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Chapman, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-621-5280 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Provide a public forum;

    2. Reconnect with RAC members;

    3. Present summary report of previously authorized RAC projects;

    4. Define this year's process for proposal consideration and selection; and

    5. Discuss recruiting replacement RAC members.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing at least 7 days in advance of the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Jennifer Chapman, RAC Coordinator, Eldorado NF Supervisor's Office, 100 Forni road, Placerville, California 95667; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 530-621-5297.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Laurence Crabtree, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28717 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by January 11, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director & Funds Control Officer, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. FAX: (202) 720-8435. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492, FAX: (202) 720-8435. Email: [email protected]

    Title: Deferment of RUS Loan Payments for Rural Development Projects.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0097.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The Deferment of Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Loan Payments for Rural Development Projects allows RUS electric and telecommunications borrowers to defer the payment of principal and interest on any insured or direct loan made under the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 912). The purposes of the Deferment Program are to encourage borrowers to invest in and promote rural development and rural job creation projects that are based on sound economic and financial analyses. This program is administered through 7 CFR 1703, subpart H. The burden required by this collection consists of information that will allow the Agency to determine eligibility for deferment; specific purposes of the deferment; the term of the deferment; cost of the project and degree of participation from other source; and compliance with Agency sources; and compliance with Agency regulations and other regulation and legal requirements.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.23 hours per response.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 9.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 720-7853, FAX: (202) 720-8435. Email: [email protected]

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28731 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Census Employment Inquiry AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Richard Liquorie at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The BC-170 is used to collect information such as personal data and work experience from job applicants. Selecting officials review the information shown on the form to evaluate an applicant's eligibility for employment and to determine the best qualified applicants to fill Census jobs.

    The BC-170 is used throughout the census and intercensal periods for the special census, one time or recurring survey operations and other decennial pretests. The Census Bureau uses different versions of the BC-170 in various circumstances to collect appropriate data from applicants. Applicants completing the form BC-170D for a census related position are applying for temporary jobs in office and field positions (clerks, enumerators, recruiting assistants, supervisors) during the Decennial Census and Decennial Census Tests. In addition, the BC-170A may be used when applying for temporary/permanent office and field positions (clerks, field representatives, supervisors) on a recurring survey in one of the Census Bureau's six Regional Offices (ROs) throughout the United States. The Form BC-170B is used for special censuses for temporary field and office positions (enumerators, clerks, supervisors).

    The use of this form is limited to only situations which require the establishment of a temporary office and/or involve special, one-time or recurring survey operations at one of the ROs. The form has been demonstrated to meet our recruitment needs for temporary workers and requires significantly less burden than the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Optional Forms that are available for use by the public when applying for Federal positions. There are no proposed changes to the BC-170A and BC-170B.

    Changes to the BC-170D have been made to help support movement from a fully paper job application process to a mostly online job application process and to support changes to the selection and hiring processes for related positions. Specific changes include:

    1. Adding a Prior Work Experience section to collect information about prior work experience.

    2. Deleting background information that was previously collected at the time of application such as—convictions, imprisonment, probation, or parole in the last 7 years; convictions by a military court-martial in the past 7 years; current charges for any violation of the law; firings from any job for any reason, quitting after being told that you would be fired, leaving any job by mutual agreement because of specific problems, or debarred from Federal employment by the Office of Personnel Management or any other Federal agency during the past 5 years; and delinquency on any Federal debt.

    3. Creating an optional section on the form for questions which are needed for research and evaluation purposes but not necessary for selection purposes. The optional section will collect the applicant's level of education, how the applicant found out about the job, and the information to help determine whether applicants may be willing and/or able to use their personal smartphone for work.

    4. Adding questions to gain more detail about current Federal, State, Local, or Tribal government employment, which could pose a conflict of interest with census jobs.

    5. Adding categories to clarify the type of work that an applicant might be interested in.

    6. Clarifying and updating instructions on the cover pages of the form and item specific instructions, and the privacy act statement.

    7. Reformatting/rewording questions/items for clarification purposes.

    8. Formatting of questions for collection on a paper form and electronic online job application.

    II. Method of Collection

    The Census Bureau requests continued Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the BC-170A, BC-170B, and the BC-170D, Census Employment Inquiry, along with modifications to the paper form BC-170D and the implementation of an online job application process, which will collect the same information as presented on the BC-170D.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0139.

    Form Number(s): BC-170A, BC-170B, and BC-170D.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 70,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,500.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Chapter 1, Subchapter II.

    IV. Request for Comments

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

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

    Dated: November 6, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28704 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-73-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 102—St. Louis, Missouri; Application for Subzone; H-J Enterprises, Inc./H-J International, Inc.; High Ridge, Missouri

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the St. Louis County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 102, requesting subzone status for the facilities of H-J Enterprises, Inc./H-J International, Inc., located in High Ridge, Missouri. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 5, 2015.

    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 (11.81 acres)—3010 High Ridge Boulevard, High Ridge; and, Site 2 (15.18 acres)— 6217 State Road PP, High Ridge. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and is being processed under 15 CFR 400.37 (Doc. B-68-2015).

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 22, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 6, 2016.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28760 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-74-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 191—Palmdale, California; Application for Reorganization under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the City of Palmdale, California, grantee of FTZ 191, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 5, 2015.

    FTZ 191 was approved by the FTZ Board on January 15, 1993 (Board Order 628, 58 FR 6614, February 1, 1993) and expanded on November 4, 2002 (Board Order 1252, 67 FR 69715, November 19, 2002) and January 22, 2004 (Board Order 1318, 69 FR 6252, February 10, 2004).

    The current zone includes the following sites: Site 1 (800 acres)—Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Project/Palmdale Regional Airport, Sierra Highway and Avenue M, Palmdale; Site 2 (87 acres)—Antelope Valley Business Park, 10th Street West and Avenue M, Palmdale; Site 3 (30 acres)—Freeway Business Center, West Avenue N and 12th Street West, Palmdale; Site 4 (70 acres)—Palmdale Trade & Commerce Center, Avenue Q and 5th Street West, Palmdale; Site 5 (118. 2 acres)—Fairway Business Park, Division Street and Avenue O, Palmdale; Site 6 (140 acres)—Sierra Gateway Center, Sierra Highway and Avenue O-8, Palmdale; Site 7 (15 acres)—Pacific Business Park, 30th Street East and Avenue Q, Palmdale; Site 8 (20 acres) Winnell Industrial Park, 3rd Street East and Avenue P, Palmdale; Site 9 (33 acres)—Park One Industrial Center, 10th Street East and Avenue P, Palmdale; Site 10 (40 acres)—California City Industrial Park, Lindbergh Boulevard and Gnatt Boulevard, California City; Site 11 (91 acres)—Mojave Airport, Poole Street and Airport Boulevard, Mojave; and, Site 12 (2.6 acres)—AMS Fulfillment, 29010 Commerce Center Drive, Valencia.

    The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be portions of Los Angeles County, California, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is adjacent to the Los Angeles/Long Beach U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry.

    The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its zone to include existing Site 1 and Site 5 as “magnet” sites and existing Site 12 as a “usage-driven” site. Additionally, as part of the reorganization, the applicant has requested that acreage be reduced at Site 1 (to 509.57 acres) and that Sites 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 be removed from the zone due to changed circumstances. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted. No additional subzones/usage-driven sites are being requested at this time. The application would have no impact on FTZ 191's previously authorized subzone.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 11, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 26, 2016.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at [email protected] or (202) 482-0862.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28761 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-932] Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the Preliminary Results of the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel threaded rod from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on May 7, 2015.1 We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to the margin calculations for these final results. The final dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results of Administrative Review” section of this notice. The period of review (“POR”) is April 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014.

    1See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 26222 (May 7, 2015) (“Preliminary Results”) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Hancock or Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-1394 or 202-482-4047, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Results on May 7, 2015.2 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. Between June 22, 2015, and July 13, 2015, Vulcan Threaded Products Inc. (“Petitioner”), RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI & Morgan Ltd. (collectively “RMB/IFI Group”), Gem-Year Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Gem-Year”), Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. (“HPS”), and Brighton Best International (“BBI”) submitted case and rebuttal briefs. On June 12, 2015, the Department extended the deadline for the final results to October 19, 2015 3 , and again on October 6, 2015, to November 3, 2015.4 On September 9, 2015, the Department held a public hearing.

    2Id.

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, through James Doyle, Office Director, from Julia Hancock, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, “Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Administrative Review” (June 12, 2015).

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, through James Doyle, Office Director, from Julia Hancock, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, “Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Administrative Review” (October 6, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes steel threaded rod. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading 7318.15.5051, 7318.15.5056, 7318.15.5090, and 7318.15.2095 of the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order, which is contained in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“I&D Memo”), is dispositive.5

    5 For a full description of the scope of the order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China” (November 3, 2015) (“I&D Memo”).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review in the I&D Memo. Attached to this notice, in Appendix I, is a list of the issues which parties raised. The I&D Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the I&D Memo can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed I&D Memo and the electronic versions of the I&D Memo are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have now calculated a dumping margin based on the sales data and factors of production (“FOP”) data submitted by the RMB/IFI Group. Additionally, the Department has selected Thailand as the primary surrogate country and valued the RMB/IFI Group's FOP data/movement expenses with data from Thailand. For a list of all issues addressed in these final results, please refer to Appendix I accompanying this notice.

    Final Results of Administrative Review

    The weighted-average dumping margin for the administrative review is as follows:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • IFI & Morgan Ltd. and RMB Fasteners Ltd. (collectively “RMB/IFI Group”) 39.42

    In addition, the Department continues to find that the companies identified in Appendix II, attached to this notice, are part of the PRC-wide entity.

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).6 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.7 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.8 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.9 We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate.

    6See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    7Id.

    8Id.

    9See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide entity rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide entity rate.10

    10See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-Wide rate of 206 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

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

    Notification to Importers

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

    Administrative Protective Orders

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

    We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Scope III. Background IV. Determination of the Methodology for the RMB/IFI Group V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) to Gem-Year Comment 2: Application of the PRC-Wide Rate to Gem-Year and Not Granting a Separate Rate Comment 3: Opportunity To Submit Information on Corroborating PRC-Wide Rate Comment 4: Application of Total AFA to the RMB/IFI Group Comment 5: Application of the PRC-Wide Rate to the RMB/IFI Group and Not Granting a Separate Rate Comment 6: Selection of Surrogate Country Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Steel Wire Rod and Round Bar Comment 8: Surrogate Value for Labor Comment 9: Surrogate Financial Ratios VI. Conclusion Appendix II—Companies Subject to the Administrative Review That Are Part of the PRC-Wide Entity Fastco (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. Gem-Year Industrial Co., Ltd. Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd. Jiaxing Brother Standard Part. Midas Union Co., Ltd. New Pole Power System Co. Ltd. Shanghai P&J International Trading Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Morgan Brother Technology Co. Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28751 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-947; C-570-948] Certain Steel Grating From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC) have determined that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain steel grating (steel grating) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States. The Department and the ITC have also determined that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on steel grating from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States. Therefore, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation for these AD and CVD orders.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Kearney (AD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, or Toni Page (CVD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0167 or (202) 482-1398, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On June 1, 2015, the Department initiated 1 and the ITC instituted 2 five-year (sunset) reviews of the AD and CVD orders on steel grating from the PRC,3 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies. Therefore, the Department notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins and the subsidy rates likely to prevail should the orders be revoked, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) and (c) of the Act.4

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 31012 (June 1, 2015).

    2See Certain Steel Grating From China; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 80 FR 31071 (June 1, 2015).

    3See Certain Steel Grating from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 43143 (July 23, 2010); and Certain Steel Grating from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 43144 (July 23, 2010).

    4See Certain Steel Grating From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 60119 (October 5, 2015), and Certain Steel Grating From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 60120 (October 5, 2015).

    On November 4, 2015, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on steel grating from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.5

    5See Certain Steel Grating From the People's Republic of China, 80 FR 68334 (November 4, 2015).

    Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by these orders are certain steel grating, consisting of two or more pieces of steel, including load-bearing pieces and cross pieces, joined by any assembly process, regardless of: (1) Size or shape; (2) method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy (carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the profile of the bars; and (5) whether or not they are galvanized, painted, coated, clad or plated. Steel grating is also commonly referred to as “bar grating,” although the components may consist of steel other than bars, such as hot-rolled sheet, plate, or wire rod.

    The scope of the orders excludes expanded metal grating, which is comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet or thin plate steel that has been slit and expanded, and does not involve welding or joining of multiple pieces of steel. The scope of the orders also excludes plank type safety grating which is comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has been pierced and cold formed, and does not involve welding or joining of multiple pieces of steel.

    Certain steel grating that is the subject of the orders is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

    Continuation of the Orders

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, and revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD and CVD orders on steel grating from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

    The effective date of the continuation of the AD and CVD orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this continuation notice.

    These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28755 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-836] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

    SUMMARY:

    On July 8, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico.1 The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de C.V. (Perfiles). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2013, through July 31, 2014. As a result of our analysis of the comments received, these final results differ from the Preliminary Results. For the final weighted-average dumping margins, see the “Final Results of Review” section below.

    1See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 39055 (July 8, 2015) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Davis or Emily Maloof, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7924 or (202) 482-5649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 8, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On August 7, 2015, Perfiles submitted a timely case brief.2 We received no additional case or rebuttal briefs from any interested party. We did not receive a hearing request.

    2See Letter to the Department, “Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico for the 2013-2014 Review Period—Case Brief of Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de C.V.”, dated August 7, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order covers certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to the order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080 and 8504.90.9540.3

    3 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico; 2013-2014” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is issued concurrent with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case brief by Perfiles in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 A list of the issues that Perfiles raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4Id.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from Perfiles regarding our Preliminary Results, we recalculated Perfiles' weighted-average dumping margin for these final results.

    In particular, we revised our comparison program to address certain programming errors, including errors related to discounts and rebates, and to account for certain insurance expenses. We also revised our margin program to include certain sales in our analysis that were inadvertently omitted in the Preliminary Results. 5

    5See Memorandum from Emily Maloof to the File, regarding “Analysis of Data Submitted by Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de C.V. in the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico; 2013-2014” (Perfiles Final Analysis Memorandum), dated November 4, 2015 at section “Changes from the Preliminary Results,” for further information.

    Final Results of Review

    The weighted-average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2013, through July 31, 2014, is as follows:

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Perfiles 0.00
    Duty Assessment

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in this review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). Because we have calculated a zero margin for Perfiles in the final results of this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.6 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see the Automatic Assessment Clarification.

    6See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Automatic Assessment Clarification).

    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 41 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Perfiles noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.76 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation.7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    7See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders; Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45403, 45404 (August 5, 2008).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

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

    Administrative Protective Order

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

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

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Discussion of Interested Party Comments Comment 1: Discounts Granted on Home-Market Sales Comment 2: The Proper Universe of Sales Comment 3: Certain Home-Market Insurance Expenses VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-28752 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-918] Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 15, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the Preliminary Results of the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).1 We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comments and information received, we made no changes to the final margin calculations of Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Wells”).2 We continue to find Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Industry Co., Ltd. (“Ningbo Dasheng”) is not eligible for separate rate status and, therefore, is part of the PRC-wide entity. Listed below in the “Final Results of the Administrative Review” section of this notice are the final dumping margins. The period of review (“POR”) is October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014.

    1See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 41480 (July 15, 2015) (“Preliminary Results”).

    2 The Department previously found that Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., Hong Kong Wells Ltd. (“HK Wells”) and Hong Kong Wells Ltd. (USA) (“Wells USA”) are affiliated and that Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. and HK Wells comprise a single entity (collectively, “Shanghai Wells”). Because there were no changes in this review to the facts that supported that decision, we continue to find Shanghai Wells, HK Wells, and USA Wells are affiliated and that Shanghai Wells and HK Wells comprise a single entity. See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 68758, 68761 (November 9, 2010), unchanged in First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 27994, 27996 (May 13, 2011).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexis Polovina, Alexander Komisar, or Kathleen Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3927, (202) 482-7425, or (202) 482-7906, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Results on July 15, 2015. On August 24, 2015, M&B Metal Products Inc., (“Petitioner”), U.S. Distributors,3 Aristocraft of America LLC (“Aristocraft”), and Ningbo Dasheng submitted case briefs. On September 1, 2015, Petitioner submitted a rebuttal brief. On September 9, 2015, the Department held a public hearing where counsel for Petitioner, U.S. Distributors, and Aristocraft, presented issues raised in their case and rebuttal briefs.

    3 FabriClean Supply Inc., Best For Less Dry Cleaners Supply LLC, Ideal Chemical & Supply Company, Laundry & Cleaners Supply Inc., Rocky Mountain Hanger MFG Co., Rosenberg Supply Co., Ltd, and ZTN Management Company, LLC, (collectively, “U.S. Distributors”). The U.S. Distributors include importers of subject merchandise and a wholesaler of domestic like product.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise that is subject to the order is steel wire garment hangers. The products subject to the order are currently classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7326.20.0020, 7323.99.9060, and 7323.99.9080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,4 which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    4See the Department's Memorandum, titled “Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5 A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    5Id.

    PRC-Wide Entity

    Shaoxing Dingli and the Shaoxing Entity 6 failed to respond to the Department's requests for information.7 These companies, therefore, are not eligible for separate rate status.8 Additionally, Ningbo Dasheng failed to adequately respond to all parts of the questionnaire, and therefore, is also not eligible for a separate rate.9 Accordingly, the Department finds that the PRC-wide entity includes these companies.

    6 We selected two companies for individual examination, however, these two companies failed to respond. These companies are: 1) Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., (“Shaoxing Dingli”); and 2) Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufacture (collectively, “the Shaoxing Entity”).

    7See Preliminary Results, at “Respondent Selection” section.

    8See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 70850, 70851 (November 28, 2014).

    9See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1.

    Final Results of the Administrative Review

    Regarding the administrative review, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.10 33.24
    Disclosure

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

    10 This rate applies to the single entity comprised of Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., and Hong Kong Wells Ltd.

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).11 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.12 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.13 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.14

    11See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    12Id.

    13Id.

    14See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.15

    15See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of these reviews (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 187.25 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

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

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

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: PRC-wide Treatment for Ningbo Dasheng Comment 2: Selection of Financial Statements Comment 3: Whether to Adjust U.S Prices for Un-refunded Value-Added Tax (“VAT”) Comment 4: Whether the Thai AUV for Corrugated Paper Is Aberrational Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for Brokerage and Handling (“B&H”) Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-28757 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-838] Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico.1 The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (Golden Dragon).2 The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014.

    1See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 47908 (August 10, 2015) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2 The Department previously treated GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. as part of a single entity including: (1) GD Copper Cooperatief U.A.; (2) Hong Kong GD Trading Co. Ltd.; (3) Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong) International, Ltd.; (4) GD Copper U.S.A. Inc.; (5) GD Affiliates Servicios S. de R.L. de C.V.; and (6) GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V., which is collectively referred to as Golden Dragon. See, e.g., Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 77 FR 59178 (September 26, 2012), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    No interested party submitted comments on the preliminary results. We made no changes to the margin calculation for the final results of this review. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for Golden Dragon is listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Eastwood or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3874 or (202) 482-5973, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Golden Dragon. On August 10, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico.

    We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the review. No interested party submitted comments. The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order 3 is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum,4 remains dispositive.

    3See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value From Mexico, 75 FR 71070 (November 22, 2010) (Amended Final and Order).

    4See Preliminary Results, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 3-4.

    Final Results of the Review

    We determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. and that entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR.

    Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to the Final Modification for Reviews, 5 because the weighted-average dumping margins for Golden Dragon is zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.6

    5See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    6Id. at 8102.

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Golden Dragon for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.7

    7 For a full discussion, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of these final results for all shipments of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Golden Dragon will be 0.00 percent, the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 26.03 percent, the all-others rate established in the Amended Final and Order. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

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

    Notification to Interested Parties

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

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28754 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration Department of Commerce

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3692.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the periods April 1, 2015, through June 30, 2015.

    The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.

    The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.

    1 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(5).

    2 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(6).

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Subsidy Programs on Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty

    3 The 28 member states of the European Union are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

    Country Program(s) Gross 1 subsidy
  • ($/lb)
  • Net 2 subsidy
  • ($/lb)
  • 28 European Union Member States 3 European Union Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Canada Export Assistance on Certain Types of Cheese 0.43 0.43 Norway Indirect (Milk) Subsidy 0.00 0.00 Consumer Subsidy 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 Switzerland Deficiency Payments 0.00 0.00
    [FR Doc. 2015-28758 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness Solicitation of Nominations for Membership AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

    ACTION:

    Notice of an opportunity to apply for membership on the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is requesting nominations to fill vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee). The Committee was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee was first chartered on November 21, 2011, and renewed on November 20, 2013. The Committee has functioned effectively, and the Department has an on-going need for consensus advice regarding supply chain competitiveness. The Department anticipates renewing the Committee for another two-year term. The Committee advises the Secretary on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and provides advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. The Department is seeking nominations to fill vacancies on the Committee for the upcoming Charter term anticipated to start in November 2015.

    DATES:

    Applications for immediate consideration for appointment must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. EDT on December 18, 2015. After that date, ITA will continue to accept applications under this notice for a period of up to two years from the deadline to fill any vacancies that may arise.

    ADDRESSES:

    Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-1135; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-1135; email: [email protected]trade.gov. Please visit the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness Web site at: http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee has a maximum of 45 members. The Department of Commerce is seeking nominations for immediate consideration to fill up to 10 positions on the Committee for the upcoming 2015-2017 charter term, and will continue to accept nominations under this notice on an on-going basis for two-years for consideration to fill vacancies that may arise during the charter term. Member appointment terms run for two-years concurrently with the Committee charter. Members will be selected in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce Guidelines based upon their ability to advise the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and to provide advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. The Committee provides detailed policy and technical advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding:

    (1) National, state, or local factors in trade programs and policies that affect the efficient domestic and international operation and competitiveness of U.S. global supply chains from point of origin to destination;

    (2) elements of national policies affecting the movement of goods, infrastructure, investment, and regulatory factors that affect supply chain competitiveness and sustainability; and

    (3) information and data systems to generate metrics that can be used to quantify and improve supply chain performance.

    Members shall be selected in a manner that ensures that the Committee remains balanced in terms of product and service lines and reflects the diversity of the supply chain sector, including in terms of geographic location and company size.

    Members of the Committee shall represent companies, organizations, and stakeholders involved in the U.S. supply chain, with at least one individual representing each of the following: supply chain firms or their associations; users of supply chains (e.g., retailers, distributors, manufacturers or other sectors); freight transportation providers; ports; and academia. Based on the balance of viewpoints currently represented on the Committee, Representatives from the retail, airport, energy, logistics and freight forwarding, and big data analysis sectors are encouraged to apply for the immediate vacancies.

    Other than the experts from academia, all members shall serve in a representative capacity, expressing the views and interests of a U.S. company or U.S. organization, as well as its particular sector. Members serving in such a representative capacity are not Special Government Employees. The members from academia serve as experts and therefore are Special Government Employees (SGEs) and shall be subject to the ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Members who serve as SGEs must certify that they are not Federally-registered lobbyists.

    Each member of the Committee must be a U.S. citizen and not registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. All appointments are made without regard to political affiliation. Self-nominations will be accepted.

    Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their travel expenses. The Committee shall meet approximately quarterly, or as determined by the DFO.

    Members shall serve at the pleasure of the Secretary.

    All nominations for membership on the Committee should provide the following information:

    (1) Name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone, fax, and email address) of the individual requesting consideration; and

    (2) An affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.

    In addition to the above requirements for all nominations, nominations for representatives of companies, organizations, and stakeholders involved in the U.S. supply chain, including supply chain firms or their associations; users of supply chains (e.g., retailers, distributors, manufacturers, or other sectors); freight transportation providers; and ports, should also provide the following information:

    (1) A sponsor letter on the letterhead of the sponsoring U.S. company or U.S. organization to be represented, containing a brief description why the nominee should be considered for membership;

    (2) Short biography of nominee including credentials;

    (3) Brief description of the U.S. company or U.S. organization to be represented and its activities and size (number of employees or members and annual sales, if applicable); and

    (4) An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all Committee eligibility requirements for representative members, including that the applicant represents a U.S. company or U.S. organization.

    a. For purposes of Committee eligibility, a U.S. company is at least 51 percent owned by U.S. persons.

    b. For purposes of Committee eligibility, a U.S. organization is controlled by U.S. persons, as determined based on its board of directors (or comparable governing body), membership, and funding sources, as applicable.

    In addition to the above requirements for all nominations, nominations for experts from academia should also provide the following information:

    (1) A description of the nominee's area(s) of expertise;

    (2) A concise Curriculum Vitae (CV) or resume that covers education, experience, and relevant publications and summarizes how this expertise addresses supply chain competitiveness;

    (3) An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all Committee eligibility requirements.

    Please do not send company or organization brochures.

    Nominations may be emailed to [email protected], faxed to the attention of Richard Boll at 202-482-2669, or mailed to Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and must be received on or before December 18, 2015. Nominees selected for appointment to the Committee will be notified.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. David Long, Director, Office of Supply Chain and Professional & Business Services, November 5, 2015.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28743 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0080, Annual Report for Chief Compliance Officer of Registrants AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments on the collections of information mandated by Commission regulation 3.3 (Chief Compliance Officer).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Annual Report for Chief Compliance Officer of Registrants,” and Collection Number 3038-0080 by any of the following methods:

    The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Portal. Please submit your comments using only one method.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5496, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA,1 Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    1 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Title: Annual Report for Chief Compliance Officer of Registrants (OMB Control No. 3038-0080). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: On April 3, 2012, the Commission adopted Commission regulation 3.3 (Chief Compliance Officer) 2 under sections 4d(d) and 4s(k) 3 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). Commission regulation 3.3 requires each futures commission merchant (“FCM”),4 swap dealer (“SD”),5 and major swap participant (“MSP”) 6 to designate, by filing a form 8-R, a chief compliance officer who is responsible for developing and administering policies and procedures that fulfill certain duties of the SD, MSP, or FCM and that are reasonably designed to ensure the registrant's compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations; establishing procedures for the remediation of noncompliance issues identified by the chief compliance officer; establishing procedures for the handling, management response, remediation, retesting, and closing of noncompliance issues; preparing, signing, certifying and filing with the Commission an annual compliance report that contains the information specified in the regulations; amending the annual report if material errors or omissions are identified; and maintaining records of the registrant's compliance policies and procedures and records related to the annual report. The information collection obligations imposed by Commission regulation 3.3 are essential to ensuring that FCMs, SDs, and MSPs maintain comprehensive policies and procedures that promote compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations. In particular, the Commission believes that, among other things, these obligations (i) promote compliance behavior through periodic self-evaluation, (ii) inform the Commission of possible compliance weaknesses, (iii) assist the Commission in determining whether the registrant remains in compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations, and (iv) help the Commission to assess whether the registrant has mechanisms in place to adequately address compliance problems that could lead to a failure of the registrant. With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    2 17 CFR 3.3.

    3 7 U.S.C. 6d(d) and 6s(k).

    4 For the definition of FCM, see section 1a(28) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(p). 7 U.S.C. 1a(28) and 17 CFR 1.3(p).

    5 For the definition of SD, see section 1a(49) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(ggg). 7 U.S.C. 1a(49) and 17 CFR 1.3(ggg).

    6 For the definitions of MSP, see section 1a(33) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(hhh). 7 U.S.C. 1a(33) and 17 CFR 1.3(hhh).

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.7

    7 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the information collection request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: In light of the contraction in the number of Commission-registered FCMs since the Commission promulgated regulation 3.3, the Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection. Accordingly, the respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

    Number of Registrants: 200.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 1006.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 201,200.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: Annually or on occasion.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: November 6, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28732 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0089, Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments for certain swap data recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed on the following entities: Swap Dealers (“SDs”), Major Swap Participants (“MSPs”), and swap counterparties that are neither swap dealers nor major swap participants (“non-SD/MSP counterparties”).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Renewal of Collection Pertaining to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps,” or Renewal 3038-0089, by any of the following methods:

    The Agency's Web site, at: http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Portal.

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Guerin, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., (202) 734-4194, email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0089.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    Title: Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps (OMB Control No. 3038-0089). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The collection of information is needed to ensure that the CFTC and other regulators have access to data regarding pre-enactment and transition swaps, as required by the Commodity Exchange Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). The Dodd-Frank Act directed the CFTC to adopt rules providing for the reporting of data relating to swaps entered into before the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the terms of which had not expired as of the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (“pre-enactment swaps”) and data relating to swaps entered into on or after the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and prior to the compliance date specified in the the CFTC's final swap data reporting rules (“transition swaps”). On May 17, 2012, the CFTC adopted regulation 46, which imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements relating to pre-enactment and historical swaps.

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CFTC, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the CFTC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the CFTC to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the CFTC's regulations.1 The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the information collection request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    117 CFR 145.9. 

    Burden Statement: Provisions of CFTC Regulations 46.2, 46.3, 46.4, 46.8, 46.10, and 46.11 result in information collection requirements within the meaning of the PRA. These regulations required SDs, MSPs and non-SD/MSP counterparties to incur one-time costs to establish systems and processes associated with swaps data recordkeeping and reporting. The CFTC estimates that SDs, MSPs, and non-SD/MSP counterparties incurred a one-time burden of 91,250 hours associated with part 46 recordkeeping and reporting requirements. With respect to the ongoing reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with pre-enactment and transition swaps, the CFTC believes that SDs, MSPs, and non-SD/MSP counterparties incur an annual time-burden of 18,903 hours. This time-burden represents a proportion of the burden responents incur to operate and maintain their swap data recordkeeping and reporting systems.

    17 CFR 45 imposes swap recordkeeping and reporting requirements on respondents related to swaps that are not pre-enactment or transition swaps. The CFTC believes that respondents use the same recordkeeping and reporting systems to compy with both parts 45 and 46. The CFTC has computed the estimated burden for 17 CFR 46 by estimating the burden incurred by respondents to operate and maintain their swap data recordkeeping and reporting systems and then estimating the percentage of that burden associated with pre-enactment and transition swaps. Since the enactment of 17 CFR 45, the vast majority of pre-enactment and transition swaps have been terminated by the parties to the swaps or are otherwise no longer in existence. As 17 CFR 46 only requires respondents to make ongoing reports regarding pre-enactment and transition swaps that continue to be in existence, the number of reports being made pursuant to 17 CFR 46 has declined significantly over time. As the volume of reports made pursuant to 17 CFR 46 is estimated to be very small releative to the estimated volume of reports made pursuant to 17 CFR 45, the CFTC's burden estimate has allocated the vast majority of the estimated burden to operate and maintain respondents' swap data recordkeeping and reporting systems to the burden estimate associated with 17 CFR 45.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and other counterparties to a swap transaction (i.e., end-user, non-SD/non-MSP counterparties).

    Estimated number of respondents: 30,125.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 18,903 hours.

    Frequency of collection: Ongoing.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: November 6, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28729 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2015-OS-0124] U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Proposed Rules Changes ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the following proposed changes to Rules 5, 21(b)(5)(F), and 26 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed changes must be received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William A. DeCicco, Clerk of the Court, telephone (202) 761-1448.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. Rules 5 and 21(b)(5)(F):

    Rule 5—Scope of Review—currently reads:

    The Court acts only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by reviewing authorities, and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by a Court of Criminal Appeals, except insofar as it may take action on a certificate for review or a petition for review of a decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 862, or to grant extraordinary relief in aid of its jurisdiction, including the exercise of its supervisory powers over the administration of the UCMJ. The Court may specify or act on any issue concerning a matter of law which materially affects the rights of the parties.

    The proposed change to Rule 5 would read:

    The Court acts only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by reviewing authorities, and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by a Court of Criminal Appeals, except insofar as it may take action on a certificate for review or a petition for review of a decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 862, or to grant extraordinary relief in aid of its jurisdiction. The Court may specify or act on any issue concerning a matter of law which materially affects the rights of the parties.

    Rule 21(b)(5)(F)—Supplement to Petition for Grant of Review—currently reads:

    (b) The supplement to the petition shall be filed in accordance with the applicable time limit set forth in Rule 19(a)(5)(A) or (B), shall include an Appendix containing a copy of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, unpublished opinions cited in the brief, relevant extracts of rules and regulations, and shall conform to the provisions of Rules 24(b), 35A, and 37. Unless authorized by Order of the Court or by motion of a party granted by the Court, the supplement and any answer thereto shall not exceed 25 pages, except that a supplement or answer containing no more than 9,000 words or 900 lines of text is also acceptable. Any reply to the answer shall not exceed 10 pages, except that a reply containing 4, 000 words or 400 lines of text is also acceptable. The supplement shall contain:

    . . . (5) A direct and concise argument showing why there is good cause to grant the petition, demonstrating with particularity why the errors assigned are materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Where applicable, the supplement to the petition shall also indicate whether the court below has:

    . . . (F) so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such a departure by a court-martial or other person acting under authority of the UCMJ, as to call for an exercise of this Court's power of supervision; or . . .

    The proposed change to Rule 21(b)(5)(F) would read:

    . . . (F) so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings or so far sanctioned such a departure by a court-martial or other person acting under authority of the UCMJ, as to warrant review by the Court; or . . .

    Comment: Documents have recently been filed with the Court citing to the supervisory power noted in the Court's Rules 5 and 21(b)(5)(F). This is somewhat problematic because the references to supervisory power in these rules predate the Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999), which rejected an expansive view of the Court's supervisory power over all aspects of military justice. Specifically the Court stated: “[T]he CAAF is not given authority, by the All Writs Act or otherwise, to oversee all matters arguably related to military justice or to act as a plenary administrator of final judgments it has affirmed.” 526 U.S. 529, 536. Given Goldsmith, the broad references to supervisory power in the rules should be deleted. That is not to say that supervisory authority does not exist, only that it is not as expansive as it was pre-Goldsmith, and its contours will need to be resolved in future cases. However, the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure should not be cited as a source for this authority in the absence of settled case law.

    Rule 26:

    Rule 26—Amicus Curiae Briefs—currently reads:

    (a) A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed (1) by an appellate government or defense division of an armed service other than that in which the case has arisen, (2) by invitation of the Court, or (3) by motion for leave to file granted by the Court.

    (b) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a brief of an amicus curiae in support of a party may be filed no later than 10 days after that party has filed its brief. If neither party is supported, the brief of an amicus curiae shall be filed no later than 10 days after the first brief is filed.

    (c) Neither the hearing nor the disposition of a case will be delayed pending action on a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief or a motion of an amicus curiae to participate in a hearing, or to await the filing of a brief of an amicus curiae under this rule.

    (d) Except by the Court's permission, a brief of an amicus curiae may be no more than one-half the maximum length authorized by Rule 24 for a brief for an appellant/petitioner. If the Court grants a party permission to file a longer brief, that extension does not affect the length of an amicus brief.

    (e) A member of the Bar of the Court who represents an amicus curiae and is authorized to file a brief under paragraph (a) of this rule may file a motion for leave to have a law student enter an appearance on behalf of the amicus curiae. To be eligible to participate under this rule, a law student must be acting under the attorney's supervision and the attorney and the law student must substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 13A(b)(1)-(5) and (c)(1)-(11). Argument by a law student granted permission to appear on behalf of an amicus curiae may be requested by motion filed under Rule 30.

    The proposed change to Rule 26 would read:

    (a) A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed (1) by an appellate government or defense division of an armed service other than that in which the case has arisen, (2) by invitation of the Court, or (3) by motion for leave to file granted by the Court.

    (b) All motions and briefs filed under Rule 26(a)(3) must contain a statement of the movant's interest and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case. Amicus curiae briefs filed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3) that bring relevant matter to the attention of the Court not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored. The motion must also provide a statement as to whether the parties consent to the filing of the amicus curiae brief. Only an attorney admitted to practice as a member of the Bar of the Court or an attorney appearing pro hac vice may file an amicus curiae brief.

    (c) An amicus curiae brief submitted before the Court's consideration of a petition for grant of review, petition for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal petition, or petition for new trial may be filed under subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2), or if the Court grants leave to file under subparagraph (a)(3) of this rule.

    (d) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a brief of an amicus curiae in support of a party shall be filed no later than 10 days after that party has filed its brief, supplement to the petition for grant of review, petition for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal petition, or answer. If neither party is supported, the brief of an amicus curiae shall be filed no later than 10 days after the first brief, supplement to the petition for grant of review, petition for extraordinary relief, or writ-appeal petition is filed. In the case of a petition for new trial, the brief of an amicus curiae shall be filed no later than 10 days after the petitioner's brief in support of the petition has been filed with the Court. Motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief under Rule 26(a)(3) must be filed within the time allowed for the filing of the brief and contemporaneously with the amicus curiae brief itself. Requests for extensions of time to file an amicus curiae brief will not be granted. A party may file a motion under Rule 30 for leave to reply to the brief of an amicus curiae.

    (e) Neither the hearing nor the disposition of a case will be delayed pending action on a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief or a motion of an amicus curiae to participate in a hearing, or to await the filing of a brief of an amicus curiae under this rule.

    (f) Except by the Court's permission, a brief of an amicus curiae may be no more than one-half the maximum length authorized by Rule 24 for a brief for an appellant/petitioner. If the Court grants a party permission to file a longer brief, that extension does not affect the length of an amicus brief.

    (g) A member of the Bar of the Court who represents an amicus curiae and is authorized to file a brief under paragraph (a) of this rule may file a motion for leave to have a law student enter an appearance on behalf of the amicus curiae. To be eligible to participate under this rule, a law student must be acting under the attorney's supervision and the attorney and the law student must substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 13A(b)(1)-(5) and (c)(1)-(11). Argument by a law student granted permission to appear on behalf of an amicus curiae may be requested by motion filed under Rule 30.

    Comment: The first part of new paragraph (b) tracks similar language in Supreme Court Rule 37. It advises that “me too” briefs are not favored, and this is generally the view of all appellate courts. The proposal goes on to require that motions for leave to file, as well as the amicus briefs themselves, contain a statement of the movant's interest and explain why the matters asserted in the brief are relevant to the disposition of the case. The proposal operates differently from the practice in the Article III courts of appeal in that even with the consent of the parties, an amicus filer must still ask for leave of the Court to file an amicus curiae brief. In this way, the Court retains the authority to decide all requests to file amicus briefs based on its own determination that the brief will be helpful. It is believed that party consent may not be an adequate filter that ensures that amicus briefs are helpful to the Court. While party consent is not a guarantee that the brief will be accepted, lack of consent is not a guarantee that it will be rejected. Rather, the Court oversees all filings to be sure that amicus participation is warranted. Paragraph (b) also includes a requirement that only members of the Court's Bar or attorneys appearing pro hac vice may file motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs.

    Paragraph (c) proposes a new rule to clarify that motions to file amicus curiae briefs can be filed in support of petitions for grant of review, petitions for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal petitions, petitions for new trial, and answers to such pleadings.

    [FR Doc. 2015-28598 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and Executive Order (EO) 12114, the Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with continuing to conduct military readiness activities, which consist of training activities and research, development, testing, and evaluation (hereinafter referred to as “testing”) activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area. The Study Area consists of sea space in and airspace over the Atlantic Ocean along the eastern coast of North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. The AFTT Study Area begins seaward from the mean high water line and moves east to the 45 degree longitude line. The Study Area covers approximately 2.6 million square nautical miles of ocean area, including designated Navy operating areas, warning areas, select Navy pierside locations, and associated port transit channels.

    In order to both achieve and maintain military readiness, the Navy proposes to:

    • Conduct training and testing activities at levels required to support Navy military readiness requirements beginning in 2018 into the reasonably foreseeable future; and

    • Accommodate evolving mission requirements associated with force structure changes, including those resulting from the development, testing, and ultimate introduction of new platforms (vessels, aircraft, and weapon systems) into the fleet; thereby ensuring critical Navy requirements are met.

    As part of this process the Navy will seek to obtain authorization and permitting, as required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act, respectively.

    The Navy invites comments on the scope and content of the EIS/OEIS from all interested parties. Comments may be provided by mail and through the EIS/OEIS Web site at: http://www.AFTTEIS.com. Mailed comments must be postmarked no later than January 16, 2016 and mailed to the address below to ensure they are considered.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lesley Dobbins-Noble, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Code EV22LDN (AFTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager), 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508-1278. 703-322-4625.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Navy's lead action proponent is Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Additional action proponents include Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The Proposed Action is to conduct military readiness activities in the AFTT Study Area. These training and testing activities are generally consistent with those analyzed in the AFTT EIS/OEIS completed in August 2013 and are representative of training and testing that the Navy has been conducting in the AFTT Study Area for decades.

    The following range complexes fall within the AFTT Study Area: Northeast Range Complexes, Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, Jacksonville Range Complex, Key West Range Complex, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complex. The testing ranges in the AFTT Study Area include: Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport, Newport, Rhode Island; Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Panama City Division, Panama City, Florida; and NSWC Carderock Division South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, Dania, Florida. While most Navy military readiness activities take place in operating and warning areas in the AFTT Study Area, some activities, such as sonar maintenance and gunnery exercises, are conducted concurrent with normal transits and occur outside of these areas, but still within the Study Area. The pierside testing locations and associated port transit channels are located at the following Navy ports and naval shipyards: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine; Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, Connecticut; Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia; Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Kings Bay, Georgia; Naval Station Mayport, Jacksonville, Florida; Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia; and Port Canaveral, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Additional AFTT Study Area pierside testing locations and associated port transit channels are located in Bath, Maine; Groton, Connecticut; Newport News, Virginia; and Pascagoula, Mississippi.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6, the Navy will invite the National Marine Fisheries Service to be a cooperating agency in preparation of the EIS/OEIS.

    The purpose of the Proposed Action is to maintain a ready force, which is needed to ensure that the Navy can meet its mission to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas, as consistent with Congressional direction Section 5062, of Title 10 U.S. Code.

    The AFTT Phase III EIS/OEIS will consider a No Action Alternative and action alternatives that account for types and tempo of training and testing activities beginning in 2018 as necessary to meet future readiness requirements.

    Resource areas that will be addressed include, but are not limited to: Biological resources (including marine mammals and threatened and endangered species), sediments and water quality, air quality, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomic resources, and public health and safety.

    The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues to be addressed in the EIS/OEIS. Federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, Native American Indian Tribes and Nations, the public, and interested persons are encouraged to identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern that the Navy should consider. Written comments must be postmarked no later than January 12, 2016 to ensure they are considered in the development of the EIS/OEIS and mailed to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, Code: EV22LDN (AFTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager), 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia, 23508-1278. Comments also can be submitted electronically by January 12, 2016 via the project Web site at http://www.AFTTEIS.com.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Administrative Law Division, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28750 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), and Executive Order (EO) 12114, the Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with continuing to conduct military readiness activities, which consist of training activities and research, development, testing, and evaluation (hereinafter referred to as “testing”) activities in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area. The Study Area consists of the in-water areas of the Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex (including San Diego Bay); in-water areas of Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC); the Hawaii Range Complex (HRC); areas on the high seas where training and sonar testing and maintenance may occur during vessel transit between the Hawaii and Southern California Range Complexes; the Temporary Operating Area north and west of the Hawaii Range Complex; and specific Navy pierside, port, and harbor locations.

    In order to achieve and maintain military readiness, the Navy proposes to:

    • Conduct training and testing activities at levels required to support Navy military readiness requirements beginning in December 2018 into the reasonably foreseeable future; and

    • Accommodate evolving mission requirements associated with force structure changes, including those resulting from the development, testing, and ultimate introduction of new platforms (vessels, aircraft, and weapon systems) into the fleet; thereby ensuring critical Navy requirements are met.

    As part of this process the Navy will seek to obtain authorization and permitting, as required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act, respectively.

    The Navy invites comments on the scope and content of the EIS/OEIS from all interested parties. Comments may be provided by mail and through the EIS/OEIS Web site at: http://www.hstteis.com. Mailed comments must be postmarked no later than January 16, 2016 and mailed to the address below to ensure they are considered.

    In addition, the Navy will conduct public scoping meetings to obtain comments on the scope of the EIS/OEIS and to identify specific environmental concerns or topics for consideration in the document.

    DATES:

    Dates and Addresses: Three public scoping meetings will be held on:

    1. Tuesday, December 1, 2015, 5:00-8:00 p.m., Marina Village Conference Center Starboard Room, 1936 Quivira Way, San Diego, CA 92109 2. Thursday, December 3, 2015, 5:00-8:00 p.m., Island School Main Hall, 3-1901 Kaumuali'i Highway Lihue, Kauai, HI 96766 3. Saturday, December 5, 2015, 11:00-2:00 p.m., Ke'ehi Lagoon Memorial, 2685 N. Nimitz Highway, Honolulu, HI 96819

    The scoping meetings will consist of an informal, open-house session with informational stations staffed by Navy representatives. Meeting details will be announced in local newspapers. Additional information on the public scoping meetings will be available on the EIS/OEIS Web page located at: http://www.hstteis.com.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nora Macariola-See, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. Attention: HSTT EIS/OEIS, 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100, Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134. 808-472-1402.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Navy's lead action proponent is Commander, United States Pacific Fleet. Additional action proponents include Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The Proposed Action is to conduct military readiness activities in the HSTT Study Area. These training and testing activities are generally consistent with those analyzed in the HSTT EIS/OEIS completed in August 2013 and are representative of training and testing that the Navy has been conducting in the HSTT Study Area for decades.

    The HSTT EIS/OEIS Study Area includes the HRC, the SOCAL Range Complex, in-water areas of SSTC, and San Diego Bay. It also includes the transit corridor between the HRC and the SOCAL Range Complex, as well as the Temporary Operating Area north and west of the HRC. Analysis will include in-water areas and activities, including pierside locations and harbors.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6, the Navy will invite the National Marine Fisheries Service to be a cooperating agency in preparation of the EIS/OEIS.

    The purpose of the Proposed Action is to maintain a ready force, which is needed to ensure that the Navy can meet its mission to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas, consistent with Congressional direction in section 5062 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code.

    The HSTT Phase III EIS/OEIS will consider a No Action Alternative and action alternatives that account for levels of training and testing activities beginning in December 2018 as necessary to meet future readiness requirements. Refurbishment of existing undersea instrumented ranges is also being considered.

    Resource areas that will be addressed include, but are not limited to, biological resources (including marine mammals and threatened and endangered species), sediments and water quality, air quality, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomic resources, and public health and safety.

    The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues to be addressed in the EIS/OEIS. Federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, Native American Indian Tribes and Nations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, the public, and interested persons are encouraged to provide comments to the Navy to identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern that the commenter believes the Navy should consider. All comments provided orally or in writing at the scoping meetings will receive the same consideration during EIS/OEIS preparation.

    Written comments must be postmarked no later than January 12, 2016 to ensure they are considered in the development of the EIS/OEIS and be mailed to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100, Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134, Attention: HSTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager. Comments also can be submitted electronically by January 12, 2016 via the project Web site at http://www.hstteis.com.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28748 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity Meeting; Update and Correction AGENCY:

    National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), U.S. Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of the time and location of the NACIQI meeting; and a correction to the agenda.

    SUMMARY:

    This meeting notice is an update to the previous notice published in the Federal Register (176 FR 54774) on September 11, 2015, and sets forth the time and location for the December 16, 17, and 18, 2015 NACIQI meeting. This notice also provides a correction to the current and requested scopes of recognition for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Community Colleges and Junior Colleges (WASC ACCJC), and clarifies the scope of review to be conducted at the meeting for the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (MWCCU) and WASC ACCJC. Further, this notice adds an item to the agenda. The notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Section 114(d)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended.

    DATES:

    The NACIQI meeting will be held on December 16, 17, and 18, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., at the Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Hong, Executive Director/Designated Federal Official, NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8073, Washington, DC 20006-8129, telephone: (202) 502-7696; fax: (202) 502-7874, or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Meeting Agenda Correction: A correction to current and requested scopes of recognition for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (WASC ACCJC); clarification regarding the scope of review at the meeting for the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) and WASC ACCJC; and addition of an agenda item.

    Below is the requested and current scopes of recognition for WASC ACCJC, scheduled for review during the December 2015 meeting:

    Compliance Report

    Current Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of community and other colleges with a primarily pre-baccalaureate mission located in California, Hawaii, the United States territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which offer certificates, associate degrees, and the first baccalaureate degree by means of a substantive change review offered by institutions that are already accredited by the agency, and such programs offered via distance education and correspondence education at these colleges. This recognition also extends to the Committee on Substantive Change of the Commission, for decisions on substantive changes, and the Appeals Panel.

    Requested Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of community and other colleges in California, Hawaii, the United States territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which have as a primary mission the granting of associate degrees, but which may also award certificates and other credentials, including bachelor's degrees, where the provision of such credentials is within the institution's mission and, if applicable, is authorized by their governmental authorities, and the accreditation of such programs offered via distance education and correspondence education at these colleges. This recognition also extends to the Committee on Substantive Change of the Commission, for decisions on substantive changes, and the Appeals Panel.

    Clarification Regarding Scope of Review

    Decisions letters issued in January 2014 by the senior Department official on recognition matters are posted on the Department's Web site at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/index.cfm.

    NWCCU and WASC ACCJC timely appealed to the Secretary from several of the findings contained in the senior Department official's January 2014 decision letters to those agencies.

    1. NWCCU (Compliance Report)

    The agency appealed five of the ten findings outlined in the senior Department official's January 2014 decision letter.

    The agency prevailed on appeal on three of the five issues. As a consequence of the appeal, only the following five remaining findings will be considered at the December 2015 meeting for NWCCU: 34 CFR 602.15(a)(5); 602.16(a)(1)(ix); 602.20(b); 602.23(c); and 602.26(d). The Secretary's December 2014 appeal decision may be found here: http://oha.ed.gov/secretaryindex.html

    2. WASC ACCJC (Compliance Report)

    The agency appealed two of the 15 findings outlined in the senior Department official's January 2014 decision letter. The appeal remains pending. Because those two findings remain on appeal, only the other 13 findings addressed in the senior Department official's decision letter will be considered at the December 2015 meeting for WASC ACCJC: 34 CFR 602.12(b); 602.16(a)(1)(i); 602.16(a)(1)(ii); 602.16(a)(1)(iii); 602.17(a); 602.17(f); 602.18(e); 602.19(b); 602.20(a); 602.20(b); 602.21(c); 602.25(c); and 602.26(b).

    Public comments (written and oral) for NWCCU and WASC ACCJC must be confined to the criteria for recognition listed above.

    3. Scope of Review at the December 2015 Meeting for Agencies Other Than NWCCU and WASC ACCJC

    Public comments (written and oral) for all other agencies listed on the December agenda for consideration of compliance reports must relate to issues identified in the senior Department official's letter that requested the report.

    Public comments (written and oral) for agencies listed on the December agenda for consideration for initial or renewal of recognition must relate to the agency's compliance with the Criteria for the Recognition of Accrediting Agencies [34 CFR 602], the Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of State Agencies for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational Education [34 CFR 603], and the Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of State Agencies for Approval of Nurse Education, as appropriate.

    Addition of Agenda Item: On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, the NACIQI will receive a briefing to continue their discussion from the June 25-26, 2015 meeting regarding how to frame the NACIQI's policy agenda to inform the agency recognition process and to develop broader perspectives about how accrediting agencies consider data about student outcomes. The briefing and attendant discussion will commence prior to the review of agencies on the agenda, and will resume after the NACIQI has completed its review of agencies.

    Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the NACIQI Web site 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the FACA, the public may also inspect the materials at 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC, by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 219-7067 to schedule an appointment.

    Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

    Electronic Access to this Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    Authority:

    Section 114 of the HEA of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1011c.

    Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28746 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-255-000] East Coast Power & Gas of New Jersey, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding East Coast Power & Gas of New Jersey, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 24, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28640 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Staff Attendance at the Illinois Commerce Commission's “Planning For The Future” Policy Session; Focus on 2015-2016 Winter Preparedness and Resource Adequacy in the Ameren Illinois Footprint

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the above meeting of the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

    The meeting will be held on November 19, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at in the Main Hearing Room at the ICC's Chicago office, 160 North LaSalle, Suite C-800, Chicago, IL 60601.

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket No. ER11-4081, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. EL12-54, Viridity Energy, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-535, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-2108, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-504, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-822, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER14-1461 and EL14-48, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-2940, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-135, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER15-623 and EL15-29, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL14-20, Independent Market Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. EL14-94 and EL14-36, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL14-55, FirstEnergy Service Company v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-41, Essential Power Rock Springs, L.L.C. et al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-46, Champion Energy Marketing L.L.C. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-80, Advanced Energy Management Alliance Coalition v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-83, National Resources Defense Council, et al., v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-70, Public Citizen, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. EL15-71, People of the State of Illinois v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. EL15-72, Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. EL15-82, Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    The meeting is open to the public.

    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or [email protected]

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28642 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-89-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LL; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Garden State Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Garden State Expansion Project, proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket. Transco requests authorization to construct and operate a new compressor station and a new meter and regulating station in Burlington County, New Jersey and construct and modify an existing compressor station and related appurtenant facilities in Mercer County, New Jersey.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Garden State Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The proposed Garden State Expansion Project includes the following facilities:

    Phase 1 (Targeted In-Service Date of November 1, 2016)

    • Chesterfield Meter and Regulating (M&R) Station, Burlington County, New Jersey—new meter and regulating station near milepost (MP) 15.2 on Transco's Trenton-Woodbury Lateral;

    • Compressor Station 205 (Station 205), Mercer County, New Jersey—Uprate Unit 3 existing motor to 25,000 horsepower (hp) and related minor ancillary modifications; and

    • Valves and tie-in piping extending from Trenton-Woodbury Lateral to Chesterfield M&R and the future location of Compressor Station 203 (Station 203).

    Phase 2 (Targeted In-Service Date of August 1, 2017)

    • Station 205, Mercer County, New Jersey—Units 1 and 2: Replace existing compressors and uprate electric motors each to 16,000 hp, including minor ancillary modifications;

    • Station 203, Burlington County, New Jersey—new compressor Station consisting of a single 30,500 hp electric motor driven unit near MP15.2 on the Trenton-Woodbury Lateral;

    • Electrical Substation, Burlington County, New Jersey—new electrical substation to power Station 203; and

    • Automate 15-inch block valve J736 located on the Trenton-Woodbury Lateral, Burlington County, New Jersey.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before December 4, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-89-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-89). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28633 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-256-000] CEP&G LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding CEP&G LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 24, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28641 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-209-000.

    Applicants: CPV Sentinel, LLC.

    Description: Clarification to September 23, 2015 Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period of CPV Sentinel, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5229.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-16-000.

    Applicants: OCI Alamo 6 LLC.

    Description: OCI Alamo 6 LLC Self-Certification of EWG Status.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-17-000.

    Applicants: OCI Alamo 7 LLC.

    Description: OCI Alamo 7 LLC Self-Certification of EWG.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-18-000.

    Applicants: OCI Solar TRE LLC.

    Description: OCI Solar TRE LLC Notice Self-Certification of EWG.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2668-000.

    Applicants: Land of the Sky MT, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to September 17, 2015 Land of the Sky MT, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-121-000; EL16-6-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Errata to the EL16-6-000 Filing to Correct the Proposed Effective Date to 6/1/16 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5391.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-259-000.

    Applicants: C.P. Crane LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Reactive Rate Schedule FERC No. 2 to be effective 1/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-260-000.

    Applicants: DTE East China, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of East China Tariff No 4 and 5 to be effective 11/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-261-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Commonwealth Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ComEd submits Attach. M-2 to incorporate provisions being removed in Attach. W to be effective 1/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-262-000.

    Applicants: Uniper Global Commodities North America LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 normal to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28632 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-160-000] New-Indy Ontario LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding New-Indy Ontario LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 24, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28636 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-161-000] New-Indy Oxnard LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding New-Indy Oxnard LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 24, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28637 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP15-115-001; CP15-115-000] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Empire Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Amendment to Application

    Take notice that on November 2, 2015, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (Empire), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed an amendment to their application in Docket Number CP15-115-000, pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate the Northern Access 2016 Project (the “Project”), and authorization to abandon and acquire certain related facilities. The Project will be located in McKean County, Pennsylvania and Alleghany, Cattaraugus, Erie and Niagara Counties, New York. The filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Kenneth E. Webster, Attorney for National Fuel and Empire, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or call at (716) 857-7067.

    Specifically, National Fuel requests authorization: (i) To construct 96.49 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline; (ii) to add 5,350 horsepower (hp) of compression at the Porterville, New York compressor station; (iii) to construct an interconnect meter and regulation (M&R) station with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.'s 200 Line; (iv) to construct an M&R station and tie-in in Hinsdale, New York; (v) to construct an interconnection with NFG Midstream Clermont, L.L.C.; (vi) to construct a new tie-in; (vii) to construct a pressure reduction station; (viii) to abandon, via sale to Empire, 1.08 miles of National Fuel's existing Line XM-10 pipeline and certain other existing facilities; (ix) to charge an initial incremental firm recourse rate for the Project; and (x) for a limited waiver of General Terms and Conditions Section 31.1 of National Fuel's tariff to permit the Project's Foundation Shipper to shift its primary delivery point for a portion of the Project's incremental capacity more than ninety days after its initial request. National Fuel proposes to provide 497,000 dekatherms per day of new firm natural gas transportation capacity.

    Empire requests authorization to: (i) Construct a new 22,214 hp compressor station in Pendleton, New York; (ii) construct and operate approximately 0.90 miles of 16-inch pipeline; (iii) construct and operate approximately 1.17 miles of 24-inch pipeline; (iv) construct a new dehydration facility; (v) construct two new tie-ins; and (vi) acquire from National Fuel the aforementioned 1.08 miles of Line XM-10. Empire proposes to provide 350,000 dekatherms per day of new firm natural gas transportation capacity.

    National Fuel and Empire request authorization to abandon their jointly owned meter station along Line XM-10 in Pendleton, New York. The total cost of the Project would be approximately $376,670,388 (National Fuel) and $78,710,359 (Empire).

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 25, 2015.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28634 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-537-000] DBM Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Staff Protest to Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity

    Commission staff (Protestor) hereby withdraws its Protest to the Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity filed in the above-referenced proceeding on October 2, 2015.

    In its prior notice request filed on July 27, 2015 (in Docket No. CP15-537-000) and noticed on August 6, 2015,1 DBM Pipeline, LLC (DBM Pipeline) proposed to construct and operate approximately 9 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Reeves and Culberson Counties, Texas, and Eddy County, New Mexico (Project). Protestor protested the prior notice request filed under the provisions of Part 157, subpart F, of the Commission's regulations, because DBM Pipeline did not file in its application or supplemental filings, the Bureau of Land Management comments on the Project and did not provide adequate avoidance plans to have no effect on historic properties. In addition DBM Pipeline did not provide complete responses to the FERC Environmental Data Request dated September 23, 2015.

    1 Notice of the request was published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 48520).

    Protestor notes that on November 3, 2015, DBM Pipeline filed a data response with comments from the Texas and New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), dated June 23, 2015 and October 27, 2015 respectively, stating that the Project would either have no effect on or would avoid historic properties. DBM Pipeline also filed an avoidance plan for three cultural resources in New Mexico. Additionally, the BLM agreed with the avoidance plan and stated the Project would have no effect on historic properties in a letter dated November 2, 2015. FERC staff agrees with the Texas and New Mexico SHPOs and finds the avoidance plan acceptable. Finally, DBM Pipeline submitted complete responses to the FERC Environmental Data Request dated September 23, 2015.

    Thus, Protestor's environmental concern has been satisfied. Accordingly, Protestor hereby withdraws its Protest to the Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity filed in the instant docket on October 2, 2015.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28635 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-26-000.

    Applicants: Waverly Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Waverly Wind Farm LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-27-000.

    Applicants: Carousel Wind Farm, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Carousel Wind Farm, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2529-004.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: eTariff Migration Compliance Filing for TO16 Settlement to be effective 7/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20151028-5216.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1687-003.

    Applicants: Blue Cube Operations LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Blue Cube Operations LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5264.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-251-000.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Mitchell Plant Concurrence RS 303 Cancellation to be effective 1/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-252-000.

    Applicants: Kentucky Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Mitchell Agreement Cancellation to be effective 1/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-253-000.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP GR MBR Tariff Mitchell Cleanup Filing to be effective 1/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-254-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Ministerial Filing of Non-Substantive Membership Agreement Revisions to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-255-000.

    Applicants: East Coast Power & Gas of New Jersey, LL.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: ECP&G NJ Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-256-000.

    Applicants: CEP&G LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: CEP&G LLC Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-257-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment of LGIA, Service Agreement No. 171 to be effective 1/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-258-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: True-Up SGIA and Distribution Service Agmt Golden Springs to be effective 1/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28631 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-165-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Resubmit Oct 15-31 2015 Auction to be effective 10/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-166-000.

    Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Munich Re Trading Negotiated Rate eff 12-1-2015 to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-167-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: ConEd Ramapo Releases for 11-3-2015 to be effective 11/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5066.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-169-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Case Settlement Amendments Filing 2-resubmission to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20151103-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-170-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2015-11-04 ConocoPhillips to be effective 11/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-171-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate Agmt Filing (Tenaska 35178) to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20151104-5062.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 04, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28643 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-182-000] Cameron Ridge II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Cameron Ridge II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 24, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28639 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9937-00-OA] Local Government Advisory Committee: Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to its Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC). The LGAC is chartered to provide advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental issues affecting local governments. This notice solicits nominations for eight to twelve (8-12) anticipated vacancies. To maintain the representation outlined by the charter, nominees will be selected to represent: large cities, moderate-sized cities, small communities, and townships (under 10,000); county-elected officials-urban, suburban and rural; city elected and appointed officials (city council members, city managers); state elected and appointed officials (state representatives, public health, agricultural and state environmental commissioners); and tribal elected and appointed officials (chair, president, natural resources directors). Vacancies are anticipated to be filled by March 2016. Sources in addition to this Federal Register publication may be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

    DATES:

    Nominations should be submitted at least by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit nominations electronically with the subject line “LGAC Membership 2016” to [email protected]. You may also submit nominations by mail to: Frances Eargle, LGAC Designated Federal Officer, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC1301A), Washington, DC 20460. Non-electronic submissions must follow the same format and contain the same information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frances Eargle, Designated Federal Officer for the LGAC, U.S. EPA; telephone (202) 564-3115; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The LGAC is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established the LGAC in 1993 to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of public health and environmental issues affecting local governments. The LGAC conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App2) and related regulations.

    The Committee consists of approximately 30 members (including a Chairperson) appointed by the EPA's Administrator. Members serve as non-federal stakeholders representing: Large cities, moderate-sized cities, small communities, and townships (under 10,000); county-elected officials-urban, suburban and rural; city elected and appointed officials (city council members, city managers); state elected and appointed officials (state representatives, state environmental and public health commissioners); and tribal elected and appointed officials (chair, president, natural resources directors). Members are appointed for one or two (1-2) year terms, and eligible for reappointment.

    The LGAC usually meets two or three times a year. Additionally, members may be asked to participate in teleconference meetings or serve on a subcommittee and workgroups to develop recommendations, advice letters and reports to address specific policy issues. The average workload for members is approximately 3-6 hours per month. Honoraria or compensation for your services is not authorized, however, you may receive travel and per diem allowances where appropriate and according to applicable federal travel regulations.

    Nominations: The EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, the agency encourages nominations of women and men from racially, ethnically, and socio-economically diverse communities. All nominations will be fully considered, but applicants need to be aware of the specific representation sought as outlined in the Summary above. In addition, EPA is seeking nominees with demonstrated local leadership in community sustainability and sustainable development; public health and health disparities; air and water quality issues; climate change and climate resiliency; green jobs and economic initiatives; and energy and environmental financing.

    Other criteria used to evaluate nominees will include:

    • The background and experience that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee (e.g., geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational background, professional affiliations, and other considerations);

    • Demonstrated experience as elected and/or appointed official for a local, state or tribal government;

    • Demonstrated experience working with officials from other governments or other levels of government (e.g., other local governments, federal agencies);

    • Excellent interpersonal and consensus-building skills;

    • Ability to volunteer time to attend meetings 2-3 times a year, participate in teleconference meetings, attend listening sessions with the Administrator or other senior-level EPA officials, develop policy recommendations to the Administrator and prepare reports and advice letters; and

    • Willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively on committees.

    How to submit nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations can be submitted in electronic format (preferred) or in hard copy format (see ADDRESSES section above). To be considered, all nominations should include:

    • Current contact information for the nominee, including the nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization), current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number;

    • A brief statement describing the nominee's interest in serving on the LGAC; and

    • A resume and short biography describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, including a list of relevant activities, and any current or previous service on advisory committees; and Letter(s) of recommendation from a third party supporting the nomination. Letter(s) should describe how the nominee's experience and knowledge will bring value to the work of the LGAC.

    Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may be utilized in the solicitation of nominees. To help the EPA in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us how you learned of this opportunity.

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Frances Eargle, Designated Federal Officer. Local Government Advisory Committee.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28759 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0928] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 11, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0928.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule F (Formerly FCC 302-CA); 47 CFR 73.3572(h) and 47 CFR 73.3700(b).

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule F.

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

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 955 respondents and 955 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 307, 308, 309, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,910 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $300,825.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The collection is being made to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used by Class A stations seeking a license to cover their authorized construction permit facilities and Class A stations entering into a channel sharing agreement.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28629 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6212-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0295] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 11, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0295.

    Title: Section 90.607, Supplemental Information to be Furnished by Applicants For Facilities Under Subpart S.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 243 respondents; 243 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One time reporting requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 308(b).

    Total Annual Burden: 61 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: Section 90.607 requires the affected applicants to submit a list of any radio facilities they hold within 40 miles of the base station transmitter site being applied for.

    This information is used to determine if an applicant's proposed system is necessary in light of communications facilities it already owns. Such a determination helps the Commission to equitably distribute limited spectrum and prevents spectrum warehousing.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28638 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0837] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 11, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0837.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule B (Former FCC Form 302-DTV).

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule B.

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

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 955 respondents and 955 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 307, 308, 309, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. Appendix I at pp. 1501A- 594-1501A-598 (1999) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 336(f)); and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, §§ 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act).

    Total Annual Burden: 1,910 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $460,070.00.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The collection is being made to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow full-power television broadcast stations to file a license to cover an authorized construction permit once facilities have been constructed. In addition, full-power television broadcast stations that enter into channel sharing agreements following the Commission's Incentive Auction will use FCC Form 2100, Schedule B to file an application for a license for the shared channel sharing, and will allow a full-power station, upon termination of its channel sharing agreement, to file an application to change its license to non-shared status using FCC Form 2100, Schedule B.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28628 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0386] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 11, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0386.

    Title: Special Temporary Authorization (STA) Requests; Notifications; and Informal Filings; Sections 1.5, 73.1615, 73.1635, 73.1740 and 73.3598; CDBS Informal Forms; Section 74.788; Low Power Television, TV Translator and Class A Television Digital Transition Notifications; Section 73.3700(b)(5), Post Auction Licensing; Section 73.3700(f), Service Rule Waiver; FCC Form 337.

    Form No.: FCC Form 337.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,609 respondents and 6,609 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .50-4.0 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, §§ 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act); and Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 318, 319, 324, 325, 336, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,475 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $2,156,510.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The collection is being made to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow television broadcast stations to request special temporary authority (STA) to operate, seek an extension of time to complete construction, request a waiver of the Commission's service rules following the Incentive Auction, and make other informal requests and submissions.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28630 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0932] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 11, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0932.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule E (Former FCC Form 301-CA); 47 CFR Sections 73.3700(b)(1)(i)-(v) and (vii),(b)(2)(i) and (ii); 47 CFR Section 74.793(d).

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule E (Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization) (Former FCC Form 301-CA).

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

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 725 respondents and 725 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.25 hours-6 hours (for a total of 8.25 hours).

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, §§ 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act) and the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,981 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $3,949,550.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The collection is being made to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used allow Class A television stations to make changes in their authorized facilities. Specifically, Class A stations assigned to a new channel following the Incentive Auction must file a minor change application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule E following release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice. Under certain circumstances, licensees of stations reassigned to a new channel within their existing band to propose transmission facilities in their construction permit applications that will extend their coverage contours. In addition, there will be a priority processing window for licensees of reassigned stations, UHF-to-VHF stations, or High-VHF-to-Low-VHF stations that, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to construct facilities that meet the technical parameters specified in the Channel Reassignment Public Notice, or the permissible contour coverage variance from those technical parameters specified in section 73.3700(b)(1)(ii) or (iii). Channel sharee stations file a minor change application for a construction permit for the channel on which the channel sharer operates at least sixty (60) days prior to the date by which it must terminate operations on its pre-auction channel and must include a copy of the channel sharing agreement. In addition, subject to limitations set out in the rules, a Class A licensee of a reassigned station, a UHF-to-VHF station, or a High-VHF-to-Low-VHF station may file a minor change application for a construction permit on FCC Form 2100 Schedule E during a filing window to be announced by the Media Bureau by public notice, in order to request a change in the technical parameters specified in the Channel Reassignment Public Notice with respect to height above average terrain (HAAT), effective radiated power (ERP), or transmitter location that would be considered a minor change under sections 73.3572(a)(1), (2) or 74.787(b). FCC Form 2100, Schedule E is also being modified to accommodate new channel sharing provisions.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28627 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 15-1160] Notice of Debarment; Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) gives notice of Icon Telecom, Inc.'s (Icon) debarment from the federal Lifeline universal service support mechanism (Lifeline program) for a period of three years. During this debarment period, Icon is prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the Lifeline program, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the Lifeline program.

    DATES:

    Debarment commences on the date Icon receives the debarment letter or November 12, 2015, whichever comes first, for a period of three years.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A422, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Celia Lewis may be contacted by phone at (202) 418-7456 or email at [email protected] If Ms. Lewis is unavailable, you may contact Mr. Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-0796 and by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau debars Icon for a period of three years pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 0.111(a)(14). Icon's conviction for making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1002(a)(2), in connection with fraudulent claims against the Lifeline program is the basis for this debarment. Attached is the Notice of Debarment, DA 15-1160, which was mailed to Icon and released on October 13, 2015. The complete text of the Notice of Debarment is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

    Federal Communications Commission. Jeffrey J. Gee, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. October 13, 2015 DA 15-1160 SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Wes Yui Chew President Icon Telecom, Inc. c/o Daniel G. Webber, Jr. Ryan Whaley Coldiron Shandy PLLC 119 N. Robinson Avenue, Suite 900 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Re: Notice of Debarment, File No. EB-IHD-15-00019108 Dear Mr. Chew:

    The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) hereby notifies Icon Telecom, Inc. (Icon) that, pursuant to section 54.8 of the Commission's rules, Icon is prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the federal low-income support mechanism (Lifeline program) for three years from either the date of Icon's receipt of this Notice of Debarment or of its publication in the Federal Register, whichever comes first (Debarment Date).1

    1 47 CFR 54.8 (e) and (g); 47 CFR 0.111 (delegating to the Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings). In 2007, the Commission extended the debarment rules to apply to all federal universal service support mechanisms, including the Lifeline program. See Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, & Oversight, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16410-12 (2007) (Program Management Order) (renumbering section 54.521 of the universal service debarment rules as section 54.8 and amending paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(5), (c), (d), (e)(2)(i), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (g)).

    On May 26, 2015, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) sent Icon a notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceeding (Notice of Suspension) that was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2015.2 The Notice of Suspension suspended Icon from participating in any activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program, including receiving funds or discounted services through the Lifeline program, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the Lifeline program.3 It also described the basis for initiating the debarment proceeding against Icon, the applicable debarment procedures, and the effect of debarment.

    2 Letter from Jeffrey J. Gee, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Wes Yui Chew, President, Icon Telecom, Inc., notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceeding, 30 FCC Rcd 4993 (Enf. Bur. 2015); 80 FR 39429-01 (July 9, 2015).

    3 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1) and (d).

    As discussed in the Notice of Suspension, on June 12, 2014, Icon was convicted of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1002(a)(2), in connection with fraudulent claims against the federal Lifeline telephone program (Lifeline program).4 Icon participated in the Lifeline program from July 2011 until September 2013.5 Specifically, Icon pled guilty to knowingly making a false statement to the Universal Service Administrative Company 6 through its submission of 58 fabricated customer recertification forms, which included fictitious signatures, in response to an audit request.7 Pursuant to section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules, Icon's conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the Lifeline program is the basis for this debarment.8

    4 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your guilty plea and subsequent sentencing in United States v. Icon Telecom, Criminal Docket No. 5:14-cr-00170-D, Plea Agreement (W.D. Okla. filed June 12, 2014) (Plea Agreement). See also Lifeline & Link Up Reform & Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 03-109, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656 (2012) (Lifeline Reform Order).

    5United States v. Icon Telecom, Criminal Docket No. 5:14-cr-00170-D, Information at 4 (W.D. Okla. filed June 3, 2014) (Information).

    6 The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation designated by the Commission as the administrator of the Lifeline program. See About USAC, http://www.usac.org/about/.

    7Information at 8; Plea Agreement at 2; see also United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma, Press Release, Icon Telecom and Its Owner Plead Guilty And Agree To Forfeit More Than $27 Million In Connection With Federal Wireless Telephone Subsidy Program, June 12, 2014, available at http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/icon-telecom-and-its-owner-plead-guilty-and-agree-forfeit-more-27-million-connection.

    8 47 CFR 54.8(c).

    In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, Icon was required to file with the Commission any opposition to the suspension or its scope, or to the proposed debarment or its scope, no later than 30 calendar days from either the date of Icon's receipt of the Notice of Suspension or of its publication in the Federal Register, whichever date occurred first.9 The Commission received no opposition from Icon.10

    9Id. § 54.8 (e)(3) through (4). Any opposition had to be filed no later than July 15, 2015.

    10 On May 27, 2015, Icon responded to the Notice of Suspension stating that it had relinquished its eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation in September of 2013. See Email from George M. Makohin, Counsel for Icon Telecom, Inc., to Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (May 27, 2015, 16:32 EDT). Icon did not oppose its suspension from the Lifeline program or the Commission's debarment proceeding against the company. Id.

    For the foregoing reasons, Icon is debarred from involvement with the Lifeline program for three years from the Debarment Date.11 During this debarment period, Icon is excluded from participating in any activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the Lifeline program, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the Lifeline program.12

    11 47 CFR 54.8(g).

    12 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1), (d), and (g).

    Sincerely yours, Jeffrey J. Gee Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau cc: Johnnay Schrieber, Universal Service Administrative Company (via email) Rashann Duvall, Universal Service Administrative Company (via email) Chris M. Stevens, United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma (via email) Scott E. Williams, United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma (via email)
    [FR Doc. 2015-28736 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0647] Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of a currently approved public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or email: