Federal Register Vol. 80, No.32,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 32 (February 18, 2015)

Page Range8511-8765
FR Document

80_FR_32
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 8606 - Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Pursuant to SettlementPDF
80 FR 8712 - Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014; Partitions of Eligible Multiemployer Plans and Facilitated MergersPDF
80 FR 8712 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 8763 - Sunshine Act; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 8716 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 8652 - Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings; Green Building Advisory Committee; Notification of Upcoming Public Advisory Committee Meeting and Conference CallsPDF
80 FR 8687 - Community Oriented Policing Services Public Meetings With Members of the Research Community, Subject-Matter Experts and the Public To Discuss Topics Relating to Policing; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 8706 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 8755 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Requirements for Eligibility of U.S.-Flag Vessels of 100 Feet or Greater in Registered Length to Obtain a Fishery EndorsementPDF
80 FR 8701 - Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 8755 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Candidate Application for Admission.PDF
80 FR 8711 - Application for a License To Export High-Enriched UraniumPDF
80 FR 8677 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application To Use the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)PDF
80 FR 8754 - Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 8529 - Establishment of the Fountaingrove District Viticultural AreaPDF
80 FR 8679 - U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 8677 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Manufactured Housing Operations FormsPDF
80 FR 8616 - Second Japan-U.S. Decommissioning and Remediation Fukushima Recovery Forum, Tokyo, Japan April 9-10, 2015PDF
80 FR 8701 - Office of Government Information Services (OGIS); Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
80 FR 8700 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 8758 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel DOUBLE TROUBLE II; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 8759 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PACIFIC THUNDER; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 8757 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SOUTHERN PASSAGE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 8756 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TORTOLA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 8680 - Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 8757 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ESPIRITU SANTI; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 8756 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ALCYONE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 8678 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 8759 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BLACKJACK; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 8646 - Next Meeting of the North American Numbering CouncilPDF
80 FR 8647 - Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Members and Date of First MeetingPDF
80 FR 8607 - Cyber Security Business Development Mission to Poland and Romania May 11-15, 2015PDF
80 FR 8597 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012 and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 8608 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 8598 - Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China and Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 8607 - Ferrovanadium From the People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
80 FR 8604 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 8531 - Sudanese Sanctions RegulationsPDF
80 FR 8520 - Revisions to License Exception Availability for Consumer Communications Devices and Licensing Policy for Civil Telecommunications-Related Items Such as Infrastructure Regarding SudanPDF
80 FR 8619 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Yellowtail Damselfish as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
80 FR 8591 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 8592 - Technical Advisory Committees; Notice of Recruitment of Private-Sector MembersPDF
80 FR 8591 - Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee: Notice of Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 8524 - Addition of Certain Persons to the Entity List; and Removal of Person From the Entity List Based on a Removal RequestPDF
80 FR 8591 - Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 8519 - Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export Administration Regulations To Include Presidential Notice of January 21, 2015PDF
80 FR 8559 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Golden Tilefish Longline ComponentPDF
80 FR 8645 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 8682 - Receipt of Applications for Endangered Species PermitsPDF
80 FR 8747 - Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation Notice of Charter Renewal for 2015PDF
80 FR 8750 - Notice of Proposal To Extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Italy Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman Periods of ItalyPDF
80 FR 8760 - Notice of Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 8749 - Notice of Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 8747 - Meeting of Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information PolicyPDF
80 FR 8748 - Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation-Notice of Closed and Open Meetings for 2015PDF
80 FR 8650 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Material and WorkmanshipPDF
80 FR 8692 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8651 - Information Collection; Small Business Size RepresentationPDF
80 FR 8649 - Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Organization and Direction of WorkPDF
80 FR 8662 - Proposed Information Collection Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 8643 - The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Advisory Board: Request for NominationsPDF
80 FR 8640 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for Green Power Partnership and Combined Heat and Power PartnershipPDF
80 FR 8687 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Partial Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
80 FR 8643 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 8642 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 8640 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Primary and Secondary Emissions From Basic Oxygen Furnaces (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 8641 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 8639 - Agency Information Collection Activities OMB ResponsesPDF
80 FR 8684 - Receipt of Incidental Take Permit Applications for Participation in the Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle in OklahomaPDF
80 FR 8696 - Proposed collection, comment requestPDF
80 FR 8578 - Request for Information on Suspensions of Benefits Under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014PDF
80 FR 8561 - Mexican Hass Avocado Import ProgramPDF
80 FR 8631 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Assurance of Compliance-Civil Rights CertificatePDF
80 FR 8648 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 8649 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 8648 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 8699 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Division of Coal Mine Workers' CompensationPDF
80 FR 8688 - 175th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 8632 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program (TEACH Grant Program) Agreement to ServePDF
80 FR 8695 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8695 - Foxconn Assembly LLC/Foxconn Hon Hai Logistics LLC; A Subsidiary of Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., LTD Including Workers Whose Unemployment Insurance (UI) Wages Are Reported Under Foxconn Hon Hai Logistics Texas, LLC, EMS Assembly LLC and Q-Hub Corporation and Including On-Site Leased Workers From Spiretek International, Inc., Effex Management Solutions, LLC Houston, Texas; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8694 - General Electric Company; Transportation Division Including On-Site Leased Workers From Adecco and Yoh Services Llc; Erie, Pennsylvania; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8688 - Sgk Ventures, Formerly Known As Keywell Llc, Frewsburg, New York; Keywell Metals Llc, Formerly Known As Keywell Llc, Falconer, New York; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8694 - Central Credit Services, LLC, Formerly Known As Integrity Solutions Services, Inc., Decorah, IA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8765 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
80 FR 8627 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Approved Monitoring Service ProvidersPDF
80 FR 8589 - Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc.; Determination of Nonregulated Status of Apples Genetically Engineered To Resist BrowningPDF
80 FR 8691 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8693 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8691 - Invista S.A.R.L.; Apparel Division; A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc.; Waynesboro, Virginia; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for ReconsiderationPDF
80 FR 8685 - Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products and Components Thereof Institution of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 8657 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 8760 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Joint Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 8639 - MoGas Pipeline LLC; Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
80 FR 8633 - Birch Power Company; Notice of Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review and Soliciting Scoping CommentsPDF
80 FR 8637 - Benson Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 8636 - Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC v. PacificCorp; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 8639 - Delta-Montrose Electric Association; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
80 FR 8635 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 8590 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 8660 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 8662 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control; Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 8661 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 8661 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control; Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 8660 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 8661 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) SubcommitteePDF
80 FR 8764 - Proposed Information Collection (Clarification of a Notice of Disagreement) Activity Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 8763 - Proposed Information Collection (Appointment of Veterans Service Organization/or Individuals as Claimant's Representative) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 8656 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 8654 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 8655 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 8659 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 8765 - Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 8753 - Notice of Buy America Waiver for Track Turnout ComponentsPDF
80 FR 8751 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 8750 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI)PDF
80 FR 8681 - Proposed Information Collection; National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR)PDF
80 FR 8686 - Proposed Recommendations Relating to Recommended Modifications in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule To Conform With Amendments to the Harmonized System Recommended by the World Customs Organization, and To Address Other MattersPDF
80 FR 8666 - Office of Tribal Self-Governance; Negotiation Cooperative AgreementPDF
80 FR 8698 - TÜV SÜD America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of RecognitionPDF
80 FR 8747 - National Women's Business Council; Quarterly Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 8727 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the Application of Fees to Securities Under the Select Symbol Program of Rule 7018(a)(4)PDF
80 FR 8744 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify NASDAQ Rule 7018 FeesPDF
80 FR 8729 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Revise ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and ProceduresPDF
80 FR 8730 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of Additional Standard Western European Sovereign Single NamesPDF
80 FR 8716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 1.5, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6 Related to the Registration Requirements for Members of EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 8731 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 1.5, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6 Related to the Registration Requirements for Members of EDGA Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 8742 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 8719 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 8741 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Tier Size Pilot of FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size Requirements for OTC Equity Securities)PDF
80 FR 8734 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 11.9 of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 8720 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 11.9, 11.12, and 11.13 of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 8746 - Regulatory Fairness Hearing, Region III-Virginia Beach, VirginiaPDF
80 FR 8676 - Agency Information Collection Activities: DHS Individual Complaint of Employment Discrimination, DHS Form 3090-1PDF
80 FR 8673 - National Institute of Mental Health: Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 8676 - National Institute of Nursing Research: Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 8674 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 8676 - National Eye Institute: Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 8673 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 8675 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 8673 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 8577 - Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs and Biological Products; Public Meeting; Request for Comments; Reopening of the Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 8664 - Hung Yi Lin; Debarment OrderPDF
80 FR 8665 - Immediately in Effect Guidance Document: Classification and Requirements for Laser Illuminated Projectors; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 8690 - Public Listening SessionPDF
80 FR 8663 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance on Consultation Procedures: Foods Derived From New Plant VarietiesPDF
80 FR 8628 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 8638 - Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 8637 - Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 8637 - Shafter Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 8638 - AltaGas Ripon Energy Inc.; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 8635 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 8634 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 8629 - Nominations to the Marine Mammal Scientific Review GroupsPDF
80 FR 8603 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China; 2013-2014; Partial Rescission of the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 8618 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application and Reports for Scientific Research and Enhancement Permits under the Endangered Species ActPDF
80 FR 8619 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Fisheries: Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Cost RecoveryPDF
80 FR 8631 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Comprehensive Transition Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities Expenditure ReportPDF
80 FR 8536 - Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan ZonePDF
80 FR 8592 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 8596 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan: Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 8547 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; GuamPDF
80 FR 8550 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze; ReconsiderationPDF
80 FR 8586 - Medical Waivers for Merchant Mariner Credential Applicants With the Following Conditions: Cardiomyopathy; Diabetes Mellitus; Narcolepsy; and Obstructive Sleep ApneaPDF
80 FR 8689 - Notice of Extension of Comment Period on Proposed Individual Exemption involving Credit Suisse AG (hereinafter, Credit Suisse AG)PDF
80 FR 8568 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 8571 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 8566 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 8652 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 8513 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 8564 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 8516 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 8575 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 8511 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 8580 - Department of Justice Debt Collection RegulationsPDF

Issue

80 32 Wednesday, February 18, 2015 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8652-8654 2015-02905 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Viticultural Areas: Fountaingrove District; Establishment, 8529-8531 2015-03371 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Import Programs: Mexican Hass Avocado, 8561-8564 2015-03289 NOTICES Determinations of Nonregulated Status: Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc.; Apples Genetically Engineered To Resist Browning, 8589-8590 2015-03272 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8654-8660 2015-03244 2015-03245 2015-03246 2015-03247 2015-03266 Charter Renewals: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 8660 2015-03253 Meetings: Advisory Committee to the Director, State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Subcommittee, 8661-8662 2015-03252 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 8660-8662 2015-03254 2015-03255 2015-03256 2015-03257 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: ANA Reviewer Profile for Panel Review Participation Form, 8662 2015-03302 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Annual Events, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone, 8536-8546 2015-03184 PROPOSED RULES Medical Waivers for Merchant Mariner Credential Applicants: Diabetes Mellitus; Narcolepsy; and Obstructive Sleep Apnea; Proposed Policy Clarification, 8586-8588 2015-03109 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8760-8763 2015-03265 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Material and Workmanship, 8650-8651 2015-03306 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Organization and Direction of Work, 8649-8650 2015-03303 Small Business Size Representation, 8651 2015-03304 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 8590-8591 2015-03258 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights Certificate, 8631-8632 2015-03288 Comprehensive Transition Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities Expenditure Report, 8631 2015-03185 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program Agreement to Serve, 8632-8633 2015-03281 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, 8688-8689 2015-03282 Proposed Individual Exemptions: Credit Suisse AG, 8689-8690 2015-03014 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Meetings: Public Listening Session, 8690 2015-03208 Reconsideration Application; Determinations: INVISTA S.a.r.l., a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., Waynesboro, VA, 8691 2015-03269 Worker and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Determinations, 8691-8692 2015-03271 Worker Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Investigations, 8692-8694 2015-03270 2015-03305 Worker Adjustment Assistance; Amended Certifications: Central Credit Services, LLC, Decorah, IA, 8694-8695 2015-03276 Foxconn Assembly LLC/Foxconn Hon Hai Logistics LLC, Houston, TX, 8695 2015-03279 SGK Ventures, Frewsburg, NY, and Keywell Metals, Falconer, NY, 8688 2015-03277 General Electric Co., Transportation Division, Erie, PA, 8694 2015-03278 Worker Adjustment Assistance; Determinations, 8695-8696 2015-03280 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Guam, 8547-8550 2015-03178 North Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution, etc., 8550-8559 2015-03177 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8639-8640 2015-03293 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Green Power Partnership and Combined Heat and Power Partnership, 8640-8641 2015-03299 NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters, 8643 2015-03297 NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants, 8642-8643 2015-03296 NSPS for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants, 8641-8642 2015-03294 NSPS for Primary and Secondary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Furnaces, 8640 2015-03295 Requests for Nominations: Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Advisory Board, 8643-8645 2015-03300 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 8511-8516 2015-02672 2015-02697 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 8516-8519 2015-02689 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 8566-8568, 8571-8577 2015-02683 2015-02920 2015-02922 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 8564-8566 2015-02695 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 8568-8571 2015-02925 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8645-8646 2015-03316 Meetings: Disability Advisory Committee, 8647-8648 2015-03342 North American Numbering Council, 8646-8647 2015-03350 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8760-8763 2015-03265 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Manufactured Housing Operations Forms; Correction, 8677 2015-03368 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Birch Power Co.; Environmental Site Review, 8633-8634 2015-03263 Combined Filings, 8634-8636 2015-03198 2015-03199 2015-03259 Complaints: Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC v. PacificCorp, 8636-8637 2015-03261 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: AltaGas Ripon Energy, Inc., 8638-8639 2015-03200 Benson Power, LLC, 8637-8638 2015-03262 Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm, LLC, 8637 2015-03202 Rising Tree Wind Farm III, LLC, 8638 2015-03203 Shafter Solar, LLC, 8637 2015-03201 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: Delta-Montrose Electric Association, 8639 2015-03260 Technical Conferences: MoGas Pipeline, LLC, 8639 2015-03264 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Exemptions Applications: Virginia Tech Transportation Institute; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, 8750-8751 2015-03239 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 8751-8753 2015-03241 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8760-8763 2015-03265 Change in Bank Control Notices: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 8648 2015-03286 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 8648-8649 2015-03284 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 8649 2015-03285 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers: Track Turnout Components, 8753-8754 2015-03242 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 8681-8682 2015-03237 Applications for Endangered Species Permits, 8682-8684 2015-03314 Incidental Take Permits: Participation in the Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma, 8684-8685 2015-03292 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs and Biological Products Meeting; Request for Comments; Reopening of Comment Period, 8577-8578 2015-03211 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance on Consultation Procedures—Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, 8663-8664 2015-03207 Debarment Orders: Hung Yi Lin, 8664-8665 2015-03210 Guidance: Laser Illuminated Projectors; Classification and Requirements, 8665-8666 2015-03209 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office RULES Sudanese Sanctions, 8531-8535 2015-03330 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Material and Workmanship, 8650-8651 2015-03306 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Organization and Direction of Work, 8649-8650 2015-03303 Small Business Size Representation, 8651 2015-03304 Meetings: Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings; Green Building Advisory Committee; Conference Calls, 8652 2015-03400 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

Healthcare Research and Quality Agency See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Individual Complaint of Employment Discrimination, 8676-8677 2015-03219
Indian Health Indian Health Service See

Indian Health Service

NOTICES Applications for Awards: Tribal Self-Governance Program; Negotiation Cooperative Agreement, 8666-8673 2015-03235
Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Addition of Certain Persons to the Entity List; and Removal of Person From the Entity List Based on a Removal Request, 8524-8529 2015-03321 License Exception Availability for Consumer Communications Devices, Licensing Policy for Civil Telecommunications-related Items; Revisions, 8520-8524 2015-03329 Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export Administration Regulations, 8519-8520 2015-03318 NOTICES Meetings: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 8591 2015-03322 Materials Technical Advisory Committee, 8591-8592 2015-03325 Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 8591 2015-03320 Requests for Nominations: Technical Advisory Committees; Private-Sector Members, 8592 2015-03323 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Suspensions of Benefits Under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, 8578-8580 2015-03290 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico, 8606-8607 2015-03478 Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan, 8596-8597 2015-03179 Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China, 8592-8596 2015-03183 Certain Pasta from Italy, 8604-8606 2015-03334 Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China and Indonesia, 8598-8603 2015-03337 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China; Correction, 8597-8598 2015-03340 Ferrovanadium From the People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa, 8607 2015-03336 Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Peoples Republic of China, 8603-8604 2015-03193 Cyber Security Business Development Mission to Poland and Romania, 8607-8608 2015-03341 Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal, 8608-8616 2015-03338 Second Japan-U.S. Decommissioning and Remediation Fukushima Recovery Forum, 8616-8618 2015-03366 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products and Components Thereof, 8685-8686 2015-03267 Proposed Recommendations: Recommended Modifications in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to Conform With Amendments to the Harmonized System Recommended by the World Customs Organization, etc., 8686-8687 2015-03236 Justice Department Justice Department PROPOSED RULES Department of Justice Debt Collection Regulations, 8580-8586 2015-02587 NOTICES Meetings: Community Oriented Policing Services With Members of the Research Community, Subject-Matter Experts and Public; Correction, 8687 2015-03386 Proposed Partial Consent Decrees Under the Clean Water Act, 8687-8688 2015-03298 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Labor Statistics Bureau

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8696-8698 2015-03291 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8754-8755 2015-03372 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Requirements for Eligibility of U.S.-Flag Vessels of 100 Feet or Greater in Registered Length to Obtain a Fishery Endorsement, 8755 2015-03380 U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Candidate Application for Admission, 8755-8756 2015-03377 Requests for Administrative Waivers of Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ALCYONE, 8756 2015-03353 Vessel BLACKJACK, 8759 2015-03351 Vessel DOUBLE TROUBLE II, 8758 2015-03362 Vessel ESPIRITU SANTI, 8757 2015-03355 Vessel PACIFIC THUNDER, 8759-8760 2015-03361 Vessel SOUTHERN PASSAGE, 8757-8758 2015-03359 Vessel TORTOLA, 8756-8757 2015-03358 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Material and Workmanship, 8650-8651 2015-03306 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Organization and Direction of Work, 8649-8650 2015-03303 Small Business Size Representation, 8651 2015-03304 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8700-8701 2015-03363 Meetings: Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee, 8701 2015-03364 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 8674-8675 2015-03216 National Eye Institute, 8676 2015-03215 National Human Genome Research Institute, 8673 2015-03212 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 8673-8676 2015-03213 2015-03214 National Institute of Mental Health, 8673 2015-03218 National Institute of Nursing Research, 8676 2015-03217 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: South Atlantic Golden Tilefish Longline Component; Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure, 8559-8560 2015-03317 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Alaska Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Fisheries—Individual Fishing Quota Cost Recovery, 8619 2015-03190 Application and Reports for Scientific Research and Enhancement Permits under the Endangered Species Act, 8618-8619 2015-03191 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: Yellowtail Damselfish; Petition Findings, Endangered Species Act, 8619-8627 2015-03326 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Approved Monitoring Service Providers, 8627-8628 2015-03273 Meetings: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 8628-8629 2015-03204 Request for Nominations: Marine Mammal Scientific Review Groups, 8629-8631 2015-03196 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Amendment Applications: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 8706-8711 2015-03384 Southern California Edison Co.; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 8701-8706 2015-03379 License Applications: Export of High-Enriched Uranium, 8711-8712 2015-03374 2015-03376 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8712 2015-03429 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories: TUV SUD America, Inc.; Grant Expansion Recognition, 8698-8699 2015-03234 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Requests for Information: Multiemployer Pension Reform Act; Partitions of Eligible Multiemployer Plans and Facilitated Mergers, 8712-8715 2015-03434 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8716 2015-03405 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 8720-8727 2015-03222 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 8734-8741 2015-03223 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 8719-8720 2015-03225 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 8742-8744 2015-03226 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 8731-8733 2015-03227 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 8716-8719 2015-03228 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 8741-8742 2015-03224 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 8729-8731 2015-03229 2015-03230 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 8727-8729, 8744-8746 2015-03231 2015-03232 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Women's Business Council, 8747 2015-03233 Regulatory Fairness Hearing, Region III—Virginia Beach, VA, 8746-8747 2015-03220 State Department State Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, 8747 2015-03312 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, 8748 2015-03307 Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy, 8747-8748 2015-03308 Cultural Property Advisory Committee, 8749-8750 2015-03309 Memorandums of Understanding Between the U.S. and the Republic of Italy: Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy, 8750 2015-03311 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Meetings: Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee, 8760 2015-03310 Thrift Supervision Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8763 2015-03424 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

See

Thrift Supervision Office

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application to Use the Automated Commercial Environment, 8677-8678 2015-03375 Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: Intertek USA, Inc., 8678-8679 2015-03352 Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Approvals: Intertek USA, Inc., 8679-8680 2015-03370 SGS North America, Inc., 8680-8681 2015-03356 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Appointment of Veterans Service Organization/or Individuals as Claimant's Representative, 8763-8764 2015-03248 Clarification of a Notice of Disagreement, 8764-8765 2015-03249 Exclusive Licenses, 8765 2015-03274 Meetings: Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education, 8765 2015-03243 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, 8699-8700 2015-03283 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, 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 32 Wednesday, February 18, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0620; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-238-AD; Amendment 39-18102; AD 2015-03-06] 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) 2007-22-10 for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2007-22-10 required repetitive inspections of the left-hand and right-hand wing main landing gear (MLG) rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward and aft) to detect any cracks on the two lugs, and replacement if necessary. Since we issued AD 2007-22-10, we have received reports of additional cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing forward lug. This new AD expands the applicability and reduces certain compliance times. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective March 25, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0620; 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—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 airworthiness.A330 [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-2014-0620.

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: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)). AD 2007-22-10 applied to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52585).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0271, dated November 14, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

During Main Landing Gear (MLG) lubrication, a crack was visually found in the MLG rib 6 aft bearing forward lug on one A330 in-service aeroplane. The crack had extended through the entire thickness of the forward lug at approximately the 4 o'clock position (when looking forward). It has been determined that similar type of crack can develop on other aeroplane types that are listed in the Applicability paragraph.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the MLG attachment.

To address this situation, Airbus issued inspection Service Bulletins (SB) A330-57-3096, A340-57-4104 and A340-57-5009 to instruct repetitive inspection of the gear rib lugs.

Prompted by these findings, EASA issued Emergency AD 2006-0364-E to require repetitive detailed visual inspections of the Left Hand (LH) and Right Hand (RH) wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs. Later EASA issued AD 2007-0247R1-E, which superseded EAD 2006-0364-E, to:

—Expand the applicability to all A330 and A340 aeroplanes, because the interference fit bushes cannot be considered as a terminating action, owing to unknown root cause; and —Add a second parameter quoted in Flight Hours (FH) to the inspection interval in order to reflect the aeroplane utilization in service.

EASA AD 2007-0247R1-E was republished to correct a typographical error.

Since the first crack finding and issuance of the inspection SBs and related ADs, six further cracks have been reported.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which supersedes EASA EAD 2007-0247 R1-E and retains its requirements, is issued to expand the applicability to the newly certified models A330-223F and A330-243F and to reduce the threshold further to the risk assessment of recent in-service experience.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0620-0004.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter, an anonymous individual, supported the NPRM (79 FR 52585, September 4, 2014).

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, 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 (79 FR 52585, September 4, 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 52585, September 4, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed the following service bulletins:

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 5, dated October 17, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 4, dated October 17, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2013.

The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the MLG rib 6 forward and aft lugs for cracking. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 81 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $13,770, or $170 per product.

We have no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this 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 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-2014-0620; 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) 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), and adding the following new AD: 2015-03-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-18102, Docket No. FAA-2014-0620; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-238-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective March 25, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213 -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the main landing gear (MLG) rib 6 aft bearing forward lug. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections

Within 42 months since the airplane's first flight or since the last MLG support rib replacement, as applicable; or within 4 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the left-hand and right-hand wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward and aft), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 05, dated October 17, 2013; (for Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes); A340-57-4104, Revision 04, dated October 17, 2013 (for Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313 airplanes); or A340-57-5009, Revision 03, dated October 17, 2013 (for Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes); as applicable. Repeat the inspections at the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(7) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(2) For Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles or 900 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(3) For Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles or 900 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(4) For Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 800 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(5) For Model A340-311 and -312 airplanes; and Model A340-313 airplanes (except weight variant (WV) 27), repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 800 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(6) For Model A340-313 (only WV27) airplanes, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 400 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(7) For Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles or 500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(h) Corrective Action

If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the cracked MLG support rib 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. Replacement of an MLG support rib does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service bulletin identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(12) of this AD.

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57A3096, dated December 5, 2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04, Amendment 39-14915 (72 FR 4416, January 31, 2007), on February 15, 2007.

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57A3096, Revision 01, dated April 18, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, excluding appendix 01, Revision 02, dated August 13, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), on November 16, 2007.

(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 03, dated October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 04, dated February 6, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(6) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57A4104, dated December 5, 2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04, Amendment 39-14915 (72 FR 4416, January 31, 2007), on February 15, 2007.

(7) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 01, dated August 13, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(8) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, excluding appendix 01, Revision 02, dated September 5, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), on November 16, 2007.

(9) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 03, dated October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(10) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57A5009, dated December 5, 2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04, Amendment 39-14915 (72 FR 4416, January 31, 2007), on February 15, 2007.

(11) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, excluding appendix 01, Revision 01, dated August 13, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), on November 16, 2007.

(12) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 02, dated October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) 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: 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.

(k) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0271, dated November 14, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0620-0004.

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

(l) 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.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 05, dated October 17, 2013.

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 04, dated October 17, 2013.

(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 03, dated October 17, 2013.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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 February 2, 2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02672 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0484; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-245-AD; Amendment 39-18101; AD 2015-03-05] 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) 2012-09-07 for certain Airbus Model A319-111, -112, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes. AD 2012-09-07 required an electrical bonding test between the gravity fill re-fuel adaptor and the top skin panels on the wings; and, if necessary, an inspection for corrosion of the component interface and adjacent area; and repairing the gravity fuel adaptor if necessary. This new AD adds airplanes to the applicability and requires inspecting those airplanes to determine if a repair was done, and doing the electrical bonding test and corrective action if necessary. This AD was prompted by a determination that more airplanes are subject to the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and improper bonding, which, in combination with a lightning strike in this area, could create a source of ignition in a fuel tank, resulting in a fire or explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective March 25, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0484; 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, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 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-2014-0484.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012). AD 2012-09-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A319-111, -112, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2014 (79 FR 44144).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0277R1, dated December 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Cases of corrosion findings were reported on the overwing refueling aperture (used to fill the fuel tank by gravity) on the wing top skin. The reported corrosion was on the mating surface of the aperture flange, underneath the refuel adaptor. Corrosion findings have been repaired on a case by case basis in accordance with approved data.

For certain aeroplanes, the repair provided by Airbus contained instructions to apply primer coating on the mating surface. Since doing those repairs, it has been found that this primer coating may prevent proper electrical bonding provision between the overwing refueling cap adaptor and the wing skin.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could, in combination with a lightning strike in this area, create a source of ignition in a fuel tank, possibly resulting in a fire or explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2011-0034 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0034.pdf/AD_2011-0034] to require a one-time electrical bonding check between the gravity fill re-fuel adaptor and the top skin panels on the affected aeroplanes (identified by MSN [manufacturer serial number] in the applicability section of that [EASA] AD) and, in case of findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, EASA has been made aware that some operators may inadvertently have applied an Airbus repair, approved for only one aeroplane MSN, to other aeroplanes, without requesting a revision of the repair to add aeroplanes, or to notify Airbus of such action(s). Consequently, the condition addressed by EASA AD 2011-0034 could affect more aeroplanes than initially determined.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0034, which is superseded, and expands the Applicability to all A320 family aeroplane Models, all MSN.

This [EASA] AD has been revised to amend and clarify paragraph (3), and to correct an error in the Type/Model designations on page 1, where the A318 was inadvertently omitted.

For the newly added airplanes, required actions include inspecting for the presence of a corrosion repair on an overwing refueling aperture, and doing the electrical bonding test and applicable corrective actions if a repair has been installed. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0484-0002. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (79 FR 44144, July 30, 2014) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Include Revised Service Information

United Airlines (UAL) asked that we include a statement in the NPRM (79 FR 44144, July 30, 2014), which allows performing the required actions in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013. UAL stated that the revised service information specifies the same method of inspection as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, dated June 14, 2010. UAL further stated that Revision 01 of this service bulletin also provides operators with updated repair instructions that were not available in the original issue of this service bulletin.

We agree with the commenter's request. Since issuance of the NPRM (79 FR 44144, July 30, 2014), Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013. This revision states that no additional work is necessary on airplanes changed in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, dated June 14, 2010, which was specified as the appropriate source of service information in the NPRM (79 FR 44144, July 30, 2014).

We have changed paragraph (g) of this AD to specify Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013. We have also added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, dated June 14, 2010, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data 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 44144, July 30, 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 44144, July 30, 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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013. The service information describes procedures for inspecting certain airplanes to determine if a repair was done, and doing an electrical bonding test and corrective action if necessary. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012), and retained in this AD take about 2 work-hours 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 2012-09-07 is $170 per product.

We also estimate that it takes about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $144,670, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 11 work-hours, for a cost of $935 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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-2014-0484; 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) 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012), and adding the following new AD: 2015-03-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-18101. Docket No. FAA-2014-0484; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-245-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective March 25, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012).

(c) Applicability

(1) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD.

(2) Airplanes that have been delivered from production with Airbus Modification 38209 (Removal of the Outer Wing Refueling Aperture) incorporated, and without Airbus Modification 38206 (Re-introduction of the Outer Wing Refueling Aperture) incorporated, are not affected by the requirements of this AD.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a determination that more airplanes are subject to the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and improper bonding, which, in combination with a lightning strike in this area, could create a source of ignition in a fuel tank, resulting in a fire or explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Electrical Bonding Test, and General Visual Inspection if Necessary, With Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012), with revised repair approval language and revised service information. For Model A319-111, -112, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214 and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes; certificated in any category; having manufacturer serial numbers 0039, 0078, 0109, 0118, 0120, 0153, 0174, 0187, 0203, 0215, 0218, 0226, 0227, 0228, 0236, 0237, 0269, 0270, 0278, 0285, 0286, 0287, 0288, 0294, 0301, 0337, 0377, 0462, 0463, 0464, 0465, 0520, 0523, 0528, 0876, 0888, 0921, 0935, 0974, 1014, 1102, 1130, 1160, 1162, 1177, 1215, 1250, 1287, 1336, 1388, 1404, 1444, 1449, 1476, 1505, 1524, 1564, 1605, 1616, 1622, 1640, 1645, 1658, 1677, 1691, 1729, and 1905: Within 24 months after June 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-09-07), do an electrical bonding test to check for bonding between the re-fuel adaptor of the gravity fill and the top skin panels on the left-hand and right-hand wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013.

(1) If the resistance value is 10 milliohms or less at the left-hand and right-hand wing, no further action is required by this paragraph.

(2) If the resistance value is greater than 10 milliohms at the left-hand or right-hand wing, before further flight, do a general visual inspection for corrosion of the component interface and adjacent area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013. If any corrosion is found during the inspection, before further flight, repair the gravity fill fuel adaptor, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013; except where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013, specifies to contact Airbus, before further flight, repair 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.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, dated June 14, 2010, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012).

(i) New Requirement of This AD: Maintenance Check/Electrical Bonding Test and Corrective Action if Necessary

For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, determine whether a corrosion repair has been done on an overwing refueling aperture, whereby a primer coating has been applied on the mating surface of the aperture flange. A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination, provided that whether a primer coat was applied can be conclusively determined from that review.

(1) If it is determined that a primer coating was applied on the mating surface of the aperture flange; or if a determination cannot be made, or the outcome is inconclusive: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD do the electrical bonding test specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and before further flight, do all applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(2) If it is determined that a corrosion repair has not been done, and a primer coating has not been applied on the mating surface of the aperture flange since first entry into service, no further action is required by this paragraph.

(j) Corrosion Repair Provision

As of the effective date of this AD, any corrosion repair done on an overwing refueling aperture on any airplane must comply with the repair requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(k) 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

(i) 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.

(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of 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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0277R1, dated December 4, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0484-0002.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference in this AD is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(4) and (m)(5) of this AD.

(m) 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.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2013.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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 February 4, 2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02697 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0522; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-087-AD; Amendment 39-18100; AD 2015-03-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fuselage skin cracks at the lower forward corner of the main entry door (MED) 1 cutout. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the fuselage skin of the MED 1 cutout for cracking, and repair if necessary; and also provides an optional terminating modification, including post-repair or post-modification fuselage skin inspections for cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin cracking, which can become large and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective March 25, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 25, 2015.

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-2014-0522.

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-2014-0522; 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:

Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; 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 certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45385). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fuselage skin cracks at the lower forward corner of the MED 1 cutout. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the fuselage skin of the MED 1 cutout for cracking, and repair if necessary. The NPRM also provided optional terminating modification, including post-repair or post-modification inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin cracking, which can become large and could adversely affect the structural integrity 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 45385, August 5, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014)

UPS stated that it agrees with the intent of the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014).

Request To Withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014)

Mr. Jerry Adams requested that we withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014). Mr. Adams stated that the manufacturer's analysis and subsequent action referred to in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, should be sufficient. Mr. Adams stated that the cost of compliance does not include the increased cost of airframes that the customer must pay for, and that will subsequently be passed along to the traveling consumer. Mr. Adams asserted that this AD action would be counterproductive to business and the cost of transportation to the general public.

We agree with the comment that the actions described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, are sufficient to correct the identified unsafe condition. However, we do not agree with the commenter's request to withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014). We have identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop in other products. Therefore, we must issue an airworthiness directive to correct the identified unsafe condition, as required by section 39.5 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.5). We accomplish this by mandating specified actions described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, by AD action. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We also note that although the commenter stated that the cost of airframes was not included in the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014), this AD does not require replacing airframes. The costs of accomplishing the actions required by this AD, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014 (inspection, repair if necessary, and optional modification), are included in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD.

Request To Revise the Description of the Location Where Cracking Was Identified

Boeing requested that we revise the SUMMARY and Discussion sections of the preamble, and paragraphs (e), (g), and (i) in the proposed AD (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014) to clarify that the cracking occurs in the fuselage skin, which would match the title of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014.

We agree with the commenter's request because this change will help clarify the cracking location. We have revised this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise Service Information and Cost Estimate

UPS requested that we revise the service information used in this AD. UPS stated that the power panels and other equipment outboard of the main equipment center (MEC) must be removed in order to access the repair or modification area specified in the NPRM (79 FR 45385, August 5, 2014). UPS stated that these removals are currently not included in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, and will require significantly greater manpower than specified in the NPRM.

We disagree with the commenter's request. We have determined it is not appropriate to delay this AD to incorporate revised service information that might be published sometime in the future. Note 10, in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, states:

If it is necessary to remove more parts for access, you can remove those parts. If you can get access without removing identified parts, it is not necessary to remove all of the identified parts. Jacking and shoring limitations must be observed.

Therefore, operators are already permitted to alter the way they gain access to the required areas for inspections/repairs/modifications specified in this AD. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the MEC removal. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

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 45385, August 5, 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 45385, August 5, 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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspection, repair, and modification at the lower forward corner of the fuselage main entry door 1. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 165 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 Inspection (per door) 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 per inspection cycle $0 $935 per inspection cycle $154,275 per inspection cycle. Optional modification (per door) Up to 66 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,610 0 Up to $5,610 Up to $925,650. Post-repair or -modification inspection (per door) 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 per inspection cycle 0 $935 per inspection cycle $154,275 per inspection cycle.

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repair that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this repair:

On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Repair (per door) 66 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,610 $7,380 or $9,360 $12,990 or $14,970. 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): 2015-03-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18100 ; Docket No. FAA-2014-0522; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-087-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective March 25, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports of fuselage skin cracks at the lower forward corner of the main entry door (MED) 1 cutout. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin cracking, which can become large and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

Except as specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014: Do a detailed inspection and a surface high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin at the applicable MED 1 cutout, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections of the applicable MED 1 cutout thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014. Accomplishing the corrective actions required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Optional Terminating Action

For airplanes on which no crack is found during the initial inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Installing the preventive modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Post-Repair or Post-Modification Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

For airplanes on which the corrective actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been done, or airplanes that have installed the preventive modification specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin at the applicable MED 1 cutout, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the fuselage skin at the applicable MED 1 cutout thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014.

(j) Exceptions to Service Information

(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(2) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (l)(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.

(l) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

(m) 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 Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2863, dated March 11, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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 February 2, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02689 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 730 and 744 [Docket No. 150123073-5073-01] RIN 0694-AG48 Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export Administration Regulations To Include Presidential Notice of January 21, 2015 AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule updates the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) legal authority paragraphs in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to cite a Presidential notice that extended an emergency declared pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This is a procedural rule that only updates authority paragraphs of the EAR. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.

DATES:

The rule is effective February 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Arvin, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Email [email protected], Telephone: (202) 482-2440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The authority for parts 730 and 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730 and 744) rests, in part, on Executive Order 12947 of January 23, 1995—Prohibiting Transactions With Respect to Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356) and on annual notices by the President continuing the emergency declared in that order. This rule updates the authority paragraphs in 15 CFR parts 730 and 744 to cite the Notice of January 21, 2015, 80 FR 3461 (January 22, 2015), which is the most recent notice continuing that emergency.

This rule is purely procedural and makes no changes other than to revise CFR authority paragraphs for the purpose of making the authority citations current. It does not change the text of any section of the EAR, nor does it alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.

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, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701). 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). This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person 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 rule does not involve any collection of information.

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

4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This rule only updates legal authority citations. It clarifies information and is non-discretionary. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.

List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 730

Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.

15 CFR Part 744

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

Accordingly, parts 730 and 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

PART 730—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 730 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 12002, 42 FR 35623, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12214, 45 FR 29783, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; 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. 12981, 60 FR 62981, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 419; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; 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; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; E.O. 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013); Notice of May 7, 2014, 79 FR 26589 (May 9, 2014); Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014); 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).

PART 744—[AMENDED] 2. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is revised 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 January 21, 2014, 79 FR 3721 (January 22, 2014); Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014); Notice of September 17, 2014, 79 FR 56475 (September 19, 2014); Notice of January 21, 2015, 80 FR 3461 (January 22, 2015).

Dated: February 9, 2015. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-03318 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 740 and 742 [Docket No. 140812661-4661-01] RIN 0694-AG24 Revisions to License Exception Availability for Consumer Communications Devices and Licensing Policy for Civil Telecommunications-Related Items Such as Infrastructure Regarding Sudan AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations to revise the general licensing policy of denial to one of case-by-case licensing for exports and reexports to Sudan of telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software, and technology for civil end use, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure. It also revises License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD), which previously applied only to consumer communications devices to Cuba, to authorize exports and reexports of such devices to Sudan. Additionally, it makes minor technical changes to the list of items that are eligible for both Sudan and Cuba under the license exception. This rule also makes changes to License Exception Temporary Imports, Exports, Reexports and Transfers (in-country) (TMP) in light of the changes to License Exception CCD. Finally, it removes a license requirement for reexports to Sudan of certain telecommunications software. BIS is making these changes consistent with the U.S. Government's commitment to the advancement of the free flow of information to, from, and within Sudan, including during a national dialogue.

DATES:

The rule is effective February 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theodore Curtin, telephone (202) 482-4252, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Section 742.10 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) requires a license for antiterrorism reasons for the export and reexport of most items on the Commerce Control List, Supp. 1 to part 774, to Sudan in keeping with Sudan's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. These items include certain consumer communication devices and related software and telecommunications infrastructure items that do not require a license for export or reexport to most destinations. Prior to publication of this rule, the EAR imposed a general policy of denial on applications for export or reexport of many of these items to Sudan. This rule modifies that policy to one of case-by-case review with respect to telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software and technology for civil end use, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure. This rule also makes certain telecommunications software that was subject to a reexport license requirement prior to this rule's publication eligible for reexport to Sudan without a license and authorizes use of a license exception to export or reexport consumer communications devices to Sudan. This rule is being published simultaneously with a Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control general license in the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR part 538) for export or reexport of certain services, hardware, and software incident to personal communications to Sudan. BIS is publishing this rule after consultations with the Department of State to facilitate communication and the free flow of information among the Sudanese people, including by providing them with access to communications tools.

Specific Changes Made by This Rule Expansion of License Exception Consumer Communication Devices (CCD) and Implementation of Conforming Change to License Temporary Imports, Exports, Reexports and Transfers (In-Country) (TMP)

This rule revises § 740.19 of the EAR (License Exception CCD) to add Sudan as an eligible destination. This license exception authorizes export and reexport of consumer communications devices (commodities such as computers, communications equipment and related items including personal computers, mobile phones, televisions, radios and digital cameras) that are widely available for retail purchase and that are commonly used to exchange information and facilitate interpersonal communications, as well as certain telecommunications- and information security-related software. Prior to publication of this rule, Cuba was the only eligible destination under License Exception CCD. This rule also makes some additions and other changes to the license exception related to the addition of Sudan. The changes related to Sudan are:

• Adding certain Global Positioning System receivers or similar satellite receivers as eligible items for export and reexport to Sudan under this license exception; and

• Limiting availability of the license exception to certain consumer software that is distributed free of charge in situations where the government of Sudan is the end user.

Many of the items eligible for export and reexport under this license exception are designated EAR99. Consequently, prior to the publication of this rule, they did not require a license from BIS for export or reexport to Sudan under most circumstances (i.e., circumstances that do not trigger end-use or end-user concerns under part 744 of the EAR). Similarly, commodities classified under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 5A992 generally did not require a license from BIS for reexport to Sudan in the absence of part 744-related end-use and end-user concerns. The publication of this rule does not change these two general practices. Adding Sudan to License Exception CCD as an eligible destination does not impose a license requirement for such items. However, the license exception would be available for the export or reexport to Sudan of items listed on the CCL that would otherwise require a license.

BIS is making these changes to License Exception CCD to facilitate the supplying of communications capabilities to people in Sudan in support of the U.S. Government's policy to promote the Sudanese people's communication among themselves and with the outside world, including during a national dialogue where the Sudanese people may participate in broad discussions to address their longstanding concerns regarding governance. This rule is intended to facilitate inclusive and broad participation in such a dialogue by making the necessary communications tools available to the Sudanese people. These changes are being made in coordination with a general license being published simultaneously by the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control and added to the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR part 538) that generally authorizes the export and reexport to Sudan of certain services, hardware, and software incident to personal communications.

Changes to License Exception CCD Affecting Items Eligible for Cuba and Sudan

This rule adds a note that defines the term “consumer” for purposes of paragraph (b), which applies the term “consumer” when describing the commodities and software in paragraphs (b)(1)—computers, (b)(2)—disk drives and solid state storage equipment, (b)(12)—information security equipment, software and peripherals and (b)(17)—software. This addition is not a substantive change to the scope of License Exception CCD. This addition emphasizes the consistency of this rule with the related general license being published simultaneously by the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, which includes this definition of “consumer” in connection with commodities and software.

Conforming Change to License Exception TMP

This rule also removes the provision of License Exception TMP (§ 740.9(a)(2) of the EAR) related to tools of trade being temporarily taken to Sudan for a specific class of persons for certain specified purposes (generally, temporary exports and reexports by non-governmental organizations and related individuals, including employees and contractors, for development or humanitarian purposes) because it is no longer necessary. With the changes made by this rule, License Exception CCD now authorizes all of the exports and reexports that were authorized by that provision of License Exception TMP without the limitations imposed by License Exception TMP on duration, class of persons who may use the license exception, and end use.

Certain Telecommunications Software Made Eligible for Reexport to Sudan Without a License

This rule makes software controlled under ECCN 5D992.b or .c eligible for reexport to Sudan without a license from BIS. Software controlled under ECCN 5D992.b has the characteristics of, or performs or simulates the functions of, telecommunications equipment and information security equipment controlled under ECCN 5A992.a or .b. Commodities controlled under ECCN 5A992 were eligible for reexport to Sudan without a license from BIS prior to the publication of this rule. This change makes software that shares the characteristics of and/or performs or simulates the same functions as the hardware (commodities) eligible for reexport to Sudan on the same terms as the commodities themselves. Software controlled under ECCN 5D992.c includes mass market software such as mobile apps that may promote personal communications by the Sudanese people.

Adoption of Case-by-Case License Application Review Policy

This rule revises the statement of antiterrorism licensing policy for Sudan set forth in § 742.10 of the EAR to provide that license applications for export or reexport to Sudan of “telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software and technology for civil end use, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure” will be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than being subject to a general policy of denial. This change is being made to allow BIS and the other agencies that review such applications to further U.S. government policy of advancing the free flow of information to, from and within Sudan and to facilitate the Sudanese people's communications among themselves and with the outside world. BIS recognizes the importance of adequate civil telecommunications network infrastructural capability to enable the Sudanese people to engage in secure, effective, and reliable personal communications.

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). This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person 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 rule involves a collection of information approved under OMB control number 0694-0088—Simplified Network Application Processing+ System (SNAP+) and the Multipurpose Export License Application which carries an annual estimated burden of 31,833 hours. BIS believes that this rule will have no material impact on that burden. To the extent that it has any impact at all, the impact would be to reduce the burden because this rule makes some transactions that would otherwise require a license eligible for a license exception.

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

4. BIS finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. BIS is publishing this rule as part of a State Department-led initiative to promote the free flow of information and to facilitate communications by the Sudanese people. This rule supports that initiative by reducing the procedural requirements needed to send personal communications devices, such as mobile phones, that are the instruments of modern communications to Sudan. Ensuring that the Sudanese people have tools to communicate freely is particularly vital. In a joint statement issued on September 18, 2014, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway reiterated their “support for a mediation architecture that facilitates both resolution of conflict and a comprehensive process of national dialogue.” The time needed to conduct a notice and public comment would thwart the purpose of this rule, which is to enhance communications, including during a national dialogue period. Consistent with the initiative, this rule amends the EAR to allow case-by-case review of license applications to send telecommunications-related items, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications infrastructure, to Sudan. In coordination with BIS, the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR part 538) to authorize similar transactions involving the exportation of certain services, software, and hardware incident to personal communications. The time that would be required for notice and opportunity for public comment required by 5 U.S.C. part 553 for BIS's rule would undermine the opportunity for enhanced communications and information flow, thereby causing the rule to fail to meet the objective of promoting the Sudanese people's ability to communicate in a free, robust, and secure manner. Delay in publication of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because it would undermine the ability of the Sudanese people to participate fully in a national dialogue.

BIS also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness. This rule amends the EAR to allow case-by-case review of license applications to send telecommunications-related items, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications infrastructure, to Sudan. The 30-day delay in effectiveness otherwise required under 5 U.S.C. 553 would undermine the opportunity for enhanced communications and information flow, thereby causing the rule to fail in its objective, which is to promote the Sudanese people's ability to communicate in a free, robust, and secure manner including during a national dialogue. This final rule is being implemented with immediate effectiveness to be concurrent with OFAC's publication of its regulatory changes, which are also being made effective upon publication. Prompt, simultaneous publication is important in light of the fact that certain transactions with Sudan require authorization under both the EAR and the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations. For example, an export of an item might require an export license from BIS and a separate license from OFAC. Payment for the export might also require authorization from OFAC. Simultaneous publication would permit effective implementation of the changes to the two agencies' regulations. In particular, it would ensure that an export transaction authorized under OFAC's general license pertaining to certain software, hardware, and services incident to personal communications would be eligible for a license exception under the EAR rather than requiring a license from BIS, thereby effectuating the U.S. Government's policy to advance personal communications in Sudan.

List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 740

Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

15 CFR Part 742

Exports, Terrorism.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

PART 740—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 740 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. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (Aug. 11, 2014).

§ 740.9 [Amended]
2. Section 740.9 is amended by: a. Removing the semicolon and the phrase “for Sudan, see paragraph (a)(2) of this section” from the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1); and b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2).
3. Section 740.19 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a); b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; c. Removing the word “and” from the end of paragraph (b)(16); d. Removing the period from the end of paragraph (b)(17) and adding in its place a semicolon followed by the word “and”; e. Adding paragraph (b)(18); f. Adding a note to paragraph (b); and g. Revising paragraph (c).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 740.19 Consumer Communications Devices (CCD).

(a) Authorizations. This section authorizes the export or reexport of commodities and software, either sold or donated, to Cuba or Sudan subject to the requirements stated herein. This section does not authorize U.S.-owned or -controlled entities in third countries to engage in reexports of foreign produced commodities to Cuba for which no license would be issued by the Department of the Treasury pursuant to 31 CFR 515.559.

(b) Eligible commodities and software. Commodities and software in paragraphs (b)(1) through (17) of this section are eligible for export or reexport under this section to Cuba or Sudan. Commodities in paragraph (b)(18) of this section are eligible for export or reexport under this section to Sudan only.

* * *

(18) (Sudan only) Global Positioning System receivers or similar satellite receivers controlled under ECCN 7A994.

Note to paragraph (b):

In this paragraph, the term “consumer” refers to items that are:

1. Generally available to the public by being sold, without restriction, from stock at retail selling points by means of any of the following:

a. Over-the-counter transactions;

b. Mail order transactions;

c. Electronic transactions; or

d. Telephone call transactions; and

2. Designed for installation by the user without further substantial support by the supplier.

(c) Eligible and ineligible end-users—(1) Organizations. (i) This license exception may be used to export or reexport eligible commodities and software to and for the use of independent non-governmental organizations in Cuba or Sudan.

(ii) The Cuban Government or the Cuban Communist Party and organizations they administer or control are not eligible end-users.

(iii) The Government of Sudan is not an eligible end-user for any item exported or reexported pursuant to this license exception except for consumer software that is authorized under paragraph (b)(12) or (b)(17) of this section and that is distributed free of charge.

(2) Individuals. This License Exception may be used to export eligible commodities and software to and for the use of individuals other than the following:

(i) Ineligible Cuban Government Officials. Ministers and vice-ministers; members of the Council of State; members of the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People's Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; Director Generals and sub-Director Generals and higher of all Cuban ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT); employees of the Ministry of Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba (CTC) and its component unions; chief editors, editors and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; or members and employees of the Supreme Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional).

(ii) Ineligible Cuban Communist Party Officials. Members of the Politburo; the Central Committee; Department Heads of the Central Committee; employees of the Central Committee; and the secretaries and first secretaries of provincial Party central committees.

PART 742—[AMENDED] 4. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 742 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; Sec. 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; 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. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential Determination 2003-23 of May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014); Notice of November 7, 2014, 79 FR 67035 (November 12, 2014).

5. Section 742.10 is amended by: a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2); b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); c. Redesignating the note to paragraph (b) as the note to paragraph (b)(3); and d. Revising the newly redesignated note to paragraph (b)(3), to read as follows:
§ 742.10 Anti-terrorism: Sudan.

(a) * * *

(2) If AT column 1 or AT column 2 of the Commerce Country Chart (Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the EAR) is indicated in the appropriate ECCN, a license is required for reexport to Sudan for anti-terrorism purposes, except for ECCNs 2A994, 3A992.a, 5A991.g, 5A992, 5D992.b or .c, 6A991, 6A998, 7A994, 8A992.d, .e, .f, and .g, 9A990.a and .b, and 9A991.d and .e. * * *

(b) * * *

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, applications for Sudan will be considered on a case-by-case basis in the following four situations.

(i) The transaction involves the reexport to Sudan of items where Sudan was not the intended ultimate destination at the time of original export from the United States, provided that the exports from the U.S. occurred prior to the applicable contract sanctity date.

(ii) The U.S. content of foreign-produced commodities is 20% or less by value.

(iii) The commodities are medical items.

(iv) The items are telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software and technology for civil end use, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure.

Note to paragraph (b)(3) of this section:

Applicants who wish any of the factors described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section to be considered in reviewing their license applications must submit adequate documentation demonstrating the appropriateness of the factor: i.e., the date of export from the United States, the value of the U.S. content, the specifications and medical use of the equipment, or the specific civil end use of the item and any function the item will have in the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure, as relevant to the factor for which consideration is sought.

Dated: February 12, 2015. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-03329 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 141230999-4999-01] RIN 0694-AG46 Addition of Certain Persons to the Entity List; and Removal of Person From the Entity List Based on a Removal Request AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding eleven persons to the Entity List. The eleven 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 eleven persons will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of People's Republic of China (China), Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.).

This final rule also removes one person from the Entity List, as the result of a request for removal submitted by the person, a review of information provided in the removal request in accordance with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity, and further review conducted by the End-User Review Committee (ERC).

DATES:

This rule is effective February 18, 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) notifies the public about entities that have engaged in activities that could result in an increased risk of the diversion of exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) items to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Since its initial publication, grounds for inclusion on the Entity List have expanded to include activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. Certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to entities identified on the Entity List require licenses from BIS and are usually subject to a policy of denial. The availability of license exceptions in such transactions is very limited. The license review policy for each entity is identified in the license review policy column on the Entity List and the availability of license exceptions is noted in the Federal Register notices adding persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List based on certain 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 eleven persons under eleven entries to the Entity List. These eleven 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 eleven entries added to the Entity List consist of four entries in China, four in Pakistan, and three in the U.A.E.

The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these eleven persons 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.

The ERC determined the following four persons being added to the Entity List under the destination of China have been involved in activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), the National Supercomputing Center in Changsha (NSCC-CS), National Supercomputing Center in Guangzhou (NSCC-GZ), and the National Supercomputing Center in Tianjin (NSCC-TJ), all located in the People's Republic of China, meet the guidelines listed under § 744.11(b): Entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulated facts, that an entity has been involved, is involved, or poses 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 entities may be added to the Entity List pursuant to this section. Specifically, NUDT has used U.S.-origin multicores, boards, and (co)processors to produce the TianHe-1A and TianHe-2 supercomputers located at the National Supercomputing Centers in Changsha, Guangzhou, and Tianjin. The TianHe-1A and TianHe-2 supercomputers are believed to be used in nuclear explosive activities as described in § 744.2(a) of the EAR.

The ERC also determined the seven persons being added to the Entity List under the destinations of Pakistan (four additions) and the U.A.E. (three additions) have been involved in activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that Pakistan's Hakim Noor (a.k.a., Hakim Nur) and the United Arab Emirates' Ajab Noor (a.k.a., Ajab Nur) and entities working with Hakim and Ajab meet the guidelines listed under § 744.11(b). Specifically, Hakim Noor, Ajab Noor, Sher Qadir, Azad Motors Property Choice, Hakim Nur Sarafa, Ajab Trading Co. LLC, and Perfect Tyre Trading Co. LLC, have engaged in activities in support of the Haqqani Network, a person designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and a number of transnational extremist organizations.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b)(1) and (b)(5) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these eleven 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 National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), National Supercomputing Center in Changsha (NSCC-CS), National Supercomputing Center in Guangzhou (NSCC-GZ), and the National Supercomputing Center in Tianjin (NSCC-TJ), the ERC specified a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR, and established a license application review policy of case-by-case review for all items subject to the EAR. For the other seven persons recommended for addition 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 eleven persons under eleven entries to the Entity List:

China

(1) National Supercomputing Center Changsha (NSCC-CS), Changsha City, Hunan Province, China;

(2) National Supercomputing Center Guangzhou (NSCC-GZ), Sun Yat-Sen University, University City, Guangzhou, China;

(3) National Supercomputing Center Tianjin (NSCC-TJ), 7th Street, Binhai New Area, Tianjin, China; and

(4) National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), Garden Road (Metro West), Changsha City, Kaifu District, Hunan Province, China.

Pakistan

(1) Azad Motors Property Choice, a.k.a., the following four aliases:

—Peshawar Master Azad Motors; —Peshawar Motors Complex; —Karakoram Azad Motors; and —Azad Cars. Main GT Road, Hajji Camp, Peshawar, Pakistan;

(2) Hakim Noor, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—Hakim Nur. Sarafa Shop #10, Noor Muhammad Market, Miram Shaw, Pakistan; and Mir Nasir Plaza, Sikandar Pura, Pakistan;

(3) Hakim Nur Sarafa, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

—Noor Muhammad Market; and —Haji Hakim Noor Saraf. Sarafa Shop #10, Noor Muhammad Market, Miram Shaw, Pakistan; and Market Shop Number 10, Sarafa Bazar Miram Shaw, Pakistan; and

(4) Sher Qadir, Darpa Khel Village, Mirim Shaw, Pakistan.

United Arab Emirates

(1) Ajab Noor, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—Ajab Nur. Box No. 28715, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Dubai Tower, Al Maktoum Rd, Al Rigga, Dubai, Near Baniyas Square Metro Station, U.A.E.;

(2) Ajab Trading Co. LLC, Box No. 28715, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Dubai Tower, Al Maktoum Rd, Al Rigga, Dubai, Near Baniyas Square Metro Station, U.A.E.; and

(3) Perfect Tyre Trading Co LLC, Al Ain—Al Sanaiya—Inh. Mohammed Sultan Aldarmaki-Bld, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Post Box No. 67221, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.

Removal From the Entity List

This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove one person, SATCO GmbH, located in Germany, from the Entity List on the basis of a removal request by a company of the same name as the listed person. Based upon a review of the information provided in the removal request in accordance with § 744.16 (Procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity), the ERC determined that this person should be removed from the Entity List.

SATCO GmbH was originally added to the Entity List on December 12, 2013 (78 FR 75458) for participating in a procurement ring headed by Saeed Talebi (Talebi) that coordinated the supply and sale of U.S.-origin items in violation of Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations and the EAR. Based on a request from an unrelated company of the same name being adversely impacted, and the fact that SATCO GmbH is not a legally established corporate entity in Bremen, Germany, and that BIS has no evidence of the use of this name by Talebi network since their addition to the Entity List, the ERC determined to remove SATCO GmbH from the Entity List.

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

This final rule implements the decision to remove the following one person located in Germany from the Entity List:

Germany

(1) SATCO GmbH, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—Satco Inc., Park Street 4, Bremen, Germany 28209.

The removal of the one entity 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 this entity. However, the removal of this entity 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 this removal does 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.

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 February 18, 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, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014), 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 eleven persons added under eleven entries to the Entity List in this final rule, 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 or the entries being modified on 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 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 these entities 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. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

5. For the one removal from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(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)). This one removal has been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. 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 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 this one 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 removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC 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 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 decision to remove this entity. 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 one person from the Entity List removes a requirement (the Entity-List-based license requirement and limitation on use of license exceptions) on this one person being removed from the Entity List. The rule does not impose a requirement on any other person for this one removal 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 Subject 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 January 21, 2014, 79 FR 3721 (January 22, 2014); Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014); Notice of September 17, 2014, 79 FR 56475 (September 19, 2014); Notice of January 21, 2015, 80 FR 3461 (January 22, 2015).

2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended: a. By adding under China, in alphabetical order, four Chinese entities; b. By removing under Germany, one German entity, “Satco GmbH, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Satco Inc. Park Street 4, Bremen, Germany 28209.”; c. By adding under Pakistan, in alphabetical order, four Pakistani entities; and d. By adding under United Arab Emirates, in alphabetical order, three Emirati entities.

The additions read as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity List Country Entity License requirement License
  • review policy
  • Federal Register
  • citation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * CHINA, PEO- *         *         *         *         *         * PLE'S RE- PUBLIC OF National Supercomputing Center Changsha (NSCC-CS), Changsha City, Hunan Province, China For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Case-by-case basis 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15]. National Supercomputing Center Guangzhou (NSCC-GZ), Sun Yat-Sen University, University City, Guangzhou, China For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Case-by-case basis 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15]. National Supercomputing Center Tianjin (NSCC-TJ), 7th Street, Binhai New Area, Tianjin, China For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Case-by-case basis 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15]. National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), Garden Road (Metro West), Changsha City, Kaifu District, Hunan Province, China For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Case-by-case basis 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15]. *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * PAKISTAN *         *         *         *         *         * Azad Motors Property Choice, a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —Peshawar Master Azad Motors;
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15].
    —Peshawar Motors Complex; —Karakoram Azad Motors; and —Azad Cars Main GT Road, Hajji Camp, Peshawar, Pakistan *         *         *         *         *         * Hakim Noor, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Hakim Nur.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15].
    Sarafa Shop #10, Noor Muhammad Market, Miram Shaw, Pakistan; and Mir Nasir Plaza, Sikandar Pura, Pakistan. Hakim Nur Sarafa, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Noor Muhammad Market; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15].
    —Haji Hakim Noor Saraf. Sarafa Shop #10, Noor Muhammad Market, Miram Shaw, Pakistan; and Market Shop Number 10, Sarafa Bazar Miram Shaw, Pakistan. *         *         *         *         *         * Sher Qadir, Darpa Khel Village, Mirim Shaw, Pakistan For all items subject to the EAR Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15]. *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * UNITED ARAB EMIRATES *         *         *         *         *         * Ajab Noor, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Ajab Nur.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15].
    Box No. 28715, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Dubai Tower, Al Maktoum Rd, Al Rigga, Dubai, Near Baniyas Square Metro Station, U.A.E. Ajab Trading Co. LLC, Box No. 28715, Dubai, U.A.E.; and For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15]. Dubai Tower, Al Maktoum Rd, Al Rigga, Dubai, Near Baniyas Square Metro Station, U.A.E. *         *         *         *         *         * Perfect Tyre Trading Co LLC, Al Ain—Al Sanaiya—Inh. Mohammed Sultan Aldarmaki—Bld, Dubai, U.A.E.; and
  • Post Box No. 67221, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER 2/18/15].
    *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: February 12, 2015. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03321 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2014-0006; T.D. TTB-128; Ref: Notice No. 144] RIN 1513-AC09 Establishment of the Fountaingrove District Viticultural Area AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; Treasury decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 38,000-acre “Fountaingrove District” viticultural area in Sonoma County, California. The viticultural area lies entirely within the larger, multicounty North Coast viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective March 20, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

    Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

    Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

    • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

    • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

    • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

    • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

    • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

    Fountaingrove District Petition

    TTB received a petition from Douglas Grigg of Walnut Hill Vineyards, LLC, on behalf of the Fountaingrove Appellation Committee, proposing the establishment of the “Fountaingrove District” AVA in Sonoma County, California, northeast of the city of Santa Rosa. The committee originally proposed the name “Fountaingrove,” after the 19th Century utopian community of Fountaingrove that once existed within the region of the proposed AVA. Before the publication of the proposed rule, the committee submitted to TTB a request to change the name to “Fountaingrove District” in order to avoid affecting current use of the word “Fountaingrove,” standing alone, in brand names on wine labels. The proposed AVA covers approximately 38,000 acres and has approximately 35 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of 500 acres.

    The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is located entirely within the larger, multicounty North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed AVA shares its boundaries with the established Russian River Valley (27 CFR 9.66), Chalk Hill (27 CFR 9.52), Knights Valley (27 CFR 9.76), Calistoga (27 CFR 9.209), Diamond Mountain District (27 CFR 9.166), Spring Mountain District (27 CFR 9.143), and Sonoma Valley (27 CFR 9.29) AVAs but does not overlap any of these AVAs.

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. The proposed AVA is located on the western slopes of the Mayacmas Mountains and features low, rolling hills as well as higher, steeper mountains with southwest-facing slopes. The Sonoma Mountains, along the southwestern boundary of the proposed AVA, shelter the proposed AVA from the strongest marine breezes and heaviest fog, but an air gap in the mountains does allow some cooling air and fog into the proposed AVA. The moderate temperatures within the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA are suitable for growing cabernet sauvignon, chardonnay, sauvignon blanc, merlot, cabernet franc, zinfandel, syrah, and voignier grape varieties. The proposed AVA contains a variety of different soils, but most of the soils are derived from Sonoma Volcanic and Franciscan Formation bedrock and consist of volcanic materials, such as pumiceous ashflow tuff and basalt lava. The soils contain high levels of iron, which is essential for healthy vine growth, but also contain high levels of nickel, which can be toxic to grapevines unless the soil is ameliorated to reduce the level.

    To the west of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, the established Russian River Valley AVA is a low, broad valley with cooler temperatures and soil derived from river deposits. To the north, the Knights Valley AVA is warmer than the proposed AVA and contains broad stream valleys with soils derived from river deposits. Also to the north of the proposed AVA is the Chalk Hill AVA, which has temperatures and topography similar to the proposed AVA, but has soils that are derived primarily from river deposits. To the east, the Calistoga, Diamond Mountain District, and Spring Mountain District AVAs have northeast-facing slopes, warmer temperatures, and less soil diversity. To the south, the Sonoma Valley AVA is a large, broad valley with soils derived from river deposits and temperatures that are warmer than those of the proposed AVA.

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

    TTB published Notice No. 144 in the Federal Register on June 30, 2014 (79 FR 36683), proposing to establish the Fountaingrove District AVA. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The notice also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas. For a detailed description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed AVA, and for a detailed comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas, see Notice No. 144.

    In Notice No. 144, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, TTB solicited comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed Fountaingrove District are so distinguishable from the established North Coast AVA that the proposed AVA should not be part of the established AVA. The comment period closed on August 29, 2014.

    Comments Received

    In response to Notice No. 144, TTB received a total of four comments, all of which supported the establishment of the Fountaingrove District AVA. Commenters included three local vineyard and winery owners and one person who listed no affiliation. All of the comments generally supported the establishment of the proposed AVA due to its distinctive climate and soils and its long history as a wine region. One comment (comment 4) also supported the establishment of the proposed AVA as a way to honor the accomplishments of Kanaye Nagasawa, a Japanese citizen who managed the vineyards and winery of the Fountaingrove community and became one of the most prominent wine makers in California during the early 1900s.

    The comments did not raise any new issues concerning the proposed AVA. TTB received no comments opposing the establishment of the Fountaingrove District AVA. TTB also did not receive any comments in response to its question of whether the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is so distinguishable from the established North Coast AVA that the proposed AVA should not be part of the established AVA.

    TTB Determination

    After careful review of the petition and the comments received in response to Notice No. 144, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Fountaingrove District AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Fountaingrove District” AVA in Sonoma County, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

    TTB has also determined that the Fountaingrove District AVA will remain part of the established North Coast AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 144, the Fountaingrove District AVA receives some of the marine breezes and fog that are the primary characteristics of the North Coast AVA. However, the Fountaingrove District AVA is also a unique microclimate within the larger AVA because the Mayacmas Mountains shelter the Fountaingrove District AVA from the strongest breezes and heaviest fog. Additionally, due to its smaller size, the Fountaingrove District AVA is more uniform in its geographical and climatic characteristics than the much larger, multicounty North Coast AVA.

    Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

    Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

    Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

    With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Fountaingrove District,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Fountaingrove District” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin. TTB is not designating “Fountaingrove,” standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance due to the current use of “Fountaingrove,” standing alone, as a brand name on wine labels.

    The establishment of the Fountaingrove District AVA will not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “North Coast” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the North Coast AVA will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the Fountaingrove District AVA will allow vintners to use “Fountaingrove District” and “North Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Fountaingrove District AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

    Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

    List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

    The Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    27 U.S.C. 205.

    Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding § 9.250 to read as follows:
    § 9.250 Fountaingrove District.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Fountaingrove District.” For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Fountaingrove District” is a term of viticultural significance.

    (b) Approved maps. The four United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Fountaingrove District viticultural area are titled:

    (1) Mark West Springs, CA; 1993;

    (2) Calistoga, CA; 1997;

    (3) Kenwood, CA; 1954; photorevised 1980; and

    (4) Santa Rosa, CA; 1994.

    (c) Boundary. The Fountaingrove District viticultural area is located in Sonoma County, California. The boundary of the Fountaingrove District viticultural area is as described below:

    (1) The beginning point is on the Mark West Springs map at the intersection of the shared Sonoma-Napa County line with Petrified Forest Road, section 3, T8N/R7W.

    (2) From the beginning point, proceed southeasterly along the Sonoma-Napa County line, crossing onto the Calistoga map and then the Kenwood map, to the marked 2,530-peak of an unnamed mountain, section 9, T7N/R6W; then

    (3) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line to the marked 2,730-foot summit of Mt. Hood, section 8, T7N/R6W; then

    (4) Proceed west-northwest in a straight line to the marked 1,542-foot summit of Buzzard Peak, section 11, T7N/R7W; then

    (5) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line, crossing onto the Santa Rosa map, to the intersection of State Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road; then

    (6) Proceed due north in a straight line to the southern boundary of section 9, T7N/R7W; then

    (7) Proceed west-northwest along the southern boundaries of sections 9, 4, and 5, T7N/R7W, to the western boundary of the Los Guilicos Land Grant; then

    (8) Proceed west-southwest along the southern boundaries of sections 5, 6, and 7, T7N/R7W; then continue west-southwest along the southern boundaries of sections 12 and 11, T7N/R8W, to the point where the section 11 boundary becomes concurrent with an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Lewis Road; and then continue west-southwest along Lewis Road to the road's intersection with Mendocino Avenue in Santa Rosa; then

    (9) Proceed north-northwesterly along Mendocino Avenue to the road's intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Bicentennial Way; then

    (10) Proceed north in a straight line, crossing through the marked 906-foot elevation peak in section 35, T8N/R8W, and, crossing on to the Mark West Springs map, continue to the line's intersection with Mark West Springs Road, section 26, T8N/R8W; then

    (11) Proceed northerly along Mark West Springs Road, which turns easterly and becomes Porter Creek Road, to the road's intersection with Franz Valley Road, section 12, T8N/R8W; then

    (12) Proceed northeasterly along Franz Valley Road to the western boundary of section 6, T8N/R7W; then

    (13) Proceed south along the western boundary of section 6, T8N/R7W, to the southwest corner of section 6; then

    (14) Proceed east, then east-northeast along the southern boundaries of sections 6, 5, and 4, T8N/R7W, to the southeast corner of section 4; then

    (15) Proceed north along the eastern boundary of section 4, T8N/R7W, to the Sonoma-Napa County line; then

    (16) Proceed easterly along the Sonoma-Napa County line to the beginning point.

    Dated: January 15, 2015. Mary G. Ryan, Acting Administrator. Approved: January 21, 2015. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2015-03371 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Part 538 Sudanese Sanctions Regulations AGENCY:

    Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is adopting a final rule amending the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (the “SSR”) by adding a general license pertaining to certain software, hardware, and services incident to personal communications. OFAC is also making other technical and conforming changes.

    DATES:

    Effective: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622-6746, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202/622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic and Facsimile Availability

    This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC's sanctions programs also is available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202/622-0077.

    Background

    OFAC today is amending the SSR, 31 CFR part 538, primarily to issue a new general license pertaining to certain software, hardware, and services incident to personal communications. Transactions otherwise prohibited under the SSR but found to be consistent with U.S. policy may be authorized by one of the general licenses contained in subpart E of the SSR or by a specific license issued pursuant to the procedures described in subpart E of 31 CFR part 501. OFAC also is making other technical and conforming changes.

    On March 10, 2010, OFAC issued a general license that authorized the exportation from the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, to persons in Sudan (31 CFR 538.533) and Iran (31 CFR 560.540) of certain services and software incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, and blogging. In order to qualify for that authorization, such services and software had to be publicly available (widely available to the public) at no cost to the user. In addition, such software qualified for this authorization only if it was (1) designated as “EAR99” under the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (EAR); (2) not subject to the EAR; or (3) classified by the Department of Commerce as mass market software under export control classification number (ECCN) 5D992 of the EAR. These sections of the SSR and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations did not authorize the direct or indirect exportation of services or software with knowledge or reason to know that such services or software are intended for the Government of Sudan or the Government of Iran.

    On May 30, 2013, to help facilitate the free flow of information in Iran and with Iranians, OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State and Commerce, issued Iran General License D. General License D expanded upon the existing authorization in 31 CFR 560.540 by authorizing the exportation to Iran of certain additional software, hardware, and services incident to personal communications. On February 7, 2014, OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State and Commerce, issued amended Iran General License D-1 (GL D-1). GL D-1 clarified certain aspects of General License D, and added certain new authorizations relating to the provision to Iran of certain hardware, software, and services incident to personal communications.

    Similar considerations apply in Sudan. Accordingly, in consultation with the Departments of State and Commerce, OFAC is expanding the scope of 31 CFR 538.533 consistent with the U.S. Government's commitment to the advancement of the free flow of information and to facilitate communications by the Sudanese people, including during a national dialogue, and consistent with the Iran GL D-1 model. In view of its shared jurisdiction over certain export licensing authority with respect to Sudan, OFAC is issuing this amendment in coordination with the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). BIS concurrently is amending the EAR to, inter alia, revise the general licensing policy of denial to one of case-by-case licensing for exports and reexports to Sudan of telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software, and technology for civil end use, and to revise License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD), which previously applied only to consumer communications devices to Cuba, to authorize exports and reexports of such devices to Sudan.

    OFAC is amending 31 CFR 538.533 in several ways. First, OFAC is removing a limitation in the existing general license at 31 CFR 538.533, which only authorizes certain no cost software and services incident to the exchange of personal communications. Section 538.533 now also authorizes the exportation of certain fee-based software and services incident to the exchange of personal communications. See 31 CFR 538.533(a)(1) & (2). To avoid confusion with respect to the term “publicly available” as described in 15 CFR 734.3(b)(3), OFAC also is changing the terminology in § 538.533 from “publicly available” to “widely available to the public,” although the scope remains the same.

    Second, OFAC is expanding the authorization in § 538.533 to permit the exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, to Sudan of certain additional personal communications software, hardware, and related services subject to the EAR. See 31 CFR 538.533(a)(1), (2), & (3). The general license now authorizes, for example, a non-U.S. person located outside the United States to export certain hardware and software subject to the EAR to Sudan. For purposes of § 538.533, the term “provision” includes, for example, an in-country transfer of covered software or hardware.

    Third, OFAC is adding new authorizations for the exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, by a U.S. person located outside the United States to Sudan of certain software and hardware not subject to the EAR. See § 538.533 (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(3)(ii), & (a)(3)(iii). The general license now authorizes, for example, a foreign branch of a U.S. company to export to Sudan, from a location outside the United States, certain hardware or software that is not subject to the EAR (including foreign-origin hardware or software containing less than a de minimis amount of U.S. controlled content).

    Fourth, a Note to paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) has been added to clarify that the authorization in those paragraphs includes the exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, of the authorized items by an individual leaving the United States for Sudan. Section 538.533(a)(5) also adds a new authorization for the importation by an individual into the United States of certain hardware and software previously exported by the individual to Sudan pursuant to other provisions of 31 CFR 538.533. The general license now authorizes, for example, an individual to carry a smartphone that falls within the scope of the authorization while traveling to and from Sudan.

    Finally, to further ensure that the sanctions on Sudan do not affect the willingness of companies to make available certain no cost personal communications tools to persons in that country, § 538.533(a)(6) adds a new authorization that covers the exportation, reexportation, or provision to the Government of Sudan of certain no cost services and software that are widely available to the public.

    OFAC also has made additional technical and conforming changes in § 538.212(c)(3), § 538.411, § 538.501, and § 538.512. Notwithstanding these changes, nothing in this general license relieves an exporter from compliance with the export license requirements of another Federal agency.

    Public Participation

    Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

    List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 538

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of assets, Credit, Investments, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Services, Sudan.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR chapter V as follows:

    PART 538—SUDANESE SANCTIONS REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 538 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211; Pub. L. 109-344, 120 Stat. 1869; Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13067, 62 FR 59989, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 230; E.O. 13412, 71 FR 61369, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 244.

    2. Amend § 538.212 by revising paragraph (c)(3) and adding Note to paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
    § 538.212 Exempt transactions.

    (c) * * *

    (3) This section does not exempt or authorize transactions incident to the exportation of software subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774, or to the exportation of goods (including software) or technology for use in the transmission of any data, or to the provision, sale, or leasing of capacity on telecommunications transmission facilities (such as satellite or terrestrial network connectivity) for use in the transmission of any data. The exportation of such items or services and the provision, sale, or leasing of such capacity or facilities to Sudan are prohibited.

    Note to paragraph (c)(3):

    See § 538.533 for a general license authorizing the exportation to Sudan of certain services, software, and hardware incident to the exchange of personal communications.

    3. Revise § 538.411 to read as follows:
    § 538.411 Exports to third countries; transshipments.

    Exportation of goods or technology (including technical data, software, information not exempted from the prohibition of this part pursuant to § 538.211, or technical assistance) from the United States to third countries is prohibited if the exporter knows, or has reason to know, that the goods or technology are intended for transshipment to Sudan (including passage through, or storage in, intermediate destinations). The exportation of goods or technology intended specifically for incorporation or substantial transformation into a third-country product is also prohibited if the particular product is to be used in Sudan, is being specifically manufactured to fill a Sudanese order, or if the manufacturer's sales of the particular product are predominantly to Sudan.

    Note to § 538.411:

    See § 538.533 for a general license authorizing the exportation to persons of certain services, software, and hardware incident to the exchange of personal communications.

    4. Revise § 538.501 to read as follows:
    § 538.501 Effect of license or authorization.

    (a) No license or other authorization contained in this part, or otherwise issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), authorizes or validates any transaction effected prior to the issuance of such license or other authorization, unless specifically provided in such license or authorization.

    (b) No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizes any transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license is issued by OFAC and specifically refers to this part. No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license referring to this part shall be deemed to authorize any transaction prohibited by any other part of this chapter unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license specifically refers to such part.

    (c) Any regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizing any transaction otherwise prohibited under this part has the effect of removing a prohibition contained in this part from the transaction, but only to the extent specifically stated by its terms. Unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license otherwise specifies, such an authorization does not create any right, duty, obligation, claim, or interest in, or with respect to, any property which would not otherwise exist under ordinary principles of law.

    (d) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to supersede the requirements established under any other provision of law or to relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization from another department or agency of the U.S. Government in compliance with applicable laws and regulations subject to the jurisdiction of that department or agency. For example, exports of goods, services, or technical data that are not prohibited by this part or that do not require a license by OFAC nevertheless may require authorization by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of State, or other agencies of the U.S. Government.

    (e) No license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.

    (f) Any payment relating to a transaction authorized in or pursuant to this part that is routed through the U.S. financial system should reference the relevant OFAC general or specific license authorizing the payment to avoid the blocking or rejection of the transfer.

    5. Revise § 538.512 to read as follows:
    § 538.512 Transactions related to telecommunications and mail authorized.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, all transactions with respect to the receipt and transmission of telecommunications involving Sudan are authorized, provided that no payment pursuant to this section may involve any debit to a blocked account of the Government of Sudan on the books of a U.S. financial institution.

    (2) This section does not authorize:

    (i) The provision, sale, or lease of telecommunications equipment or technology; or

    (ii) The provision, sale, or lease of capacity on telecommunications transmission facilities (such as satellite or terrestrial network connectivity).

    (b) All transactions of common carriers incident to the receipt or transmission of mail and packages between the United States and Sudan are authorized, provided that the importation or exportation of such mail and packages is exempt from or authorized pursuant to this part.

    Note to § 538.512:

    See § 538.533 for a general license authorizing the exportation to Sudan of certain services, software, and hardware incident to the exchange of personal communications.

    § 538.513 [Removed and Reserved]
    6. Remove and reserve § 538.513. 7. Revise § 538.533 to read as follows:
    § 538.533 Exportation, reexportation, or provision of certain services, software, and hardware incident to personal communications.

    (a) Subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the following transactions are authorized:

    (1) Services. The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Sudan of services incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, and blogging.

    (2) Software— (i) Software subject to the EAR. The exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, to Sudan of software subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (the “EAR”), that is necessary to enable services incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, and blogging, provided that such software is designated EAR99 or classified by the U.S. Department of Commerce on the Commerce Control List, 15 CFR part 774, supplement No. 1 (CCL), under export control classification number (ECCN) 5D992.c.

    (ii) Software that is not subject to the EAR because it is of foreign origin and is located outside the United States. The exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Sudan of software that is not subject to the EAR because it is of foreign origin and is located outside the United States that is necessary to enable services incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, and blogging, provided that such software would be designated EAR99 if it were located in the United States or would meet the criteria for classification under ECCN 5D992.c if it were subject to the EAR.

    (iii) Software that is not subject to the EAR because it is described in 15 CFR 734.3(b)(3). The exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Sudan of software that is not subject to the EAR because it is described in 15 CFR 734.3(b)(3) that is necessary to enable services incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, and blogging.

    (3) Additional software, hardware, and related services. To the extent not authorized by paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, the exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, to Sudan of certain software and hardware incident to personal communications, as well as related services, as follows:

    (i) In the case of hardware and software subject to the EAR, the items specified in Appendix B to this part;

    (ii) In the case of hardware and software that is not subject to the EAR because it is of foreign origin and is located outside the United States that is exported, reexported, or provided, directly or indirectly, by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Sudan, hardware and software that is of a type described in Appendix B to this part provided that it would be designated EAR99 if it were located in the United States or would meet the criteria for classification under the relevant ECCN specified in Appendix B to this part if it were subject to the EAR; and

    (iii) in the case of software not subject to the EAR because it is described in 15 CFR 734.3(b)(3) that is exported, reexported, or provided, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Sudan, software that is of a type described in the Appendix B to this part.

    Note to paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3):

    The authorizations in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section include the exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, to Sudan of authorized hardware and software by an individual leaving the United States for Sudan.

    (4) Internet connectivity services and telecommunications capacity. The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Sudan of consumer-grade Internet connectivity services and the provision, sale, or leasing of capacity on telecommunications transmission facilities (such as satellite or terrestrial network connectivity) incident to personal communications.

    Note to paragraph (a)(4):

    See § 538.512 for authorizations relating to transactions with respect to the receipt and transmission of telecommunications involving Sudan.

    (5) Importation into the United States of hardware and software previously exported to Sudan. The importation into the United States of hardware and software authorized for exportation, reexportation, or provision to Sudan under paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section by an individual entering the United States, directly or indirectly, from Sudan, provided that the items previously were exported, reexported, or provided by the individual to Sudan pursuant to paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.

    (6) Exportation, reexportation, or provision of no cost services and software that are widely available to the public to the Government of Sudan.—(i) Services. The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to the Government of Sudan of services described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or categories (6) through (11) of Appendix B to this part, provided that such services are widely available to the public at no cost to the user.

    (ii) Software. The exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, to the Government of Sudan of software described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section or categories (6) through (11) of Appendix B to this part, read in conjunction with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, provided that such software is widely available to the public at no cost to the user.

    Note to paragraph (a):

    Nothing in this section relieves the exporter from compliance with the export license application requirements of another Federal agency.

    (b) This section does not authorize:

    (1) The exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, of the services, software, or hardware specified in paragraph (a) of this section with knowledge or reason to know that such services, software, or hardware are intended for the Government of Sudan, except for services or software specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.

    (2) The exportation, reexportation, or provision, directly or indirectly, of the services, software, or hardware specified in paragraph (a) of this section to any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, other than persons whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13067 and Executive Order 13412 as the Government of Sudan.

    (3) The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of commercial-grade Internet connectivity services or telecommunications transmission facilities (such as dedicated satellite links or dedicated lines that include quality of service guarantees).

    (4) The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of web-hosting services that are for commercial endeavors or of domain name registration services.

    (5) Any action or activity involving any item (including information) subject to the EAR that is prohibited by, or otherwise requires a license under, part 744 of the EAR or participation in any transaction involving a person whose export privileges have been denied pursuant to part 764 or 766 of the EAR, without authorization from the Department of Commerce.

    (c) Effective February 18, 2015, transfers of funds from Sudan or for or on behalf of a person in Sudan in furtherance of an underlying transaction authorized by paragraph (a) of this section may be processed by U.S. depository institutions and U.S. registered brokers or dealers in securities so long as they are consistent with §§ 538.405 and 538.418.

    (d) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis for the exportation, reexportation, or provision of services, software, or hardware incident to personal communications not specified in paragraph (a) of this section or Appendix B to this part.

    Note 1 to § 538.533:

    This section does not authorize any transaction prohibited by any part of chapter V of 31 CFR other than part 538. Accordingly, the transfer of funds may not be by, to, or through a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any Executive order, except a Sudanese financial institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to 31 CFR part 538.

    Note 2 to § 538.533:

    See § 538.212(g)(1) for an exemption related to the exportation of certain goods and services to the Specified Areas of Sudan, and § 538.537 for a general license authorizing the transshipment of goods, technology, and services to or from the Republic of South Sudan.

    8. Add Appendix B to part 538 to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 538 Appendix B—Services, Software, and Hardware Incident to Personal Communications Authorized for Exportation, Reexportation, or Provision to Sudan by Paragraph (a)(3) of § 538.533 Note:

    See paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)-(iii) of § 538.533 for authorizations related to certain hardware and software that is of a type described below but that is not subject to the EAR.

    1. Mobile phones (including smartphones), Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), Subscriber Identity Module/Subscriber Information Module (SIM) cards, and accessories for such devices designated EAR99 or classified on the CCL under ECCN 5A992.c; drivers and connectivity software for such hardware designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such hardware and software. 2. Satellite phones and Broadband Global Area Network (BGAN) hardware designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5A992.c; demand drivers and connectivity software for such hardware designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such hardware and software. 3. Consumer* modems, network interface cards, radio equipment (including antennae), routers, switches, and WiFi access points, designed for 50 or fewer concurrent users, designated EAR99 or classified under ECCNs 5A992.c, 5A991.b.2, or 5A991.b.4; drivers, communications, and connectivity software for such hardware designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such hardware and software. 4. Residential consumer* satellite terminals, transceiver equipment (including to antennae, receivers, set-top boxes and video decoders) designated EAR99 or classified under ECCNs 5A992.c, 5A991.b.2, or 5A991.b.4; drivers, communications, and connectivity software for such hardware designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such hardware and software. 5. Laptops, tablets, and personal computing devices, and peripherals for such devices (including consumer* disk drives and other data storage devices) and accessories for such devices (including keyboards and mice) designated EAR99 or classified on the CCL under ECCNs 5A992.c, 5A991.b.2, 5A991.b.4, or 4A994.b; computer operating systems and software required for effective consumer use of such hardware, including software updates and patches, designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such hardware and software. 6. Anti-virus and anti-malware software designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such software. 7. Anti-tracking software designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such software. 8. Mobile operating systems, online application for mobile operating systems (app) stores, and related software, including apps designed to run on mobile operating systems, designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such software. 9. Anti-censorship tools and related software designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such software. 10. Virtual Private Network (VPN) client software, proxy tools, and fee-based client personal communications tools including voice, text, video, voice-over-IP telephony, video chat, and successor technologies, and communications and connectivity software required for effective consumer use designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such software. 11. Provisioning and verification software for Secure Sockets Layers (SSL) certificates designated EAR99 or classified under ECCN 5D992.c; and services necessary for the operation of such software. * For purposes of this Appendix, the term “consumer” refers to items that are: (1) generally available to the public by being sold, without restriction, from stock at retail selling points by means of any of the following: (a) over-the-counter transactions; (b) mail order transactions; (c) electronic transactions; or (d) telephone call transactions; and (2) designed for installation by the user without further substantial support by the supplier.
    Dated: February 10, 2015. John E. Smith, Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03330 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2014-1001] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard amends its safety zone regulations for Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This amendment updates 18 permanent safety zones, adds 5 new permanent safety zones, and reformats the coordinates for safety zones. These amendments and additions are necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual maritime events, including fireworks displays, boat races, and air shows, and improves the precision and compatibility of safety zone coordinates.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective March 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2014-1001. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, contact MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7148 or by email at [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register, NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

    On December 24, 2014, The Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone in the Federal Register (79 FR 77415). We did not receive any comments in response to the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    This rule amends 18 permanent safety zones found within table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. These 18 amendments involve updating the location, size, and/or enforcement times for: 13 fireworks displays in various locations; 1 regatta in Spring Lake, Michigan; 1 Air Show near Oshkosh, Wisconsin; 1 Air Show in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 1 Vessel Launch Operation in Marinette, Wisconsin; and 1 high-speed boat race in Elgin, Illinois. The Coast Guard updates the safety zones in § 165.929 to ensure that vessels and persons are protected from the specific hazards related to the aforementioned events. These specific hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine casualties; collisions among vessels maneuvering at a high speed within a channel; the explosive danger of fireworks; and flaming debris falling into the water that may cause injuries.

    Additionally, this rule adds 5 new safety zones to table 165.929 within § 165.929 for annually-reoccurring events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone. These 5 zones were added in order to protect the public from the safety hazards previously described. The 5 additions include 4 safety zones for fireworks displays, and 1 safety zone for a ski show in the Fox River, Green Bay, Wisconsin.

    In this rule, the Coast Guard also changed the format of latitude/longitude coordinates for safety zones in Table 165.929 of § 165.929 from degrees, minutes, seconds to degrees with decimal minutes. This change of format was made in an effort to improve precision and make the information more compatible with currently-used, electronic positioning systems.

    C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the safety zones in this rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual marine or triggering events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. Although this rule will be effective year-round, the safety zones in this rule will be enforced only immediately before, during, and after events that pose a hazard to the public and only upon notice by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

    The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will notify the public that the zones in this rule are or will be enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public, including publication in the Federal Register, as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.

    All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zones created by this rule will be relatively small. Also, the safety zones are designed to minimize impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zones have been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted portions of the waterways not affected by the safety zones. Thus, restrictions on vessel movements within the affected area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zones when permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. Overall, we expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal and that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated as safety zones during the dates and times the safety zones are being enforced.

    These safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of these zones, we would issue a local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

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

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of safety zones and thus, is categorically excluded under paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise § 165.929 to read as follows:
    § 165.929 Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone.

    (a) Regulations. The following regulations apply to the safety zones listed in Table 165.929 of this section.

    (1) The general regulations in § 165.23.

    (2) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative to enter, move within, or exit a safety zone established in this section when the safety zone is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter one of the safety zones listed in this section must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.

    (3) The enforcement dates and times for each of the safety zones listed in Table 165.929 of this section are subject to change, but the duration of enforcement would remain the same or nearly the same total number of hours as stated in the table. In the event of a change, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will provide notice to the public by publishing a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register, as well as, issuing a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    (1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to monitor a safety zone, permit entry into a safety zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within a safety zone, and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

    (2) Public vessel means a vessel that is owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.

    (3) Rain date refers to an alternate date and/or time in which the safety zone would be enforced in the event of inclement weather.

    (c) Suspension of enforcement. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may suspend enforcement of any of these zones earlier than listed in this section. Should the Captain of the Port suspend any of these zones earlier than the listed duration in this section, he or she may make the public aware of this suspension by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or on-scene notice by his or her designated representative.

    (d) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.

    (e) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or security.

    Table 165.929 Event Location Enforcement date and time 2 (a) March Safety Zones (1) St. Patrick's Day Fireworks Manitowoc, WI. All waters of the Manitowoc River within the arc of a circle with a 250-foot radius from a center point launch position at 44°05.492′ N., 087°39.332′ W The third Saturday of March; 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. (2) Public Fireworks Display Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River in the vicinity of the Main Street and Walnut Street Bridge within an area bounded by the following coordinates; 44°31.211′ N., 088° 00.833′ W.; then southwest along the river bank to 44°30.944′ N., 088°01.159′ W.; then southeast to 44°30.890′ N., 088°01.016′ W.; then northeast along the river bank to 44°31.074′ N., 088°00.866′ W.; then northwest returning to the point of origin March 15; 11:50 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Rain date: March 16; 11:50 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (b) April Safety Zones (1) Michigan Aerospace Challenge Sport Rocket Launch Muskegon, MI. All waters of Muskegon Lake, near the West Michigan Dock and Market Corp facility, within the arc of a circle with a 1500-yard radius from the rocket launch site located in position 43°14.018′ N., 086°15.585′ W The last Saturday of April; 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (2) Lubbers Cup Regatta Spring Lake, MI. All waters of Spring Lake in Spring Lake, Michigan in the vicinity of Keenan Marina within a rectangle that is approximately 6,300 by 300 feet. The rectangle will be bounded by points beginning at 43°04.914′ N., 086°12.525′ W.; then east to 43°04.958′ N., 086°11.104′ W.; then south to 43°04.913′ N., 086°11.096′ W.; then west to 43°04.867′ N., 086°12.527′ W.; then north back to the point of origin April 11; 7:45 a.m. to 7 p.m., and April 12; 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (c) May Safety Zones (1) Tulip Time Festival Fireworks Holland, MI. All waters of Lake Macatawa, near Kollen Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in approximate center position 42°47.496′ N., 086°07.348′ W The first Saturday of May; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Rain date: The first Friday of May; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (2) Cochrane Cup Blue Island, IL. All waters of the Calumet Saganashkee Channel from the South Halstead Street Bridge at 41°39.442′ N., 087°38.474′ W.; to the Crawford Avenue Bridge at 41°39.078′ N., 087°43.127′ W.; and the Little Calumet River from the Ashland Avenue Bridge at 41°39.098′ N., 087°39.626′ W.; to the junction of the Calumet Saganashkee Channel at 41°39.373′ N., 087°39.026′ W The first Saturday of May; 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (3) Rockets for Schools Rocket Launch Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, near the Sheboygan South Pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1500-yard radius from the rocket launch site located with its center in position 43°44.914′ N., 087°41.869′ W The first Saturday of May; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (4) Celebrate De Pere Fireworks De Pere, WI. All waters of the Fox River, near Voyageur Park, within the arc of a circle with a 500 foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°27.167′ N., 088°03.833′ W The Saturday or Sunday before Memorial Day; 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. (d) June Safety Zones (1) International Bayfest Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River, near the Western Lime Company 1.13 miles above the head of the Fox River, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°31.408′ N., 088°00.710′ W The second Friday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (2) Harborfest Music and Family Festival Racine, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Racine Harbor, near the Racine Launch Basin Entrance Light, within the arc of a circle with a 200-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°43.722′ N., 087°46.673′ W Friday and Saturday of the third complete weekend of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day. (3) Spring Lake Heritage Festival Fireworks Spring Lake, MI. All waters of the Grand River within the arc of a circle with a 700-foot radius from a barge in center position 43°04.375′ N., 086°12.401′ W The third Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (4) Elberta Solstice Festival Elberta, MI. All waters of Betsie Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in approximate center position 44°37.607′ N., 086°13.977′ W The last Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (5) World War II Beach Invasion Re-enactment St. Joseph, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of Tiscornia Park in St. Joseph, MI beginning at 42°06.918′ N., 086°29.421′ W.; then west/northwest along the north breakwater to 42°06.980′ N., 086°29.682′ W.; then northwest 100 yards to 42°07.018′ N., 086°29.728′ W.; then northeast 2,243 yards to 42°07.831′ N., 086°28.721′ W.; then southeast to the shoreline at 42°07.646′ N., 086°28.457′ W.; then southwest along the shoreline to the point of origin The last Saturday of June; 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. (6) Ephraim Fireworks Ephraim, WI. All waters of Eagle Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 750-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°09.304′ N., 087°10.844′ W The third Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (7) Thunder on the Fox Elgin, IL. All waters of the Fox River from the Kimball Street bridge, located at approximate position 42°02.499′ N., 088°17.367′ W., then 1250 yards north to a line crossing the river perpendicularly running through position 42°03.101′ N., 088°17.461′ W Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the third weekend in June; 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day. (8) Olde Ellison Bay Days Fireworks Ellison Bay, WI. All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Ellison Bay Wisconsin, within the arc of a circle with a 400-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate center position 45°15.595′ N., 087°05.043′ W The fourth Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. (9) Sheboygan Harborfest Fireworks Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°44.914′ N., 087°41.897′ W June 15; 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. (e) July Safety Zones (1) Town of Porter Fireworks Display Porter IN. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000 foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in center position 41°39.927′ N., 087°03.933′ W The first Saturday of July; 8:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. (2) City of Menasha 4th of July Fireworks Menasha, WI. All waters of Lake Winnebago and the Fox River within the arc of a circle with an 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in center position 44°12.231′ N., 088°25.524′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (3) Pentwater July Third Fireworks Pentwater, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the Pentwater Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°46.942′ N., 086°26.625′ W July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (4) Taste of Chicago Fireworks Chicago, IL. All waters of Monroe Harbor and Lake Michigan bounded by a line drawn from 41°53.380′ N., 087°35.978′ W.; then southeast to 41°53.247′ N., 087°35.434′ W.; then south to 41°52.809′ N., 087°35.434′ W.; then southwest to 41°52.453′ N., 087°36.611′ W.; then north to 41°53.247′ N., 087°36.573′ W.; then northeast returning to the point of origin July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (5) St. Joseph Fourth of July Fireworks St. Joseph, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the St. Joseph River within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 42°06.867′ N., 086° 29.463′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (6) US Bank Fireworks Milwaukee, WI. All waters and adjacent shoreline of Milwaukee Harbor, in the vicinity of Veteran's park, within the arc of a circle with a 1,200-foot radius from the center of the fireworks launch site which is located on a barge in approximate position 43°02.362′ N., 087°53.485′ W July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (7) Manistee Independence Day Fireworks Manistee, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the First Street Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°14.854′ N., 086°20.757′ W July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (8) Frankfort Independence Day Fireworks Frankfort, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Frankfort Harbor, bounded by a line drawn from 44°38.100′ N., 086°14.826′ W.; then south to 44°37.613′ N., 086°14.802′ W.; then west to 44°37.613′ N., 086°15.263′ W.; then north to 44°38.094′ N., 086°15.263′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (9) Freedom Festival Fireworks Ludington, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Ludington Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°57.171′ N., 086°27.718′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (10) White Lake Independence Day Fireworks Montague, MI. All waters of White Lake within the arc of a circle with an 800-foot radius from a center position at 43°24.621′ N., 086°21.463′ W July 4; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (11) Muskegon Summer Celebration July Fourth Fireworks Muskegon, MI. All waters of Muskegon Lake, in the vicinity of Hartshorn Municipal Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 700-foot radius from a center position at 43°14.039′ N., 086°15.793′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (12) Grand Haven Jaycees Annual Fourth of July Fireworks Grand Haven, MI. All waters of the Grand River within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on the west bank of the Grand River in position 43°3.908′ N., 086°14.240′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (13) Celebration Freedom Fireworks Holland, MI. All waters of Lake Macatawa in the vicinity of Kollen Park within the arc of a circle with a 2000-foot radius of a center launch position at 42°47.440′ N., 086°07.621′ W The Saturday prior to July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (14) Van Andel Fireworks Show Holland, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the Holland Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in approximate position 42°46.351′ N., 086°12.710′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Raindate: July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (15) Saugatuck Independence Day Fireworks Saugatuck, MI. All waters of Kalamazoo Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in center position 42°39.074′ N., 086°12.285′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (16) South Haven Fourth of July Fireworks South Haven, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the Black River within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in center position 42°24.125′ N., 086°17.179′ W July 3; 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (17) Town of Dune Acres Independence Day Fireworks Dune Acres, IN. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 700-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°39.303′ N., 087°05.239′ W The first Saturday of July; 8:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (18) Gary Fourth of July Fireworks Gary, IN. All waters of Lake Michigan, approximately 2.5 miles east of Gary Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°37.322′ N., 087°14.509′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (19) Joliet Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Joliet, IL. All waters of the Des Plains River, at mile 288, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°31.522′ N., 088°05.244′ W July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (20) Glencoe Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks Glencoe, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of Lake Front Park, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from a barge in position 42°08.404′ N., 087°44.930′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (21) Lakeshore Country Club Independence Day Fireworks Glencoe, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 600-foot radius from a center point fireworks launch site in approximate position 42°09.130′ N., 087°45.530′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (22) Shore Acres Country Club Independence Day Fireworks Lake Bluff, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 600-foot radius from approximate position 42°17.847′ N., 087°49.837′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (23) Kenosha Independence Day Fireworks Kenosha, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°35.283′ N., 087°48.450′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (24) Fourthfest of Greater Racine Fireworks Racine, WI. All waters of Racine Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from a center point position at 42°44.259′ N., 087°46.635′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (25) Sheboygan Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, in the vicinity of the south pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°44.917′ N., 087°41.850′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (26) Manitowoc Independence Day Fireworks Manitowoc, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Manitowoc Harbor, in the vicinity of south breakwater, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°05.395′ N., 087°38.751′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (27) Sturgeon Bay Independence Day Fireworks Sturgeon Bay, WI. All waters of Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of Sunset Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44°50.617′ N., 087°23.300′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (28) Fish Creek Independence Fish Creek, WI. All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Fish Creek Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°07.867′ N., 087°14.617′ W The first Saturday after July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: The first Sunday after July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (29) Fire over the Fox Fireworks Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River including the mouth of the East River from the railroad bridge in approximate position 44°31.467′ N., 088°00.633′ W. then southwest to the US 141 bridge in approximate position 44°31.102′ N., 088°00.963′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (30) Celebrate Americafest Ski Show Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River, including the mouth of the East River from the West Walnut Street Bridge in approximate position 44°30.912′ N., 088°01.100′ W., then northeast to an imaginary line running perpendicularly across the river through coordinate 44°31.337′ N., 088°00.640′ W July 4 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (31) Marinette Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks Marinette, WI. All waters of the Menominee River, in the vicinity of Stephenson Island, within the arc of a circle with a 900 foot radius from the fireworks launch site in center position 45°6.232′ N., 087°37.757′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (32) Evanston Fourth of July Fireworks Evanston, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of Centennial Park Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°02.933′ N., 087°40.350′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (33) Gary Air and Water Show Gary, IN. All waters of Lake Michigan bounded by a line drawn from 41°37.250′ N., 087°16.763′ W.; then east to 41°37.440′ N., 087°13.822′ W.; then north to 41°38.017′ N., 087°13.877′ W.; then southwest to 41°37.805′ N., 087°16.767′ W.; then south returning to the point of origin July 10 thru 14; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (34) Annual Trout Festival Fireworks Kewaunee, WI. All waters of Kewaunee Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°27.493′ N., 087°29.750′ W Friday of the second complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (35) Michigan City Summerfest Fireworks Michigan City, IN. All waters of Michigan City Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°43.700′ N., 086°54.617′ W Sunday of the second complete weekend of July; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (36) Port Washington Fish Day Fireworks Port Washington, WI. All waters of Port Washington Harbor and Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the WE Energies coal dock, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°23.117′ N., 087°51.900′ W The third Saturday of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (37) Bay View Lions Club South Shore Frolics Fireworks Milwaukee, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Milwaukee Harbor, in the vicinity of South Shore Yacht Club, within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 42°59.658′ N., 087°52.808′ W Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the second or third weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day. (38) Venetian Festival Fireworks St. Joseph, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the St. Joseph River, near the east end of the south pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°06.800′ N., 086°29.250′ W Saturday of the third complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (39) Joliet Waterway Daze Fireworks Joliet, IL. All waters of the Des Plaines River, at mile 287.5, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°31.250′ N., 088°05.283′ W Friday and Saturday of the third complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day. (40) EAA Airventure Oshkosh, WI. All waters of Lake Winnebago in the vicinity of Willow Harbor within an area bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: beginning at 43°56.822′ N., 088° 29.904′ W.; then north approximately 5100 feet to 43°57.653′ N., 088° 29.904′ W., then east approximately 2300 feet to 43°57.653′ N., 088° 29.374′ W.; then south to shore at 43°56.933′ N., 088°29.374′ W.; then southwest along the shoreline to 43°56.822′ N., 088°29.564′ W.; then west returning to the point of origin The last complete week of July, beginning Monday and ending Sunday; 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. each day. (41) Saugatuck Venetian Night Fireworks Saugatuck, MI. All waters of Kalamazoo Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 42°39.073′ N., 086°12.285′ W The last Saturday of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (42) Roma Lodge Italian Festival Fireworks Racine, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Racine Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°44.067′ N., 087°46.333′ W Friday and Saturday of the last complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (43) Chicago Venetian Night Fireworks Chicago, IL. All waters of Monroe Harbor and all waters of Lake Michigan bounded by a line drawn from 41°53.050′ N., 087°36.600′ W.; then east to 41°53.050′ N., 087°36.350′ W.; then south to 41°52.450′ N., 087°36.350′ W.; then west to 41°52.450′ N., 087°36.617′ W.; then north returning to the point of origin Saturday of the last weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (44) New Buffalo Business Association Fireworks New Buffalo, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and New Buffalo Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°48.153′ N., 086°44.823′ W July 3rd or July 5th; 9:30 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. (45) Start of the Chicago to Mackinac Race Chicago, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the Navy Pier at Chicago IL, within a rectangle that is approximately 1500 by 900 yards. The rectangle is bounded by the coordinates beginning at 41°53.252′ N., 087°35.430′ W.; then south to 41°52.812′ N., 087°35.430′ W.; then east to 41°52.817′ N., 087°34.433′ W.; then north to 41°53.250′ N., 087°34.433′ W.; then west, back to point of origin July 12; 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and July 13; 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (46) Fireworks at Pier Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI. All waters of Milwaukee Harbor, including Lakeshore Inlet and the marina at Pier Wisconsin, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site on Pier Wisconsin located in approximate position 43°02.178′ N., 087°53.625′ W Dates and times will be issued by Notice of Enforcement and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. (47) Gills Rock Fireworks Gills Rock, WI. All waters of Green Bay near Gills Rock WI within a 1000-foot radius of the launch vessel in approximate position at 45°17.470′ N., 087°01.728′ W July 4; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (48) City of Menominee 4th of July Celebration Fireworks Menominee, MI. All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Menominee Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from a center position at 45°06.417′ N., 087°36.024′ W July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (49) Miesfeld's Lakeshore Weekend Fireworks Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor within an 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located at the south pier in approximate position 43°44.917′ N., 087°41.967′ W July 26; 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. (50) Marinette Logging and Heritage Festival Fireworks Marinette, WI. All waters of the Menominee River, in the vicinity of Stephenson Island, within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 45°06.232′ N., 087°37.757′ W July 13; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (51) Summer in the City Water Ski Show Green Bay, WI. All waters of the Fox River in Green Bay, WI from the Main Street Bridge in position 44°31.089′ N., 088°00.904′ W.; then southwest to the Walnut Street Bridge in position 44°30.900′ N., 088°01.091′ W Each Wednesday of July through August; 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (52) Holiday Celebration Fireworks Kewaunee, WI. All waters of Kewaunee Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°27.481′ N., 087°29.735′ W July 4; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Rain date: July 5; 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (53) Independence Day Fireworks Wilmette, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan and the North Shore Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located at approximate center position 42°04.674′ N., 087°40.856′ W July 3; 8:30 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. (f) August Safety Zones (1) Michigan Super Boat Grand Prix Michigan City, IN. All waters of Lake Michigan bounded by a rectangle drawn from 41°43.655′ N., 086°54.550′ W.; then northeast to 41°44.808′ N., 086°51.293′ W., then northwest to 41°45.195′ N., 086°51.757′ W.; then southwest to 41°44.063′ N., 086°54.873′ W.; then southeast returning to the point of origin The first Sunday of August; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Rain date: The first Saturday of August; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (2) Milwaukee Air and Water Show Milwaukee, WI. All waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of McKinley Park located within an area that is approximately 4800 by 1250 yards. The area will be bounded by the points beginning at 43°02.450′ N., 087°52.850′ W.; then southeast to 43°02.230′ N., 087°52.061′ W.; then northeast to 43°04.543′ N., 087°50.801′ W.; then northwest to 43°04.757′ N., 087°51.512′ W.; then southwest returning to the point of origin July 31 thru August 4; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (3) Port Washington Maritime Heritage Festival Fireworks Port Washington, WI. All waters of Port Washington Harbor and Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the WE Energies coal dock, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°23.117′ N., 087°51.900′ W Saturday of the last complete weekend of July or the second weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (4) Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Fireworks Grand Haven, MI. All waters of the Grand River within the arc of a circle with a 600-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on the west bank of the Grand River in position 43°03.907′ N., 086°14.247′ W First weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (5) Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club Evening on the Bay Fireworks Sturgeon Bay, WI. All waters of Sturgeon Bay within the arc of a circle with a 280-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate position 44°49.310′ N., 087°21.370′ W The first Saturday of August; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. (6) Hammond Marina Venetian Night Fireworks Hammond, IN. All waters of Hammond Marina and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°41.883′ N., 087°30.717′ W The first Saturday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (7) North Point Marina Venetian Festival Fireworks Winthrop Harbor, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°28.917′ N., 087°47.933′ W The second Saturday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (8) Waterfront Festival Fireworks Menominee, MI. All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Menominee Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from a center position at 45°06.447′ N., 087°35.991′ W August 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (9) Ottawa Riverfest Fireworks Ottawa, IL. All waters of the Illinois River, at mile 239.7, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°20.483′ N., 088°51.333′ W The first Sunday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (10) Chicago Air and Water Show Chicago, IL. All waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Michigan and Chicago Harbor bounded by a line drawn from 41°55.900′ N. at the shoreline, then east to 41°55.900′ N., 087°37.200′ W., then southeast to 41°54.000′ N., 087°36.000′ W., then southwestward to the northeast corner of the Jardine Water Filtration Plant, then due west to the shore August 14 thru 18; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (11) Pentwater Homecoming Fireworks Pentwater, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and the Pentwater Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°46.942′ N., 086°26.633′ W Saturday following the second Thursday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (12) Chicago Match Cup Race Chicago, IL. All waters of Chicago Harbor in the vicinity of Navy Pier and the Chicago Harbor break wall bounded by coordinates beginning at 41°53.617′ N., 087°35.433′ W.; then south to 41°53.400′ N., 087°35.433′ W.; then west to 41°53.400′ N., 087°35.917′ W.; then north to 41°53.617′ N., 087°35.917′ W.; then back to point of origin August 6 thru 11; 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. (13) New Buffalo Ship and Shore Fireworks New Buffalo, MI. All waters of Lake Michigan and New Buffalo Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°48.150′ N., 086°44.817′ W August 10; 9:30 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. (14) Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show Sister Bay, WI. All waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of position 45°11.585′ N., 087°07.392′ W August 31; 1 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. (15) Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks Sister Bay, WI. All waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of the launch vessel in approximate position 45°11.585′ N., 087°07.392′ W August 31; 8:15 p.m. to 10 p.m. (16) Vessel Launch at Marinette Marine Marinette, WI. All waters of the Menominee River in the vicinity of Marinette Marine Corporation, from the Bridge Street Bridge located in position 45°06.188′ N., 087°37.583′ W., then approximately .95 NM south east to a line crossing the river perpendicularly passing through positions 45°05.881′ N., 087°36.281′ W., and 45°05.725′ N., 087°36.385′ W This zone will be enforced when a vessel is launched by issue of Notice of Enforcement and Marine Broadcast. (17) Fireworks Display Winnetka, IL. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from a center point barge located in approximate position 42°06.402′ N., 087°43.115′ W Third Saturday of August; 9:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (18) Algoma Shanty Days Fireworks Algoma, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Algoma Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in a center position of 44°36.400′ N., 087°25.900′ W Sunday of the second complete weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (g) September Safety Zones (1) ISAF Nations Cup Grand Final Fireworks Display Sheboygan, WI. All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, in the vicinity of the south pier in Sheboygan Wisconsin, within a 500 foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on land in position 43°44.917′ N., 087°41.850′ W September 13; 7:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. (h) November Safety Zones (1) Downtown Milwaukee Fireworks Milwaukee, WI. All waters of the Milwaukee River in the vicinity of the State Street Bridge within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from a center point fireworks launch site in approximate position 43°02.559′ N., 087°54.749′ W The third Thursday of November; 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. (2) Magnificent Mile Fireworks Display Chicago, IL. All waters and adjacent shoreline of the Chicago River bounded by the arc of the circle with a 210-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with its center in approximate position of 41°53.350′ N., 087°37.400′ W The third weekend in November; sunset to termination of display. (i) December Safety Zones (1) New Years Eve Fireworks Chicago, IL. All waters of Monroe Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate position 41°52.683′ N., 087°36.617′ W December 31; 11 p.m. to January 1 at 1 a.m. 1 All coordinates listed in Table 165.929 reference Datum NAD 1983. 2 As noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the enforcement dates and times for each of the listed safety zones are subject to change.
    Dated: January 30, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03184 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [GU122-NBK; FRL 9923-01-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Guam AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notice of administrative change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is completing the process begun in 2005 to revise the format of the “identification of plan” section in 40 CFR part 52 for the Guam State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically, the EPA is adding the nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures to the revised “identification of plan” section. The nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures affected by this format revision have been previously submitted by the Territory of Guam and approved by the EPA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on February 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory SIP materials are available for inspection at Air Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 94105-3901 and online at EPA Region IX's Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Gong, Rules Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3073, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Public Comments III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), each state is required to have a state implementation plan (SIP) which contains the control measures and strategies which will be used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms. The control measures and strategies must be formally adopted by each state after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them. They are then submitted to the EPA as SIP revisions on which the EPA must formally act.

    The SIP is a living document which can be revised by the state as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, the EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions which may contain new or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), the EPA approved, with certain exceptions, the initial SIPs for 50 states, four territories and the District of Columbia. Since 1972, each state and territory has submitted numerous SIP revisions, either on their own initiative, or because they were required to as a result of various amendments to the CAA. The EPA codifies its approvals and disapprovals of SIPs and SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 52 (“Approval and promulgation of implementation plans”).

    Within 40 CFR part 52, there are 58 subparts (subparts A through FFF). Subpart A contains general provisions and certain requirements applicable to all states and territories, while subparts B through DDD and FFF contain requirements that are specific to a given state or territory. Subpart EEE contains historical information pertaining to the EPA's actions on SIP material originally submitted by states to the National Air Pollution Control Administration, Department of Health Education and Welfare in 1970.

    Until 1997, the first or second section of each subpart within 40 CFR part 52 (other than subparts A and EEE) was called “identification of plan.” On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA established a new format for the “identification of plan” sections assigned to each subpart in 40 CFR part 52 (except A and EEE). With the new format, revised “identification of plan” sections contain five subsections: (a) Purpose and scope, (b) Incorporation by reference, (c) EPA approved regulations, (d) EPA approved source specific permits, and (e) EPA approved nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures. “Nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures” refers to such items as transportation control measures, certain statutory provisions, control strategies, and monitoring networks. In our May 1997 rule, we indicated that the EPA would begin to phase-in the new format on a state-by-state basis. Please see our May 1997 rule for more information concerning the revised format for SIPs.

    The Guam SIP is identified in subpart AAA (“Guam”) of part 52. As with other State SIPs, the EPA has taken a number of actions since 1972 with respect to the Guam SIP. In 2005, we revised the format of the “identification of plan” section in subpart AAA in accordance with the revised format described above. See 70 FR 20473 (April 20, 2005). In our 2005 final rule, we did not complete the process of revising the format for the “identification of plan” section in that we did not list the nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures portion of the Guam SIP, but we are doing so in today's action.

    II. Public Comments

    The EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation; and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply revises the codification of provisions that are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by clearly identifying the current nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures of the Guam SIP.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (II. Public Comments) section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 or 204 of UMRA.

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks.

    This rule does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public internet. Today's action simply reformats the codification of provisions that are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, the EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of February 18, 2015. 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).

    The EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Guam SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, the EPA sees no need to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this reformatting of portions of the “Identification of plan” section of 40 CFR 52.2670 for Guam.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 5, 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 AAA—Guam 2. Section 52.2670 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 52.2670 Identification of plan.

    (e) EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures.

    EPA Approved Guam Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    Implementation Plan for Compliance With the Ambient Air Quality Standards For Territory of Guam Section I: Public Hearing State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section II: Introduction State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section III: Legal authority State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section IV: Ambient air quality standards and air pollution control regulations State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. This is a narrative discussion only. The approved regulations are listed in the table in 40 CFR 52.2670(c). Section V: Emission inventory State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section VI: Air quality data State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section VII: Classification of Region State-wide 1/25/1972 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10842 Included as part of the original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(b). Section VIII: Control Strategy Subsection A (Control Strategy for Sulfur Oxides) State-wide 1/25/1972 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10842 Included as part of the original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(b). Territory of Guam NAP for SO2 Piti Nonattainment Area 6/30/1982 5/15/1984, 49 FR 20495 Narrative and Control Strategy portion of the Piti nonattainment plan, Addendum B, “Preliminary Results of SO2 Dispersion Modeling;” and “Official Report of Public Hearing.” The remaining portions of the addenda are for informational purposes only. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(5). Subsection B (Control Strategy for Particulate Matter) State-wide 1/25/1972 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10842 Included as part of the original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(b). Subsection B of Section VIII (Control Strategies), as submitted on August 14, 1973, was erroneously listed as approved in 40 CFR 52.2670(c)(1), now designated at 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). See list of disapproval actions at 43 FR 59066 (December 19, 1978) Subsection C (SET II Pollutants—Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Photochemical Oxidants, and Nitrogen Dioxide) State-wide 8/14/1973 12/19/1978, 43 FR 59066 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Letter from Paul H. Calvo, Guam EPA, to Kathleen M. Bennett, EPA, dated November 24, 1982 State-wide 11/24/1982 8/14/1985 50 FR 32697 Negative declaration indicating no Lead Sources in Guam. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(6). Section IX: Complex sources State-wide 8/14/1973 2/25/1974, 39 FR 7285 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section X: Air quality surveillance network State-wide 5/22/1984 1/22/1985, 50 FR 2820 Superseded previous version of Section 10 approved at October 19, 1978 (43 FR 48638). See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(5). Section XI: Emergency Episode System State-wide 1/25/1972 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10842 Included as part of the original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(b). Section XI: Source surveillance system State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section XIII: Review of New Source and Modifications State-wide 1/25/1972 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10842 Included as part of the original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(b). Section XIII: Compliance Schedule State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section XV. Resources State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Section XVI: Intergovernmental cooperation State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Appendix A: Notice and minutes of public hearing State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Appendix C: Public Law 11-191 State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. Enacted on December 7, 1972. Titled, “Guam Environmental Protection Agency Act.” See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Appendix F: Summary of air quality data State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Appendix G: Steam power plant parameters State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Appendix H: Diffusion model computer printout State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Appendix J: Minutes and letters of public hearing on compliance schedules State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1). Appendix K: Inventory data for 1973 State-wide 8/14/1973 10/19/1978, 43 FR 48638 Revision to original SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2673(c)(1).
    [FR Doc. 2015-03178 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406; FRL-9922-80-OAR] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze; Reconsideration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final action on reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 6, 2012, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule partially approving and partially disapproving a North Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing regional haze submitted by the Governor of North Dakota on March 3, 2010, along with North Dakota's SIP Supplement No. 1 submitted on July 27, 2010, and SIP Amendment No. 1 submitted on July 28, 2011. The Administrator subsequently received a petition requesting EPA to reconsider its approval of certain elements of North Dakota's regional haze SIP. Specifically, the petition raised several objections to EPA's approval of the State's best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limits for nitrogen oxides (NOX) for Milton R. Young Station (MRYS) Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station (LOS) Unit 2. On March 15, 2013, EPA announced its decision to reconsider its approval of the State's NOX BART limits for these facilities. In the same action, EPA proposed to affirm its prior approval of these elements of North Dakota's SIP. As a result of this reconsideration process, EPA has concluded that no changes are warranted to its 2012 approval of the NOX BART limits for these units.

    DATES:

    This final action is effective March 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 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 Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gail Fallon, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, (303) 312-6281, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Today's Action A. Issue for Which Reconsideration Was Granted B. Basis for Today's Final Action III. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses A. Comments on Technical Feasibility of SCR B. Comments on Emission Limits for SNCR C. Comments on Application of MRYS BACT Court Ruling to Other Units 1. Application of MRYS BACT to LOS Unit 2 2. Application of MRYS BACT to Coyote D. Comments on Visibility Benefits E. Comments on Legal Issues 1. BACT versus BART Determinations 2. Consideration of the Presumptive NOX BART Emissions Limit 3. Collateral Estoppel 4. EPA versus State Authority 5. Scope of Reconsideration Action F. Comments Generally in Favor of Our Proposal G. Comments Generally Against Our Proposal IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

    • The word Act or initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    • The initials ASOFA mean or refer to advanced separated overfire air.

    • The initials BACT mean or refer to best available control technology.

    • The initials BART mean or refer to best available retrofit technology.

    • The initials EPA or the words we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    • The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.

    • The initials LOS mean or refer to Leland Olds Station.

    • The initials MRYS mean or refer to Milton R. Young Station.

    • The initials NDDH mean or refer to the North Dakota Department of Health.

    • The words North Dakota and State mean the State of North Dakota unless the context indicates otherwise.

    • The initials NO X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

    • The initials NPS mean or refer to the National Park Service.

    • The initials NSR mean or refer to new source review.

    • The initials PRB mean or refer to the Powder River Basin.

    • The initials PSD mean or refer to prevention of signification deterioration.

    • The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic reduction.

    • The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    • The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic reduction.

    • The initials TIFI mean or refer to targeted in-furnace injection.

    I. Background

    On April 6, 2012, EPA published a final rule partially approving and partially disapproving a North Dakota SIP submittal addressing regional haze submitted by the Governor of North Dakota on March 3, 2010, along with North Dakota's SIP Supplement No. 1 submitted on July 27, 2010, and SIP Amendment No. 1 submitted on July 28, 2011.1 77 FR 20894. We gave the history of the North Dakota regional haze rulemaking process that preceded today's final action in the April 6, 2012 rule. 77 FR at 20895-20897. Following our April 6, 2012 final rule, the Administrator received petitions for reconsideration from North Dakota, Great River Energy (the owner of Coal Creek Station), and Earthjustice on behalf of environmental groups. Parallel lawsuits were also filed by these parties.

    1 Although in the April 6, 2012 final rule we characterized our action as being an approval of part of SIP Amendment No. 1, on further review EPA's position is that we acted on the entirety of SIP Amendment No. 1 in our April 2012 final rule. This submittal included regional haze plan revisions for Coyote Station, additions to SIP Appendix C.4 for MRYS, and documentation pertaining to the State's public participation process and consultation with the Federal Land Managers. The materials that North Dakota submitted for incorporation into Appendix C.4 constitute supporting documentation relevant to its NOX BACT determination for MRYS and related litigation. Therefore, EPA took the only appropriate action on Appendix C.4: to incorporate the provided information as supporting documentation relevant to the State's NOX BART determinations for MRYS and LOS.

    On March 15, 2013, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking initiating the reconsideration of our approval of the State's NOX BART determination and limits for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2. In that notice, we proposed to affirm our prior approval of the determination and limits. We did not grant reconsideration of, or request comment on, any other provisions of the final rule.

    Our action was prompted by a June 4, 2012 petition for reconsideration submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association and the Sierra Club. The petition requested that EPA reconsider its approval of the State's NOX BART determinations for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2. The petition asserted that the environmental groups were unable to raise their objections to EPA's reliance on a December 21, 2011 U.S. District Court decision 2 during the comment period because of the timing of that decision, and that their objections are of central relevance to EPA's final rule because EPA relied on the district court decision in explaining the basis for its final rule.

    2United States v. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D.N.D. 2012).

    Issues raised in the other two petitions for reconsideration from North Dakota and Great River Energy were addressed in a decision on the parallel lawsuits issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on September 23, 2013.3 The court set aside the issues raised in the Earthjustice lawsuit, pending EPA's action on the June 2012 petition for reconsideration.

    3North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2662 (2014). The court's ruling mostly upheld EPA's final decisions, including our disapproval for Coal Creek Station, but vacated our Coal Creek Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) on the grounds that we failed to consider existing controls. EPA remains obligated to promulgate a FIP or approve a SIP revision for Coal Creek.

    We requested comments on our March 15, 2013 proposed reconsideration and provided a two-month comment period, which closed on May 14, 2013. At the request of the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH), we provided a public hearing on May 15, 2013. To allow for a full 30-day public comment period for the submission of additional comments following the public hearing, we extended the comment period to June 17, 2013.

    We received a significant number of comments on our proposed reconsideration action. Many comments, primarily from state and city agencies, rural power cooperatives, and industrial facilities and groups, supported our proposed affirmation of our approval of the State's determinations for the units in question. Many comments from citizens and environmental groups were critical of our proposed action.

    In this action, we are responding to the timely comments we have received, taking final action on our reconsideration, and explaining the bases for our action. We did not consider and are not responding to any comments received after the close of the extended comment period on June 17, 2013. Our March 15, 2013 proposed rule provides additional background information on the December 21, 2011 district court decision and on our rationale for this reconsideration.

    II. Today's Action A. Issue for Which Reconsideration Was Granted

    EPA granted the petition to reconsider our approval of the State's NOX BART emission limits for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2. After reconsideration of these matters, we are finalizing our approval of the emission limits. We did not reconsider or request comment on any other provisions of our final rule issued on April 6, 2012, in which we partially approved and partially disapproved the North Dakota regional haze SIP.

    B. Basis for Today's Final Action

    We have fully considered all significant comments on our proposal and have concluded that no changes from our proposal are warranted. Our action is based on an evaluation of North Dakota's SIP submittals against the regional haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309 and Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 169A and 169B. All general SIP requirements contained in CAA section 110, other provisions of the CAA, and our regulations applicable to this action were also evaluated. The purpose of this action is to ensure compliance with these requirements. Our authority for action on North Dakota's SIP submittals is based on CAA section 110(k).

    As discussed in our rationale for our proposed decision to affirm our prior approval, two critical principles from our BART Guidelines are relevant to this situation. See 78 FR at 16454-16455. The first is that as part of a BART analysis, states may eliminate technically infeasible control options from further review. The second is that states generally may rely on a recent best available control technology (BACT) determination for a source for purposes of determining BART for that source.4 Considered in light of the facts of this matter, those principles support our decision to affirm our prior approval.

    4 Among other things, EPA's BART Guidelines, codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, describe a set of steps for determining BART. CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires that BART be determined pursuant to the BART Guidelines for power plants with a total generating capacity over 750 megawatts. With respect to other BART sources, the BART Guidelines reflect EPA's interpretations regarding certain key principles related to BART, including the two principles described in the text. For reference, the generating capacities for MRYS and LOS are 794 megawatts and 656 megawatts, respectively.

    Our BART Guidelines indicate that states may generally consider recent BACT determinations to be BART without further analysis. Here, as discussed below in more detail, the State's BART determinations were developed at approximately the same time as its BACT determination for one of the facilities, a decision which was upheld by a U.S. district court. Based on these facts, we consider it appropriate to approve the State's selection of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) plus advanced separated overfire air (ASOFA) controls as BART at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2.5 As we noted in our proposal, evaluations of technical feasibility often change over time. In the future, North Dakota may reach a different conclusion about the technical feasibility of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls at these plants as part of, for example, a reasonable progress analysis. The regional haze program requires additional reasonable progress reviews every ten years to ensure that states make progress toward the visibility goal of the CAA.6 Therefore, we expect that North Dakota will reassess the technical feasibility of SCR controls at these plants as part of a future reasonable progress analysis.

    5 The associated BART limits are 0.36 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 1, 0.35 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 2, and 0.35 lb/MMBtu for LOS Unit 2, on a 30-day rolling average basis. The SIP contains separate limits for MRYS Units 1 and 2 during startup of 2070.1 and 3995.6 pounds per hour, respectively, on a 24-hour rolling average basis. See SIP section 7.4.2, p. 74.

    6See 40 CFR 51.308(f) requirements for comprehensive periodic revisions of implementation plans for regional haze.

    III. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses A. Comments on Technical Feasibility of SCR

    We received numerous comments on our proposal regarding the technical feasibility of SCR for cyclone boilers burning North Dakota lignite. Many of the comments supported the conclusion that SCR is technically feasible for these types of boilers. Regardless of EPA's position regarding the technical feasibility of SCR for the units in question, the Minnkota Power court's ruling in our challenge to the State's BACT determination suggests that this is an issue on which reasonable minds may differ. Based on the terms of an April 24, 2006 consent decree settling an enforcement case for MRYS, if EPA disagreed with the State's BACT determination, EPA had the burden of demonstrating to the court that North Dakota's BACT determination was unreasonable. EPA did disagree with North Dakota's BACT determination and challenged that determination in federal district court. In its December 21, 2011 decision, however, the court concluded that EPA had not shown that North Dakota's determination was unreasonable. Because the criteria for determining the technical feasibility of a control technology are essentially identical for both BART and BACT, as discussed in our prior final rule at 77 FR 20897, we consider it appropriate to take the federal district court's ruling on that BACT determination into account in our assessment of North Dakota's regional haze SIP.

    In our review of a BART determination in a regional haze SIP, EPA's task is to determine whether the State acted reasonably and in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and our regulations. We have accordingly reviewed North Dakota's SIP based on the record before the State at the time of its decision to determine whether it acted reasonably in concluding that SCR is technically infeasible for MRYS and LOS. As noted above, the December 21, 2011 Minnkota Power ruling suggests that North Dakota was not clearly unreasonable in deciding that SCR could not be used on these units. This decision, along with the discussion in the BART Guidelines indicating that technically infeasible options may be eliminated and that states may generally rely on recent BACT determinations in making their BART decisions, forms the basis for our approval of North Dakota's BART determinations for these two facilities. Were EPA making the BART determination in the absence of the factors present here, we would not eliminate SCR from consideration based on technical infeasibility. Given the basis for our decision, however, we do not consider comments regarding the technical feasibility of SCR to be relevant to our decision regarding the reasonableness of North Dakota's BART determination. Therefore, we generally are not summarizing or responding to these comments. However, we are responding to comments that may be relevant to other aspects of this action.

    Comment: Environmental groups commented that EPA should consider SCR's technical feasibility in light of more recent developments such as the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) research and operating experience gained with Texas lignite. The EPRI research described by the commenters relates to work simulating catalyst fouling using chemical kinetic modeling. Preliminary results from this research were presented at conferences in 2012 and 2013. The commenters also noted that SCR has been successfully used at Oak Grove Units 1 and 2 and Sandow Unit 4, which burn Texas lignite. While there was very little experience with SCR at the Texas plants at the time of North Dakota's BACT determination for MRYS, the commenters note that the technology has now been in operation for about three years at the Texas plants, exceeding the catalyst's guaranteed lifetime. The Texas plants' catalyst was supplied by Johnson Matthey Catalysts, the same company that (after the State's BART determination) offered to guarantee SCR on North Dakota lignite with standard industry performance and lifetime catalyst guarantees.7 Commenters point to EPA's BART Guidelines to assert that “technical feasibility changes over time as technologies evolve,” and that EPA therefore cannot rely on the Minnkota Power decision given more recent technological developments.

    7 February 27, 2012 letter from Ken Jeffers, Johnson Matthey to Callie Videtich, EPA Region 8. See docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0322.

    Response: We do not agree that EPA should take these recent developments into account at this late date. In this matter the BACT and BART determinations by the state occurred relatively close to each other in time: North Dakota's regional haze public comment period closed in January 2010, while the BACT determination was finalized in November 2010, and North Dakota's public comment period on its SIP Amendment No. 1 ended on March 12, 2011. Therefore, the State could reasonably assert that at the time of its BART determination, no material new technologies would have arisen since its BACT determination. Similarly, our review of the BART determination was made at close to the same time that the district court reached its decision, on much the same record. And while (as noted elsewhere in this notice) we do not view the Minnkota Power decision as binding or determinative, we do view it as relevant to our consideration of this matter.

    It is true that the EPA generally has discretion, in its CAA rulemaking decisions, to take advantage of the greater knowledge that may result from receiving additional information. See Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 185 (6th Cir. 1986) (“At no time should an agency be estopped from using its increased expertise.”). But EPA also has the legal responsibility to complete CAA actions without unreasonable delay. See CAA section 304(a). Here, the developments cited by the commenters occurred after the state's BACT and regional haze decision processes, and for the most part after the Minnkota decision as well. As a general matter, the Agency does not consider it appropriate to perpetually restart the BART rulemaking process to consider late-breaking technological developments, or else we would seldom be able to finalize an action.

    Accordingly, under the facts present here, and in light of the district court's Minnkota decision, in our judgment there is no need to alter our decision in light of these recent developments.

    Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should consider a performance guarantee for SCR catalysts on units burning North Dakota lignite provided by Johnson Matthey Catalysts, LLC. Commenters argued that since the district court relied heavily on the absence of vendor guarantees in upholding the State's determination of technical infeasibility, EPA cannot rely on the court's reasoning since a guarantee is now available.

    Response: Regardless of EPA's position on the technical feasibility of SCR for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2, we acknowledge that throughout the development of the BACT and BART determinations for these units, other parties contested the feasibility of SCR on these high-temperature cyclone boiler units burning high-sodium North Dakota lignite. The State gave great weight to the fact that it did not receive any catalyst vendor guarantees. As noted by commenters on our reconsideration action, however, no catalyst vendors have stated that SCR would be technically infeasible at these units,8 and one (Johnson Matthey Catalysts, LLC) would offer “SCR catalyst designs with reasonable operating lifetime performance guarantees for service in a low-dust or tail-end SCR configuration” 9 absent additional field testing. Most of this information, with the exception of the Johnson Matthey offer, was in the BACT record and thus was before the court at the time of the December 21, 2011 court decision. And while the Johnson Mathey offer is interesting, it is hardly decisive. Considering the abundance of information that was already in the BACT record in December 2011, it is unlikely that the court would have reached a different conclusion based only on the addition of the Johnson Matthey offer, particularly in light of the fact that two other equally reputable vendors would not provide guarantees. As noted in our BART Guidelines, “we do not consider a vendor guarantee alone to be sufficient justification that a control option will work.” Id. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D, step 2.

    8 Two companies, Haldor Topsoe, Inc. and CERAM Environmental, Inc. would require pilot-scale testing in order to offer any guarantee regarding SCR catalyst life. See SIP Appendix C.4 (EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0013, pdf pp. 388 and p. 392), January 13, 2010 letter from Wayne Jones to Robert Blakley, and January 13, 2010 email from Noel Rosha, CERAM to Robert Blakley. Another vendor, Alstom Power, stated that despite many challenges a properly designed system fueled by North Dakota lignite could employ SCR. See SIP Appendix C.4 (EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0011, pdf p. 159), May 30, 2007 letter from Michael G. Phillips, Alstom, to Robert Blakley, Burns and McDonnell. In our view this statement was so overlaid with conditions and qualifications that it was not unreasonable for the State to choose not to rely on it.

    9 The Johnson Matthey offer came after the close of the State's comment period and thus was not available to the State when it made its BACT and BART decisions.

    Accordingly, based on the unique circumstances here, and taking into consideration the district court's decision, we are affirming our approval of the State's MRYS and LOS BART decisions, which are based on a recent BACT decision. In finalizing our approval, we note that North Dakota provided an explanation for its conclusions that a federal court found reasonable. We will continue to foster efforts among the interested parties for additional testing to resolve any outstanding uncertainty regarding the feasibility of SCR technology for these units. In a December 20, 2011 letter,10 North Dakota expressed openness to continuing discussions with EPA concerning further testing and evaluation of SCR technology involving North Dakota lignite coal. Such testing in the field would analyze the technical feasibility of SCR for North Dakota lignite at these cyclone units in a low-dust or tail-end configuration. The existing installation of SNCR should not preclude such efforts. We acknowledge that in a subsequent letter on July 18, 2014, North Dakota stated that based on the Minnkota Power ruling it no longer believes testing is a reasonable approach. However, technological advances elsewhere may yet provide compelling information to drive further testing on North Dakota lignite or negate the need for such testing. As noted above, we expect that North Dakota will reassess the technical feasibility of SCR controls at these plants as part of a future reasonable progress analysis.

    10See docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0364.

    B. Comments on Emission Limits for SNCR

    Comment: Commenters stated that MRYS and LOS can achieve more stringent emission limits with SNCR and ASOFA than those approved by EPA. The commenters assert that, in combination with SNCR and ASOFA, technologies currently in use at MRYS and LOS, namely CyClean and Targeted In-Furnace Injection (TIFI) technology, respectively, allow these units to achieve emission limits much lower than the BART emission limit previously approved by EPA. The commenters also suggested that PerNOxide 11 and hybrid SCR-SNCR are other feasible technology options that should be considered to improve on the performance of NOX emissions controls at MRYS and LOS. Commenters assert that if EPA had a valid basis for rejecting conventional SCR as BART, it would have to consider the emission reductions that SNCR can achieve in conjunction with other cost-effective controls.

    11 PerNOxide is a technology involving a two-step process. Hydrogen peroxide is injected between the economizer and air preheater to oxidize nitrogen oxide in flue gas to nitrogen dioxide and higher-order oxides. These oxides are then removed in downstream wet scrubbers, such as those installed on MRYS and LOS. See docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0415, attachment 3, Technical Comments of Bill Powers, P.E. 2013-06-17, p. 30.

    Response: CyClean and TIFI were not identified as technically feasible NOX control options in the State's SIP. Nor were they the subject of comments during EPA's review, and ultimate approval, of the BART determinations for MRYS and LOS. As detailed above in response to another comment, EPA is assessing the reasonableness of the State's determination based on the record before the State at the time. Accordingly, we do not find that a review of these technologies is appropriate for this reconsideration action. Moreover, we note that these technologies are intended primarily to provide operational benefits, such as improved efficiency and reduced slagging and fouling, and that NOX emissions reductions are only sometimes a co-benefit of these operational changes. In particular, there is some question whether CyClean at MRYS is consistently effective in reducing NOx emissions.12

    12 Prairie Public News, Minnkota says new method of reducing emissions `promising,' Dave Thompson, August 12, 2013. http://news.prairiepublic.org/post/minnkota-says-new-method-reducing-emissions-promising.

    Furthermore, as the commenters point out, PerNOxide was not commercially available at the time of the BACT or BART determinations. It would therefore not be reasonable for EPA to now disapprove the SIP in this reconsideration on the basis that the State did not select the PerNOxide technology. It may, however, be appropriate for North Dakota to consider this technology in the next planning period as a reasonable progress measure.

    Regarding hybrid SCR-SNCR, this technology too was not previously identified, and so its review is not appropriate for this reconsideration action. Even so, there is no evidence that the technical feasibility of hybrid SCR-SNCR in relation to catalyst poisons would be any greater than that of conventional SCR. This is particularly true because in the hybrid system, in order to take advantage of the ammonia slip from the SNCR, the in-duct SCR is located in the high-dust position, where it is most vulnerable to catalyst poisoning. We also note that the installation of the SCR-SNCR technology is rare, and we are not aware of any cyclone boilers that are currently employing this technology.

    C. Comments on Application of MRYS BACT Court Ruling to Other Units 1. Application of MRYS BACT to LOS Unit 2

    Comment: Commenters argued that the BACT limits for MRYS units should not apply to LOS Unit 2. The commenters highlighted their disagreement with EPA's position as stated in the final rule, “it [LOS] is the same type of boiler burning North Dakota lignite coal [as MRYS], and North Dakota's views regarding technical infeasibility that the U.S. district court upheld in the MRYS BACT case apply to it as well.” 78 FR 16455. The commenters contended that EPA cannot rely on the BACT determination for MRYS to determine BART for LOS Unit 2 given critical differences between the two facilities. The commenters claimed that these critical differences include the facts that LOS Unit 2 co-fires Powder River Basin (PRB) coal and lignite coal with lesser amounts of alleged SCR catalyst poisons; has been increasing the amount of PRB coal that it fires over time; can be modified to fire even greater quantities of PRB coal, up to 100%, completely eliminating the lignite fuel quality claims; and, unlike MRYS, is equipped with TIFI to reduce slagging and NOX emissions.

    Response: EPA disagrees that there are critical differences between the units in question at MRYS and LOS that would have a material bearing on the technical feasibility of SCR. These units have much in common. They are of the same design (cyclone firing) and similar size (in particular, MRYS Unit 2 at 517 MW and LOS Unit 2 at 440 MW). MRYS and LOS both burn primarily North Dakota lignite coal, which produces ash high in catalyst poisons (principally, sodium and potassium oxides). While MRYS burns lignite coal from the Center Mine, and LOS burns lignite coal from the Freedom Mine, these mines are located within about 40 miles of one another and produce lignite coals of similar quality.

    Regarding catalyst poisons, the commenters cited average amounts of sodium and potassium oxides in the MRYS ash of 5.6% and 1.0%, respectively.13 Similarly, the commenters cited average amounts of sodium and potassium oxides in the LOS ash of 2.94% and 0.73%, respectively.14 However, the sodium and potassium oxides amounts in the LOS ash given in the State's SIP, 7.55% and 1.20%, respectively,15 are higher than that suggested by the commenters, and even higher than that for MRYS, thus undermining the commenters' argument that there is a critical difference in the amount of catalyst poisons involved.

    13 North Dakota Department of Health, Preliminary Best Available Control Technology Determination for Control of Nitrogen Oxides for M.R. Young Station Units 1 and 2, Table 1, page 18, June 2008, SIP Amendment No. 1. See docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0039.

    14 Les Allery et al., Demonstrated Performance Improvements on Large Lignite-Fired Boiler with Targeted In-Furnace Injection Technology at 7, presented at COAL-GEN 2010, Aug. 10-12, 2010, Pittsburg, PA, available at http://www.ftek.com/media/en-US/pdfs/TPP-592.pdf. See docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0419, attachment 6.

    15 SIP, Appendix C.1, BART Determination Study for Leland Olds Station Unit 1 and 2, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Final Draft, Table 1.2-2—Coal Parameters, p. 8.

    On the matter of the ability of LOS to co-fire PRB sub-bituminous coal, though PRB coal does contain lesser amounts of catalyst poisons, there is no evidence that it has been, or will be, fired in quantities significant enough to alter North Dakota's determination of the feasibility of SCR at LOS. As noted in comments submitted by NDDH, the amount of PRB coal fired at LOS averaged 11.3% between 2003 and 2012, with a minimum of 6.5% in 2004 and a maximum of 16.5% in 2005. These levels of PRB coal would only marginally lower the amount of catalyst poisons in the fuel fired at LOS. Also, when considering this ten-year history, there is no indication that the percentage of PRB coal burned at LOS is trending upward. Indeed, the highest proportion of PRB coal burned at LOS occurred in 2005. In addition, because MRYS and LOS are of similar design, there is no reason to conclude that the ability to co-fire PRB coal is wholly unique to LOS. That is, the ability of LOS to burn PRB coal does not present a critical difference between the units.

    Finally, the commenters have not established how the application of TIFI is pertinent in relation to SCR feasibility. The commenters do not present any evidence regarding how TIFI may affect the amount of catalyst poisons in the ash, or any other parameter, that relates to SCR feasibility.

    In short, the commenters have not identified any critical differences between the coal fired at LOS and that fired at MRYS as it pertains to the technical feasibility of SCR as assessed by the State. To the extent that differences do exist, the commenters have not shown that these differences are extensive enough to alter the assessment of SCR feasibility at LOS. If, as found by the district court, it was reasonable for the State to conclude that catalyst poisons in the ash at MRYS cause SCR to be technically infeasible, then undoubtedly the same reasoning extends to LOS, where the State's SIP record indicates that even higher amounts of poisons were present.

    2. Application of MRYS BACT to Coyote

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should conduct additional evaluation of NOX emissions for Coyote Station. The commenter noted that because Coyote is equipped with a lime spray dryer and fabric filter, even fewer fine aerosol particles, including sodium fumes, would be emitted into a potential tail-end SCR, and the potential for catalyst poisoning would be even less than for LOS and MRYS. The commenter argued that EPA based its conclusion in favor of approving the State's selection of only SNCR for Coyote on the incorrect premise that Coyote is so similar to LOS and MRYS that the BACT decision for MRYS supersedes a determination of what appropriate controls would be under the reasonable progress provisions of the regional haze rule.

    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this reconsideration action, as it pertains to a facility other than MRYS or LOS.

    D. Comments on Visibility Benefits

    Comment: We received several comments discussing the greater visibility benefit of SCR compared to SNCR and asserting that this justified disapproving the State's BART determinations for SNCR at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2.

    Response: As noted in other responses, technical comments addressing the merits of SCR over SNCR are essentially irrelevant since we are basing our decision on the fact that the State's BART determination is supported by its BACT determination for MRYS, and on our view that it is appropriate to consider a federal court's ruling on our challenge to the State's BACT determination. We nonetheless agree with commenters that SCR is a more effective control technology for achieving visibility benefit, and we also acknowledge that in conducting modeling according to its visibility modeling protocol, North Dakota considered the visibility benefit of SCR in an incorrect manner.16 However, as clarified by the State's comments submitted for this reconsideration action,17 the State's BART determination was based on its recent BACT decision for MRYS and its conclusions that SCR is not technically feasible due to unique design characteristics at these units. The State rejected SCR on technical feasibility grounds rather than on the degree of visibility improvement, making North Dakota's erroneous visibility benefit analysis irrelevant. In any case, because technically infeasible control options are eliminated from further analysis in the BART determination process, any consideration of the visibility benefits of SCR is precluded.

    16 North Dakota also conducted modeling according to the BART Guidelines, which provides the visibility benefit information that EPA used in our original proposal analyses.

    17See docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0418.

    Comment: The National Park Service (NPS) noted that EPA only discussed visibility impacts and improvements at Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Dakota) in the BART analyses and should have also included two other Class I areas, Medicine Lake Wilderness (Montana) and Lostwood Wilderness Area (North Dakota), as these areas are also within 300 km of MRYS and LOS. The NPS stated that it was impossible to determine whether or how EPA considered impacts at the other two Class I areas, and that it is appropriate to consider both the degree of visibility improvement in a given Class I area as well as the cumulative effects of improving visibility across all of the Class I areas affected. The NPS also noted that EPA did not mention the visibility impacts at Medicine Lake in either the Federal Register notice or in the Technical Support Document.

    Response: The commenter's concern is immaterial in this instance. The technical feasibility review precedes the analysis of visibility impacts in the review process. Since our reconsideration action applies only to MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2, where the State selected what it determined to be the most stringent technically feasible control option,18 per the BART Guidelines, we do not reach the issue of visibility impacts.

    18 Since SCR is eliminated from consideration based on technical infeasibility, SNCR becomes the most stringent technically feasible control option.

    E. Comments on Legal Issues 1. BACT Versus BART Determinations

    Comment: One commenter supporting our proposal stated that it would be incongruous to make BART more stringent than BACT at the same facility. The commenter went on to assert that the procedures set forth in the New Source Review (NSR) Manual and BART Guidelines result in BART determinations that are less stringent than BACT. The commenter noted that unlike the NSR Manual, the BART Guidelines do not call for a top-down analysis. Therefore, according to the commenter, in its BART analysis North Dakota is not required to select the most effective control technology that has not been eliminated. Instead, North Dakota has “discretion to determine the order in which [it] should evaluate control options for BART,” and must provide a justification for the technology it selects as “best.” 40 CFR 51, appendix Y, section IV.E.2. The commenter believes that because North Dakota has discretion to select something other than the technology that achieves the greatest reduction in emissions, and can forego a control technology based on a lack of visibility improvement, BART controls are less stringent than BACT controls.

    Another commenter challenging our proposal stated that a BACT decision, which does not consider the degree of visibility improvement, cannot substitute for BART.

    Response: We acknowledge that in many instances BACT determinations will be more stringent than BART determinations, or identical to them. However, there are exceptions. First, the timing of the determinations, particularly in regard to when a control technology becomes commercially available, may yield different BART and BACT determinations. Secondly, the degree of visibility improvement, a factor considered under BART but not BACT, might result in different determinations.

    We disagree in this particular situation that the predicted visibility benefits attributable to SCR at MRYS and LOS were small enough, as a sole consideration, to have justified the selection of SNCR over SCR. The State's own modeling identified greater visibility benefits when comparing SCR over SNCR of more than 0.5 deciviews per unit at the highest impacted Class I area, Theodore Roosevelt National Park. However, taking into consideration the December 21, 2011 court decision, in addition to the information the State submitted in SIP Amendment No. 1 and the State's comments on our reconsideration action, we view the State's BART determinations as a rejection of SCR on grounds of technical feasibility rather than low visibility benefits. Accordingly, the visibility factor in the BART analysis does not affect the outcome here.19

    19 In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

    Comment: One commenter noted that the BART Guidelines do not automatically authorize reliance on a BACT limit. The commenter stated that where there is any indication that the BACT limit is outdated or does not reflect the best available controls, it cannot substitute for BART. It is uncontested that SCR has the highest control efficiency of all control options. Thus, the commenter argued that SCR is indisputably the best, most stringent control, and EPA cannot settle for less under the CAA or the implementing BART Guidelines.

    Response: As discussed previously, EPA agrees that BART analyses should not rely on outdated determinations reached under other CAA standards, but we also do not consider it appropriate to perpetually restart the BART rulemaking process to consider late-breaking technological developments. Here, the State could reasonably assert that at the time of its BART determination, no material new technologies would have arisen since its BACT determination. In light of the Minnkota Power court's finding that the state reached a reasonable conclusion, the Agency does not believe it appropriate to disregard the BACT determination and require SCR.

    Comment: One commenter argued that the court never addressed the question of whether EPA's own BACT analysis was itself reasonable, let alone more persuasive than North Dakota's conclusions regarding feasibility. The commenter stated that similarly, the court did not consider many of EPA's reasons for concluding that SCR is a feasible technology that should be designated as BART. Nor did the court address EPA's view that vendor willingness or unwillingness to provide a catalyst life guarantee had no relation to whether SCR was commercially available or feasible but rather related to the cost of using SCR according to the commenter.

    Response: Giving appropriate consideration to the district court's decision does not depend on whether the court addressed every potential argument that EPA made or could have made based on the record of that case. Minnkota Power remains a final decision of a federal court with jurisdiction over the subject matter before it, a ruling that addressed issues relevant to this action. Further, as discussed above, EPA finds it appropriate to look to North Dakota's recent BACT determination as indicative of the appropriate BART outcome in this matter.

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's BART determination is entitled to deference and evaluated under a different standard of review than that applicable to the district court in the Minnkota Power case. The commenter noted that EPA is not bound by Minnkota Power given EPA's authority when making BART determinations under a FIP, or ensuring that a state's submission complies with the CAA, and the deference given to those decisions. While the definition of technical feasibility is substantially the same for the BACT and BART programs, the legal standard that governed the district court's review of North Dakota's BACT decision is not the same legal standard that applies to review of EPA's decision in promulgating a FIP or reviewing the adequacy of a state regional haze plan, such that the district court decision cannot govern here according to the commenter.

    Response: EPA does not view Minnkota Power as directly governing the outcome of this matter, but the Agency has taken into consideration this federal court ruling in assessing North Dakota's BART determinations for MRYS and LOS. In reviewing the State's determinations, EPA considered whether North Dakota acted reasonably. The decision in Minnkota Power was one factor EPA took into account in deciding not to disapprove North Dakota's SIP. As noted above, this was not the only factor. EPA also took into account the BART Guidelines and North Dakota's contemporaneous BACT determination. We agree that different legal standards govern the district court's review of North Dakota's BACT determination and EPA's review of its decision regarding the adequacy of the SIP.

    2. Consideration of the Presumptive NOX BART Emissions Limit

    Comment: Commenters stated that the BACT determination does not fulfill BART requirements for either MRYS or LOS since it contains an emissions limit higher than presumptive BART, and EPA has not conducted a five-factor BART analysis justifying an emission limit above presumptive BART. The BART Guidelines provide that presumptive BART for all lignite-fired cyclone boilers is a NOX emissions limit of 0.10 lb/MMBtu, based upon the installation of SCR control technology. 40 CFR 51, appendix Y, section IV.E.5. The commenters note that EPA specifically evaluated the use of SCR on both MRYS and LOS in determining the presumptive NOX BART level and found it feasible and cost effective.20 The commenters argued that EPA has not refuted the presumptive determination in this case.

    20See EPA, Technical Support Document: Methodology for Developing BART NOX Presumptive Limits (June 15, 2005), docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0092; Technical Support Document for BART NOX Limits for Electric Generating Units Excel Spreadsheet (June 15, 2005), docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0446.

    Response: We disagree with the commenters. EPA is reaffirming our approval of three BART determinations that included five-factor analyses conducted by the State of North Dakota for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2. Thus, it was not necessary for EPA to conduct its own five-factor analyses or to refute the EPA analysis done in 2005 in support of the development of the NOX presumptive limits. The emissions limits for SNCR in the State's analyses were based on a careful consideration of the statutory factors. While EPA did not agree with all aspects of the State's analyses, the deciding factor was that of technical feasibility. As discussed in the “Basis for Today's Final Action” section above, there are two principles from our BART Guidelines that are relevant to this situation. The first is that as part of a BART analysis, states may eliminate technically infeasible control options from further review. The second is that states generally may rely on a recent BACT determination for a source for purposes of determining BART for that source. North Dakota's BART determination for MRYS was developed at approximately the same time as its BACT determination for this facility, and was upheld by a U.S. district court. EPA finds it appropriate to approve the emissions limits for SNCR (above the presumptive emissions limits of 0.10 lb/MMBtu for lignite-fired cyclone boilers, based upon installation of SCR control technology) predicated on the State's analyses and its determination that SCR is eliminated from consideration based upon grounds of technical infeasibility.

    Comment: Commenters stated that EPA did not consider non-air quality benefits in rejecting a presumptive NOX BART limit of 0.10 lb/MMBtu or lower, which is based on installation of SCR for cyclone boilers. The commenters noted that impacts are much more severe with SNCR than SCR as much more ammonia is used and released. The commenters list non-air-quality impacts regarding transportation, storage and use of ammonia including safety concerns, and potential fly ash contamination in addition to potential visibility impacts of emissions of unreacted ammonia (“ammonia slip”) that offset the claimed visibility improvement by SNCR compared to SCR.

    Response: We disagree with the commenters. They asserted that the ammonia slip from SNCR would be greater than from SCR, but this difference is not pertinent because SCR was eliminated from consideration based on technical infeasibility. (As discussed in our responses elsewhere, in approving BART determinations that are above the presumptive limit at MRYS and LOS, EPA has taken into consideration North Dakota's five-factor analyses, the State's reliance on a recent BACT determination, and a federal court ruling that addressed issues relevant to this action.) The commenters did not assert that SNCR should be eliminated from consideration based on ammonia slip. With SCR an unavailable option, SNCR is the most stringent technically feasible control option, and a comparison of the non-air-quality impacts between the eliminated technology (SCR) and the remaining most stringent technology (SNCR) is immaterial.

    3. Collateral Estoppel

    Comment: Commenters expressed differing opinions on whether collateral estoppel binds EPA to the Minnkota Power decision. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, provides that “once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.” Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. Trans States Airlines, 638 F.3d 572, 579 (8th Cir. 2011) (citations and punctuation omitted); see also Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 (1979).

    Response: Collateral estoppel does not govern EPA's decision in this matter. The district court in Minnkota Power decided the case under a standard of review outlined in a consent decree that settled an enforcement matter. Under the standard derived from the enforcement consent decree, EPA had the burden of proving that the State's BACT determination was unreasonable. On the other hand, when courts review EPA action on a state's BART determination, an altogether different standard applies: courts defer to EPA's technical expertise, and the petitioning party must show that EPA's action was arbitrary and capricious. Thus, because EPA had a much higher burden of proof in the district court than it would have on review of a SIP approval, collateral estoppel does not apply here. “Failure of one party to carry the burden of persuasion on an issue should not establish the issue in favor of an adversary who otherwise would have the burden of persuasion on that issue in later litigation.” 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4422 at 592 (2002), quoted in Cobb v. Pozzi, 352 F.3d 79, 101-102 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2003).

    As to LOS Unit 2, an additional reason that EPA is not collaterally estopped with respect to this action is that Minnkota Power only involved MRYS, not LOS. Because the case did not specifically address the latter station, collateral estoppel cannot be invoked with respect to it. For these reasons, the Agency's decision in this proceeding is not constrained by the district court's Minnkota Power decision. That is not to say, however, that the district court's decision is irrelevant. Minnkota Power remains a final decision of a federal court with jurisdiction over the subject matter before it, a ruling that addressed some issues relevant to this action. EPA has reviewed and considered the court's opinion, and views it as relevant to but not decisive of the questions presented in this matter.

    Finally, although EPA does not agree that collateral estoppel applies here, our final action is the same as if we had accepted as persuasive the comments asserting that it does.

    4. EPA Versus State Authority

    Comment: Several commenters in supporting our proposal highlighted that in approving the State's BART determinations, EPA appropriately respected the State of North Dakota's statutory role in establishing BART limits and implied that EPA lacked authority to pursue another course.

    Response: Courts have rejected state primacy arguments in several rulings that have occurred since the close of EPA's public comment period for this action. EPA's role in regional haze planning includes examining the rationale for and the reasonableness of states' underlying decisions.

    5. Scope of Reconsideration Action

    Comment: One commenter stated that there was no need to grant petitioners an opportunity to comment on the Minnkota Power ruling because EPA had no choice but to follow it.

    Response: We disagree that EPA had no choice but to follow the Minnkota Power ruling. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA prohibits a party from seeking judicial review of objections to a rule that were not raised with reasonable specificity during the comment period. The CAA provides a two-part exception to this general ban on judicial review of newly raised objections. The EPA Administrator must convene a reconsideration proceeding if the petitioner can demonstrate that:

    1. It was impracticable to raise such an objection during the comment period or the information became available after the period for public comment; and

    2. The objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.

    The significant consideration that EPA has given to the district court decision, which was made 30 days after the close of our public comment period, meets the criteria for convening a reconsideration proceeding.

    Further, the premise of the comment is incorrect. The comment is built on an assertion that EPA had “no choice” but to follow the Minnkota Power holding. For the Agency to have no choice, either collateral estoppel or res judicata would have to apply. Neither doctrine does. The district court in Minnkota Power decided the case under a standard of review outlined in a consent decree that settled an enforcement matter. There is no possibility of res judicata, because EPA's regional haze rulemaking action was not before the court for decision. And as described above, EPA's action in this proceeding is not constrained by collateral estoppel based on Minnkota Power. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that the Minnkota Power decision left EPA “no choice” with respect to this rulemaking action.

    Comment: One commenter stated that issues involving the technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, and visibility impact of potential control technologies are beyond the scope of this reconsideration action.

    Response: EPA initiated the reconsideration of our final rule based on our approval of the State's NOX BART determination and limits for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2. At the time of our proposed reconsideration, to allow for broad public comment, we decided not to limit the relevant scope of comments, other than requiring that they address one or more of these units.

    F. Comments Generally in Favor of Our Proposal

    Comment: We received more than 1,200 comment letters in support of our rulemaking from concerned citizens and members representing rural power cooperatives. These comments were received at the public hearings in Bismarck, North Dakota, by internet, and through the mail. Each of these commenters was generally in favor of our proposed decision to approve North Dakota's NOX BART determinations for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2. These comments generally stated that SCR is an unproven technology for these type of units and would not noticeably improve visibility. They also expressed concern about increasing electricity costs.

    Response: We acknowledge these general comments that supported our proposed action. While we disagree with some of the commenters' reasoning on the points of technical feasibility, visibility benefits, and cost, these points are largely no longer relevant, because we have decided to finalize our approval of North Dakota's NOX BART determinations for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2 on grounds explained elsewhere.

    G. Comments Generally Against Our Proposal

    Comment: We received over 650 comment letters that urged us to require SCR at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2 based on our original rigorous technical analyses that showed SCR was cost effective and a commonly used technology with more than 400 plants using the technology in the United States. Commenters stated that SCR technology would reduce pollution by 90% at these plants. Some commenters generally requested that EPA lower the emission limits for LOS Unit 1. Some commenters also generally discussed health effects and health costs related to regional haze pollutants. Some commenters also stated that rapid oil and gas development makes it more critical to install the best pollution controls at these plants.

    Response: Because we have decided to finalize our approval of North Dakota's NOX BART determinations for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2 on the grounds explained elsewhere in this document, it would not be appropriate to require SCR solely based on our original technical analyses.

    We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the negative health impacts of pollutants that contribute to regional haze. We agree that these pollutants can have effects on human health, but such effects are not taken into account in setting BART limits under the regional haze program. The next phase of the regional haze program will, as appropriate, lead to further emission reductions.

    Regarding the commenters' concerns about rapid oil and gas development in North Dakota, while that is beyond the scope of this reconsideration action, EPA will be closely reviewing North Dakota's plans in future planning periods regarding potential impacts from oil and gas development as well as other anthropogenic emissions on regional haze.

    Finally, emission limits at LOS Unit 1 are outside the scope of this reconsideration action; we only reconsidered the NOX BART determinations for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. In this reconsideration, EPA is affirming its prior approval of North Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This action is not imposing any additional burden on the public.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory and Flexibility Act. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. In this reconsideration, EPA is affirming its prior approval of North Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota. The action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because it does not impose substantial direct compliance costs and does not preempt tribal law. In this reconsideration, EPA is affirming its prior approval of North Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota. The action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

    F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it affirms a prior approval of a state action implementing a federal standard.

    G. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

    I. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. In this reconsideration, EPA is affirming its prior approval of North Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota which increase environmental protection for the general population. The action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. This regulatory option was selected as the preferable regulatory option for the reasons summarized in section II.B of this action. EPA provided meaningful participation opportunities for minority, low-income or indigenous populations or tribes in the development of this rule by conducting a public hearing on May 15, 2013 and by providing a three-month public comment period as described in section I of this action.

    As part of this environmental justice assessment, EPA also reviewed 2013 U.S. Census Bureau data for Mercer and Oliver counties 21 where the two sources involved in this reconsideration action are located. Both counties have small minority populations with the white, non-minority populations comprising over 95% of the whole. Both counties are also below the 2013 national official poverty rate of 14.5% and the Midwest poverty rate of 12.9%.22 The 2013 poverty rates for Mercer and Oliver counties are 7.2% and 11.4%, respectively. For comparison, the poverty rate for the State of North Dakota is 12.1%. Supporting documentation is included in the docket.

    21 Mercer County, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/38/38057.html, Oliver County, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/38/38065.html.

    22 Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013, Current Population Reports, DeNavas-Walt and Proctor, Issued September 2014, P60-249, pp. 1 and 15. Available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.pdf.

    EPA's policy on environmental justice is to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Our review here for this reconsideration action is consistent with EPA's policy. This section, along with the supporting documentation in the docket, constitute EPA's full analysis of environmental justice for this action.

    J. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 April 20, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 6, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03177 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 120404257-3325-02] RIN 0648-XD735 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Golden Tilefish Longline Component AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements an accountability measure for the commercial longline component for golden tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. Commercial longline landings for golden tilefish are projected to reach the longline component's commercial annual catch limit (ACL; commercial quota) on February 19, 2015. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial longline component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ on February 19, 2015, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season, January 1, 2016. This closure is necessary to protect the golden tilefish resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, February 19, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Britni LaVine, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    On April 23, 2013, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858). Amendment 18B to the FMP established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery and allocated the commercial golden tilefish ACL among two gear groups, the longline and hook-and-line components as commercial quotas.

    The commercial quota for the longline component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic is 405,971 lb (184,145 kg), gutted weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2015, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)(iii).

    Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii), NMFS is required to close the commercial longline component for golden tilefish when the longline component's commercial quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. After the commercial quota for the longline component is reached or projected to be reached, golden tilefish may not be fished for or possessed by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for the longline component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic will be reached on February 19, 2015. Accordingly, the commercial longline component for South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, February 19, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.

    During the commercial longline closure, golden tilefish may still be harvested commercially using hook-and-line gear. However, a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement is not eligible to fish for or possess golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line trip limit, as specified in 50 CFR 622.191(a)(2)(ii). The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and a valid commercial longline endorsement for golden tilefish having golden tilefish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, February 19, 2015. During the commercial longline closure, the bag limit and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(1), respectively, apply to all harvest or possession of golden tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement, and the sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, February 19, 2015, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. Additionally, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure apply to a person on board a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement, regardless of whether the golden tilefish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1).

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic golden tilefish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial longline component for golden tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures for this temporary rule would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii) itself have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest, because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the golden tilefish resource since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota for the longline component. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota for the longline component.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03317 Filed 2-12-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 32 Wednesday, February 18, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0088] RIN 0579-AE05 Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Commercial consignments of Hass avocado fruit are currently authorized entry into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico from the Mexican State of Michoacán under a systems approach to mitigate against quarantine pests of concern. We are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico from all of Mexico, provided individual Mexican States meet the requirements set out in the regulations and the operational workplan. Initially, this action would only apply to the Mexican State of Jalisco. With the exception of a clarification of the language concerning when sealed, insect-proof containers would be required to be used in shipping and the removal of mandatory fruit cutting at land and maritime borders, the current systems approach would not change. That systems approach, which includes requirements for orchard certification, limited production area, trace back labeling, pre-harvest orchard surveys, orchard sanitation, post-harvest safeguards, fruit cutting and inspection at the packinghouse, port-of-arrival inspection, and clearance activities, would then be required for importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from all approved areas of Mexico. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Mexico with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the systems approach described in the operational workplan. This action would allow for the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0088.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0088, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0088 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-71), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States. The requirements for importing fresh Hass avocado fruit into the United States from Michoacán, Mexico, are described in § 319.56-30. Those requirements include pest surveys and pest risk-reducing practices, treatment, packinghouse procedures, inspection, and shipping procedures.

    The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Mexico has requested that APHIS amend the regulations in order to allow Hass avocados to be imported from all of Mexico into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. As part of our evaluation of Mexico's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA), “Importation of Fresh Fruit of Avocado (Persea americana Mill. var. `Hass') from Mexico into the Continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment” (January 2014), which evaluated the risk of permitting the importation of Mexican Hass avocados from all of Mexico into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

    We also prepared a commodity import evaluation document (CIED) to determine what phytosanitary measures should be applied to mitigate the pest risk associated with the importation of Hass avocados from all of Mexico into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Copies of the PRA and CIED may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room).

    In the CIED, entitled, “Expansion of areas allowed to import Fresh Commercial Avocado Fruit (Persea americana Mill. Var. `Hass') from Mexico into the Continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico,” (June 2014), we determined that because the systems approach currently in place is successful in mitigating the risks of introducing quarantine pests associated with the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Michoacán, Mexico, into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, the current systems approach will also adequately mitigate the risks of introducing quarantine pests from the other Mexican States. We concluded that the phytosanitary risks for insect pests associated with the importation of Hass avocados from all of Mexico into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would be effectively mitigated using nearly the same systems approach as is currently used for the importation of Hass avocados from Michoacán, Mexico, as set forth in § 319.56-30. We are proposing to make some minor changes to the systems approach. Those proposed changes are discussed below.

    Based on the findings of the CIED and the PRA, we are proposing to amend § 319.56-30 to allow commercial shipments of Hass avocados from all growing areas of Mexico to be imported into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

    The first additional Mexican State that would be expected to become eligible to export Hass avocados under this proposed expansion would be the State of Jalisco. Currently, only Jalisco is prepared to meet the requirements set out in the regulations for eligibility to ship fresh Hass avocado fruit into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Specifically, these requirements are found in § 319.56-30(c) and include orchard certification, traceback labeling, pre-harvest orchard surveys, orchard sanitation, post-harvest safeguards, and fruit cutting and inspection at the packinghouse. This proposed rule would allow for future importation of fresh Hass avocados from other Mexican States provided those States meet the APHIS requirements contained in the regulations. Prior to shipments beginning from any future States, APHIS would work with the NPPO of Mexico to ensure that they meet the requirements of § 319.56-30(c). Any additions to the review process for approving new States will be added to the operational workplan as mutually negotiated and agreed on between APHIS and the NPPO of Mexico.

    Pests of Concern

    Specific pests of concern associated with fresh avocado fruit for which mitigations are required are listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i), and (e) of § 319.56-30. They are:

    Conotrachelus aguacatae, a small avocado seed weevil;

    Conotrachelus perseae, a small avocado seed weevil;

    Copturus aguacatae, avocado stem weevil;

    Heilipus lauri, large avocado seed weevil; and

    Stenoma catenifer, avocado seed moth.

    We are proposing to remove references to these specific pests from the regulations. The pest list would instead be maintained in the operational workplan provided to APHIS for approval by the NPPO of Mexico. An operational workplan is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The existing systems approach for importing fresh Hass avocado fruit into the United States from Michoacán, Mexico, currently requires that an annual workplan be developed. This change would allow APHIS flexibility and responsiveness in adding or removing pests of concern from the list of actionable pests. (The current regulations refer to a “bilateral work plan.” For the sake of consistency with our other regulations, we would change the term to “operational workplan” in this rulemaking.)

    Additionally, based on the findings of the PRA, we would add eight pests to the list of pests of concern to be maintained in the operational workplan. Of those, we would require field and packinghouse surveys for Cryptaspasma perseana, a tortricid moth, and Conotrachelus serpentinus, a weevil, but not for the other six pests listed below, which were determined to pose a medium or low chance of following the importation pathway of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico. These pests, which would be addressed through port of entry inspection, are:

    • Avocado sunblotch viroid;

    Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), pink hibiscus mealybug;

    Pseudophilothrips perseae (Watson), a thrips;

    Scirtothrips aceri (Moulton), a thrips;

    Scirtothrips perseae Nakahara, a thrips; and

    Sphaceloma perseae Jenkins, avocado scab.

    We have determined that the existing mitigations would be sufficient to prevent these six pests from following the pathway of importation, in particular, packinghouse culling, restriction of shipments to commercial consignments only, and NPPO inspection. The six pests listed above produce symptoms on infested fruit that are macroscopic in nature and thus easily detectable upon surface inspection. Further, commercially produced fruit are grown and packed to meet quality standards that are much higher than non-commercially produced fruit and are therefore less likely to serve as hosts to pests of phytosanitary concern. Interceptions of pests in commercial shipments of fruit versus passenger baggage indicate commercially produced fruit represents a much lower risk of carrying pests.

    Fruit Covering Requirements

    In § 319.56-30, paragraph (c)(3)(vii) currently references the lid, insect-proof mesh, or other material required to be placed over the avocados prior to leaving the packinghouse to protect against fruit fly infestation. Paragraph (c)(3)(viii) describes refrigerated transit requirements for the avocado fruit within Mexico. Recently, a maritime shipment of fresh avocado fruit from Mexico arrived in Port Manatee, FL, for the first time. The avocados were in uncovered trays inside sealed refrigerated containers, and the shipment was delayed because the avocados were not covered with a lid, insect-proof mesh, or other material. As a result of this incident, we have examined the requirements in paragraphs (c)(3)(vii) and (c)(3)(viii) and determined that we should clarify our intentions regarding whether those lids, insect-proof mesh, or other material need to remain in place throughout the entire shipping process.

    Since the lids, insect-proof mesh, or other material are intended to provide phytosanitary protection against fruit flies, and transport in refrigerated trucks or containers provides the same protection, we are proposing to amend the regulations in order to stipulate that those coverings would not be required when the avocado fruit is inside a refrigerated container or truck. Such coverings would therefore not be required to be applied at the packinghouse, as the avocados are transferred directly from inside the packinghouse into refrigerated containers or trucks, and all transit within Mexico is required to be completed in these containers or trucks. If the avocado fruit is transferred to a non-refrigerated container at an air or maritime port in Mexico for shipment to the United States, a covering would have to be applied.

    Port of Entry Fruit Cutting

    Currently, Hass avocado fruit are required to be biometrically sampled and cut in the field, at the packinghouse, and by an inspector at the port of first entry into the United States. We received a request from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to amend the port of entry requirement, which is found in § 319.56-30(f), in order to allow the fruit to be cut at the discretion of the inspector. Given the lack of quarantine pest interceptions in shipments of avocado fruit from Mexico at the ports of first entry for the period from 1997 to 2014, we propose to amend the requirement. This will allow for operational flexibility. The other cutting and sampling requirements would remain unchanged.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.

    Mexican officials have requested that additional States in Mexico be allowed to export Hass avocados to the United States under the same systems approach that was implemented for Michoacán, Mexico, and has successfully kept pest infestations associated with imported avocados out of the United States. U.S. imports of avocado from Mexico have increased significantly over the years, from 311 million pounds in 2003 to over 1.1 billion pounds in 2013. U.S. avocado production over the 10 years from the 2002/03 season through the 2011/12 season averaged 423 million pounds per year, of which California accounted for 87.5 percent or over 375 million pounds. Nearly all of California's production is of the Hass variety.

    While APHIS does not have information on the size distribution of U.S. avocado producers, according to the Census of Agriculture, there were a total of 93,020 fruit and tree nut farms in the United States in 2012. The average value of agricultural products sold by these farms was less than $274,000, which is well below the SBA's small-entity standard of $750,000. It is reasonable to assume that most avocado farms qualify as small entities. Between 2002 and 2012, the number of avocado operations in California grew by approximately 17 percent, from 4,801 to 5,602 operations.

    Avocados produced in the State of Jalisco, north of Michoacán, are expected to be the first that would be exported to the United States under this rule. These imports would help meet the increasing year-round U.S. demand for avocados. Per capita avocado consumption in the United States grew from 1.1 pounds in 1989 to 4.5 pounds in 2011. A growing Hispanic population and greater awareness of the avocado's health benefits have helped to spur demand.

    In 2012, Jalisco produced about 90 million pounds of Hass avocados. Given required phytosanitary safeguards, only a fraction of this quantity is expected to qualify for importation by the United States. But even if all of Jalisco's avocado production were to meet the requirements for U.S. entry, the total quantity would be equivalent to less than 8 percent of U.S. Hass avocado imports in 2013 of over 1.2 billion pounds. The proposed rule is therefore not expected to have a large impact on the U.S. avocado market or California producers because of potential imports solely from the Mexican State of Jalisco. Any market effects are as likely to be borne by other foreign suppliers, such as Chile and Peru, as by U.S. producers.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh Hass avocado fruit to be imported into the United States from all of Mexico. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh Hass avocado fruit imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

    PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.56-30 is amended as follows: a. By revising the section heading. b. In the introductory paragraph, by removing the words “Michoacan, Mexico,” and adding the word “Mexico” in their place. c. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text. d. In paragraph (c)(1)(i), by removing the words “bilateral work plan” and adding the words “operational workplan” in their place. e. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing the words “the large avocado seed weevil Heilipus lauri, the avocado seed moth Stenoma catenifer, and the small avocado seed weevils Conotrachelus aguacatae and C. perseae” and adding the words “avocado pests listed in the operational workplan” in their place. f. In paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, by removing the words “annual work plan” and adding the words “operational workplan” in their place. g. In paragraph (c)(2)(i), by removing the words “the avocado stem weevil Copturus aguacatae” and adding the words “avocado pests listed in the operational workplan” in their place. h. In paragraph (c)(3) introductory text, by removing the words “annual work plan” and adding the words “operational workplan” in their place. i. By revising paragraph (c)(3)(vii). j. In paragraph (c)(3)(viii), by adding two sentences at the end of the paragraph. k. In paragraph (e), by removing the words “Heilipus lauri, Conotrachelus aguacatae, C. perseae, Copturus aguacatae, or Stenoma catenifer” and adding the words “listed in the operational workplan” in their place. l. In paragraph (f), by removing the word “will” and adding the word “may” in its place.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 319.56-30 Hass avocados from Mexico.

    (c) Safeguards in Mexico. The avocados must have been grown in an orchard located in a municipality that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The orchard in which the avocados are grown must meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The avocados must be packed for export to the United States in a packinghouse that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The Mexican national plant protection organization (NPPO) must provide an annual operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the Mexican NPPO will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section; APHIS will be directly involved with the Mexican NPPO in the monitoring and supervision of those activities. The personnel conducting the trapping and pest surveys must be hired, trained, and supervised by the Mexican NPPO or by the State delegate of the Mexican NPPO.

    (3) * * *

    (vii) The avocados must be packed in clean, new boxes or bulk shipping bins, or in clean plastic reusable crates. The boxes, bins, or crates must be clearly marked with the identity of the grower, packinghouse, and exporter.

    (viii) * * * If, at the port of export for consignments shipped by air or sea, the packed avocados are transferred into a non-refrigerated container, the boxes, bins, or crates must be covered with a lid, insect-proof mesh, or other material to protect the avocados from fruit-fly infestation prior to leaving the packinghouse. Those safeguards must be intact at the time the consignment arrives in the United States.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03289 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0088; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-179-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 BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by testing of the spoiler electronic control unit (SECU) software for an upgrade, which revealed a timing error between the command and monitor channels. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate repetitive operational tests of the aileron disconnect system, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would also require modification and reidentification of the SECU, which would terminate the repetitive operational tests. We are proposing this AD to prevent a timing error in the SECU software, which, in combination with failure of the roll disconnect switch, could result in complete loss of spoiler functionality and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 6, 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-2015-0088; 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:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Service Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; 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-2015-0088; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-179-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-2014-24, dated August 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During testing of the software for an upgrade of the spoiler electronic control unit (SECU), a timing error between the Command and Monitor channels was found in the SECU software. This timing error, if not corrected, in combination with the failure of the roll disconnect switch, may lead to a complete loss of spoiler functionality and result in a reduction or complete loss of aeroplane roll control.

    This [TCCA] AD mandates the SECU software modification to correct the timing error and to change the inspection interval for a maintenance task based on System Functional Hazard Analysis [by revising the inspection or maintenance program.]

    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-2015-0088.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 100-27-16, dated October 31, 2013. The service information describes procedures for modification and reidentification of the SECU. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    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.

    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 107 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take up to 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be up to $54,570, or up to $510 per product.

    We have received no definitive data on the parts cost for doing the modification 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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0088; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-179-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 6, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes, equipped with a spoiler electronic control unit (SECU) having part number (P/N) C47330-006, C47330-007, or C47330-008; certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by testing of the spoiler electronic control unit (SECU) software, which revealed a timing error between the command and monitor channels in the software. We are issuing this AD to prevent a timing error in the SECU software, which, in combination with failure of the roll disconnect switch, could result in complete loss of spoiler functionality and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 600 flight hours since the most recent operational test of the aileron disconnect system for spoiler functionality as of the effective date of this AD, or within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate repetitive operational tests of the aileron disconnect system for spoiler functionality, and all applicable corrective actions, using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Guidance on operational tests of the aileron disconnect system can be found in the BD-100-1A10 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) Manual.

    (h) Modification of the SECU

    Within 1,600 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Modify and re-identify the SECU, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-27-16, dated October 31, 2013. Doing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an SECU, P/N C47330-006, C47330-007, or C47330-008, on any airplane.

    (j) 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, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-24, dated August 5, 2014, 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-FAA-2015-0088.

    (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 February 2, 2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-02695 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0242; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-100-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 A300 B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R airplanes; all Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and certain Airbus Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the manufacturer's review of all repairs accomplished using the structural repair manual. This review was done using revised fatigue and damage tolerance calculations. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the surrounding panels of the left and right forward passenger doors, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct previous incomplete or inadequate repairs to the surrounding panels of the left and right forward passenger doors and the fail-safe ring, which could negatively affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 6, 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—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.

    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-2015-0242; 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:

    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: 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-2015-0242; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-100-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 2014-0101, dated May 2, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R airplanes; all Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and certain Airbus Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In the frame of the Ageing Airplane Safety Rule (AASR), all existing Structural Repair Manual (SRM) repairs were reviewed.

    This analysis, which consisted in new Fatigue and Damage Tolerance calculations, revealed that some repairs in the area surrounding the forward passenger/crew door and the fail safe ring are no longer adequate.

    These repairs, if not reworked, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-6173 (later revised), to provide instructions for the inspection of repairs on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) forward door surrounding panels.

    For the reasons described above, and further to the AASR implementation, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the forward door surrounding panels to identify SRM repairs in these areas and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Corrective actions include contacting the manufacturer for rework approval or repair instructions.

    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-2015-0242.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6173, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed of the area surrounding the forward passenger/crew door and the fail safe ring to determine if any repairs have been done, and corrective actions. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    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.

    Explanation of “RC” Procedures and Tests in Service Information

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 120 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $663,000, or $10,200 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take up to 730 work-hours and require parts costing up to $72,250, for a cost of up to $134,300 per product, depending on configuration. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    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-2015-0242; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-100-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 6, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Model A300 B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (2) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (3) Model A300F4-605R airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 12699 was embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the manufacturer's review of all repairs accomplished using the structural repair manual. This review was done using revised fatigue and damage tolerance calculations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct previous incomplete or inadequate repairs to the surrounding panels of the left and right forward passenger doors and the fail-safe ring, which could negatively affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    At the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, whichever is later: Do a detailed inspection of the surrounding panels of the left and right forward passenger doors to determine if any repairs have been done, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6173, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2014.

    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles or 67,500 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (2) Within 28 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (h) Identification of Repairs

    If any affected repair is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, identify the reworked area(s), the percentage of the rework, and the limits of the rework, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6173, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2014.

    (i) Corrective Actions

    During the repair identification required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if any rework is found that is outside the allowable damage limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6173, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2014: Before further flight, rework or repair, as applicable, using a method 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).

    (j) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6173, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6173, dated August 1, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in 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) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if the service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (3) 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; the EASA; or Airbus's EASA 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 2014-0101, dated May 2, 2014, 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-2015-0242.

    (2) 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 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 February 2, 2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-02920 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0245; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-135-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-24-10, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F series airplanes. AD 2012-24-10 currently requires installing new software, replacing the duct assembly with a new duct assembly, making wiring changes, and routing certain wire bundles. Since we issued AD 2012-24-10, we have received new reports of intermittent or blank displays of a certain integrated display unit (IDU) that were due to an intermittent false ground not addressed by the software installation or wiring changes required by AD 2012-24-10. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2012-24-10 and would require installing a new or serviceable pressure switch bracket and altitude pressure switch, and add an airplane to the applicability of the existing AD. We are proposing this AD to prevent IDU malfunctions, which could affect the ability of the flightcrew to read primary displays for airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 6, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed 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-2015-0245.

    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-2015-0245; 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 Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6592; fax: 425-917-6591; email: [email protected]

    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-2015-0245; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-135-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On November 30, 2012, we issued AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F series airplanes. AD 2012-24-10 requires installing new software, replacing the duct assembly with a new duct assembly, making wiring changes, and routing certain wire bundles. AD 2012-24-10 resulted from multiple reports of integrated display unit (IDU) malfunctions and mode control panel (MCP) malfunctions. We issued AD 2012-24-10 to prevent IDU malfunctions, which could affect the ability of the flightcrew to read primary displays for airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain control of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012), Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012), we have received reports of intermittent or blank displays of a certain IDU in the flight deck that were due to an intermittent false ground not addressed by the software installation or wiring changes required by AD 2012-24-10. The false ground exists on the 25,000 foot altitude analog/discrete signal of the environmental control systems miscellaneous card, which is a signal that is transmitted to the pack temperature controller. This false ground creates a potential to circumvent the control logic by allowing the 3-way valve to switch air sources before an aircraft reaches an altitude of 25,000 feet, defeating the intent of the corrective actions of AD 2012-24-10.

    We have determined that the installation of a pressure switch bracket and an altitude pressure switch is needed on the forward side of the station 400 bulkhead to achieve an adequate level of safety. The installation of the altitude pressure switch would change the operating logic for the three-way valve, so that the source for equipment cooling air is changed as the airplane transitions through an altitude of 25,000 feet. Since we issued AD 2012-24-10, Boeing issued Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2532; and Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2533; both dated February 13, 2014; which contain procedures for installing the pressure switch bracket and altitude pressure switch discussed previously.

    Since we issued AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012), Boeing also issued a revision to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated October 3, 2011 (which was referenced as a source of service information in AD 2012-24-10). Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013, was issued to correct wiring instructions for 747-400BCF airplanes that provide crew rest heat below a 25,000 foot altitude, and to add an airplane configuration having variable number RT061 as Group 21 to the effectivity. The airplane that was added was recently converted from a passenger to a freighter configuration, which this proposed AD addresses. Since this proposed AD adds this new airplane group to the applicability, we have added paragraph (j) to this proposed AD, which provides new compliance times for Group 21 airplanes.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Boeing issued Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013. This service information describes procedures for changing the wiring and operating logic of the equipment cooling three-way valve and replacing the existing duct assembly with a new duct assembly on the main distribution manifold of the air conditioning system.

    Boeing also issued Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2532, dated February 13, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing an altitude pressure switch on the forward side of the station 400 bulkhead for the three-way valve of the equipment cooling system. Boeing also issued Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2533, dated February 13, 2014. This service information describes procedures for adding a second altitude signal to the switching logic for the three-way valve to provide a second, independent, altitude signal for the equipment cooling system.

    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012.) This proposed AD would also require installing a pressure switch bracket and altitude pressure switch, and would add an airplane to the applicability.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Duct assembly and replacement wiring changes (retained actions from AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012) 44 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,740 $20,121 $23,861 $787,413 Software changes (retained actions from AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012) 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 0 255 8,415 Altitude pressure switch installation (new proposed action) 13 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,105 5,230 6,335 209,055

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

    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 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 that the 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0245; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-135-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 6, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning; 31, Instruments.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of intermittent or blank displays of a certain integrated display unit (IDU) in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent IDU malfunctions, which could affect the ability of the flightcrew to read primary displays for airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Software Update

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012), with revised service information. Within 12 months after January 16, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2012-24-10), except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: Install integrated display system software, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated October 3, 2011; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) and (j) of this AD: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated October 3, 2011; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013; refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2426, dated July 29, 2010 (for airplanes with Rolls-Royce engines); Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2427, dated July 29, 2010 (for airplanes with General Electric engines); and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2428, dated July 29, 2010 (for airplanes with Pratt & Whitney engines); as additional sources of guidance for the software installation specified by paragraph (g) of this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2426, dated July 29, 2010; Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2427, dated July 29, 2010; and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2428, dated July 29, 2010; are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (h) Retained Duct Assembly Replacement and Wiring Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012), with revised service information. Within 60 months after January 16, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2012-24-10), except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: Replace the duct assembly with a new duct assembly, do wiring changes, and route certain wire bundles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated October 3, 2011; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.

    (i) New Installation of Pressure Switch Bracket and Altitude Pressure Switch

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Install a new or serviceable pressure switch bracket and a new or serviceable altitude pressure switch on the forward side of the station 400 bulkhead, do wiring changes, route certain wire bundles, install a new hose assembly, and perform a leak check and a functional logic test, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For Model 747-400F series airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21-2532, dated February 13, 2014.

    (2) For Model 747-400BCF series airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21-2533, dated February 13, 2014.

    (j) Actions for Group 21 Airplanes

    For Group 21 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, dated June 7, 2013.

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, install integrated display system software.

    (2) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the duct assembly with a new duct assembly, do wiring changes, and route certain wire bundles.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated October 3, 2011.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (m)(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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 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 2012-24-10, Amendment 39-17280 (77 FR 73908, December 12, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6592; fax: 425-917-6591; email: [email protected]

    (2) 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, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 2, 2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-02925 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0243; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-114-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 A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracked aluminum support struts of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) caused by stress corrosion. This proposed AD would require inspections to identify the part number of each support strut, repetitive inspections for cracking of the THS support strut ends, installation of reinforcing clamps on strut ends, and replacement of support struts, if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracked THS support struts, which could lead to the rupture of all four support struts making the remaining structure unable to carry limit loads, which could result in loss of the THS and reduced control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 6, 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—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.

    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-2015-0243; 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:

    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: 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-2015-0243; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-114-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 2014-0164, dated July 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During scheduled maintenance, several Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer (THS) support struts were found cracked at the strut ends. The THS is supported and articulated at frame (FR) 91 in the tail cone. Lateral movement is prevented by four diagonal support struts.

    Investigations revealed that the cracks were caused by stress corrosion and propagated from the inside to the outside of the strut.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the rupture of all four THS support struts at FR91, which would make the remaining structure unable to carry limit loads, potentially resulting in loss of the Horizontal Tail Plane.

    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2014-0121 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2014-0121] to require repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspections of the THS support strut ends, installation of reinforcing clamps on strut ends and, depending on findings, replacement of damaged support struts. Installation of reinforcing clamps on strut ends is considered a temporary solution pending introduction of a re-designed support strut.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was discovered that the [EASA] AD appeared to also require HFEC inspections of steel struts, which are not prone to cracking. The unsafe condition exists only on support struts made of aluminum, which were introduced through Airbus modification (mod) 06101, but may also have been installed in service as replacement parts on aeroplanes in pre-mod 06101 configuration.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0121, which is superseded, and clarifies the need for an initial identification of the support struts installed on aeroplanes in pre-mod 06101 configuration. The related Airbus Service Bulletins (SB) remain unchanged.

    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-2015-0243.

    Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0394, dated February 14, 2014. This service information describes procedures for reinforcing the support struts of the THS at frame 91 in the fuselage tail section of Airbus Model A300 series airplanes.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0395, dated February 14, 2014. This service information describes procedures for inspecting for cracking of the support struts of the THS at frame 91 in the fuselage tail section of Airbus Model A300 series airplanes.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6172, dated February 14, 2014. This service information describes procedures for reinforcing the support struts of the THS at frame 91 in the fuselage tail section of Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6174, dated February 14, 2014. This service information describes procedures for inspecting for cracking of the support struts of the THS at frame 91 in the fuselage tail section of Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2136, dated February 14, 2014. This service information describes procedures for reinforcing the support struts of the THS at frame 91 in the fuselage tail section of Airbus Model A310 series airplanes.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2137, dated February 14, 2014. This service information describes procedures for inspecting for cracking of the support struts of the THS at frame 91 in the fuselage tail section of Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    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.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Unlike the procedures described in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0395; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6174; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2137; each dated February 14, 2014; this proposed AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected in the aluminum support strut ends of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer at frame 91. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked aluminum support strut ends of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer must be repaired or modified before further flight. This difference has been coordinated with EASA and Airbus.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 174 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,100 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $439,350, or $2,525 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 15 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $11,275 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    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-2015-0243; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-114-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 6, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (6) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked aluminum support struts of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) caused by stress corrosion. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked THS support struts, which could lead to the rupture of all four support struts making the remaining structure unable to carry limit loads, which could result in loss of the THS and reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection for Part Number

    For airplanes in pre-modification 06101 configuration: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to identify the part number (P/N) of each support strut installed on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) at frame (FR) 91, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection, provided those records can be relied upon for that purpose and the part number can be positively identified from that review. If no aluminum strut(s) having P/N R21449, R21449D, R21449G, or R21449H is found during any inspection required by this paragraph no further action is required by this AD for that horizontal stabilizer, except for paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (1) For Airbus Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0395, dated February 14, 2014.

    (2) For Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes): Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6174, dated February 14, 2014.

    (3) For Airbus Model A310 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2137, dated February 14, 2014.

    (h) Repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Inspections

    For airplanes in post-modification 06101 configuration; and for airplanes in pre-modification 06101 configuration on which one or more aluminum support strut(s) having P/N R21449, P/N R21449D, P/N R21449G, or P/N R21449H was found during the inspection by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, do an HFEC inspection for cracking of the aluminum THS support strut ends at FR 91, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD. Reinforcing clamps already installed on strut ends must be removed before accomplishing the HFEC inspection and re-installed after the inspection, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.

    (1) For airplanes having manufacturer serial number (MSN) 0499 through MSN 0747 inclusive (post-mod 06101): Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes having MSN 0748 through MSN 0878 inclusive (post-mod 06101): Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) For airplanes having MSN 0001 through MSN 0498 inclusive (pre-mod 06101) having one or more aluminum struts: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Installation of Reinforcing Clamps

    Concurrently with the initial HFEC inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, identify struts having P/N R21449, P/N R21449D, P/N R21449G, or P/N R21449H with no reinforcing clamps previously installed, and before next flight, install reinforcing clamps on each strut end, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For Airbus Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0394, dated February 14, 2014.

    (2) For Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes): Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6172, dated February 14, 2014.

    (3) For Airbus Model A310 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2136, dated February 14, 2014.

    (j) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any cracking is found, before further flight, replace the affected THS support strut(s) with serviceable struts and install clamps on each strut end, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD.

    (k) Clarification

    Installation of reinforcing clamps as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, and the replacement of support struts and/or the installation of clamps as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, do not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (l) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD: After accomplishment of any inspection required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, report all inspection results to Airbus, including no findings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletins specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD, and paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD.

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (m) 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: 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.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0164, dated July 11, 2014, 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-2015-0243.

    (2) 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 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 February 2, 2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-02922 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0086; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-191-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 A310-203 airplanes. This proposed AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that side link clevis bolts of the front engine mount do not meet the Design Service Goal (DSG) requirements on airplanes equipped with General Electric Company CF6-80A3 engines. This proposed AD would require repetitive replacement of all side link clevis engine mount bolts. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the front engine mount, and consequent possible departure of the engine.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 6, 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—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.

    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-2015-0086; 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:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; 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-2015-0086; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-191-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

    As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120 104 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-104.pdf), several programs have been developed to support initiatives that will ensure the continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure. The last element of those initiatives is the requirement to establish a LOV of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program under 14 CFR 26.21. This proposed AD is the result of an assessment of the previously established programs by Airbus during the process of establishing the LOV for Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes. The actions specified in this proposed AD are necessary to complete certain programs to ensure the continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure and to support an airplane reaching its LOV.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0191, dated August 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During fatigue analysis performed in the scope of the Extended Service Goal, taking into account the certification loads and the new lift-off loads, Airbus determined that side link clevis engine mount bolts do not meet the Design Service Goal (DSG) requirements on aeroplanes equipped with CF6-80A3 engines.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the front engine mount, possibly resulting in-flight separation of the engine from the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A310-71-2038 to introduce a life limit on the side link clevis engine mount bolts.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires implementation of the new life limit and replacement of all side link clevis engine mount bolts that have 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-2015-0086.

    Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-71-2038, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014. The service information describes procedures for replacement of all side link clevis bolts on the CF6-80A3 front engine mount and subsequent re-identification of the newly installed bolts with a cross (to differentiate them from the old ones). The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    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 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 142 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,900 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $194,610, or $14,970 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: Docket No. FAA-2015-0086; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-191-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 6, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that side link clevis bolts of the front engine mount do not meet the Design Service Goal (DSG) requirements on airplanes equipped with General Electric Company CF6-80A3 engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front engine mount, and consequent possible departure of the engine.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Bolt Replacement

    Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the side link clevis bolts, nuts, and bushings of the front engine mount on both engines, and re-identify the new installed bolts with a cross (to differentiate them from the old ones), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-71-2038, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014. Repeat the replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 29 years.

    (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: 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: 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.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0191, dated August 29, 2014, 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-2015-0086.

    (2) 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 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 January 30, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-02683 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 314 and 601 [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0500] Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs and Biological Products; Public Meeting; Request for Comments; Reopening of the Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; request for comments; reopening of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a 1-day public meeting entitled “Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs and Biological Products.” The purpose of the meeting is to provide a public forum for FDA to listen to comments on the proposed rule on “changes being effected” supplements that was published in the Federal Register of November 13, 2013, and alternatives offered to this proposed rule. FDA is also reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to receive submissions of additional written comments on the proposed rule as well as alternative proposals presented during the public meeting.

    DATES:

    Meeting. The public meeting will be held on March 27, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by March 20, 2015. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on how to register for the meeting.

    Comments. The comment period for the proposed rule publilshed November 13, 2013 (78 FR 67985), is reopened. Submit either electronic or written comments regarding proposed alternatives to the proposed rule by April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0500 for the proposed rule. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 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:

    Ellen Molinaro, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 51, Rm. 6218, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601, FAX: 301-847-8440.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 13, 2013 (78 FR 67985), FDA proposed regulations to revise and clarify procedures for application holders of an approved drug or biological product to change the product labeling to reflect certain types of newly acquired safety-related information in advance of FDA's review of the change by submitting a changes being effected (CBE-0) supplement to FDA. The need to promptly communicate certain safety-related labeling changes based on newly acquired information is the basis for the “changes being effected” exception to the general requirement for FDA approval of revised labeling prior to distribution. The proposed rule, if finalized, would enable abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) holders for generic drugs to update product labeling promptly to reflect certain types of newly acquired safety-related information, irrespective of whether the revised labeling differs from that of the corresponding reference listed drug (RLD or brand drug) upon submission of a CBE-0 supplement to FDA. FDA's proposed revisions to its regulations to allow generic drug manufacturers to update product labeling through CBE-0 supplements in the same manner as brand drug manufacturers are intended to improve communication of important, newly acquired drug safety information to health care professionals and the public. For further information about this and other proposed regulatory changes described in the proposed rule, see 78 FR 67985.

    FDA received numerous comments on the proposed rule from a diverse group of stakeholders, including comments proposing alternative approaches to communicating newly acquired safety-related information in a multisource environment. In November 2014, FDA received a request from two trade associations for a listening meeting with FDA to present an alternative to the proposed regulatory changes described in the proposed rule that they described as intended to meet shared public health goals regarding multisource drugs (see Ref. 1). In December 2014, an explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), supported a listening meeting between FDA and the regulated industries to consider alternative solutions to the proposed rule on safety labeling that will meet all public health goals relating to multisource drugs (see https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2014/12/11/house-section/article/H9307-1) (FDA has verified the Web site address, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the Federal Register).

    In view of these requests and to promote transparency, FDA will hold a public meeting at which any stakeholders may present or comment on the proposed rule or any alternative proposals intended to improve communication of important newly acquired drug safety information to health care professionals and the public.

    In addition, FDA is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule (78 FR 67985) until April 27, 2015, to receive submissions of additional written comments on the proposed rule as well as alternative proposals presented during the public meeting.

    II. Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations

    If you would like to attend the public meeting, please register for the meeting by email to [email protected] by March 20, 2015. The email should contain complete contact information for each attendee (including name, title, firm name or affiliation, address, email, telephone and fax numbers). Those without email access can register by contacting Ellen Molinaro (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by March 20, 2015. There is no fee to register for the meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. Onsite registration on the day of the meeting also will be permitted on a space-available basis beginning at 7:30 a.m.

    Individuals who wish to present at the public meeting must register on or before March 16, 2015, and provide complete contact information, including name, title, firm name or affiliation, address, email, telephone and fax numbers. You should provide a brief description of your presentation, and indicate the approximate desired length of your presentation, so that FDA can consider these in organizing the presentations. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to speak and will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the approximate time that each oral presentation is scheduled to begin. After reviewing the presentation requests, FDA will notify each participant before the meeting of the amount of time available and the approximate time their presentation is scheduled to begin. If time permits, individuals or organizations that did not register in advance may be granted the opportunity to make a presentation. An agenda will be posted on the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm431265.htm prior to the meeting. Presenters are encouraged to submit a copy of their presentation and related written material to the docket (see “Comments”) in advance of the public meeting.

    If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact Ellen Molinaro (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance.

    III. Streaming Webcast of the Public Meeting

    This public meeting will also be Webcast. Information about how to view the live Webcast of this meeting will be posted on the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm431265.htm prior to the meeting.

    IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding proposed alternatives to the proposed rule to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Electronic or written comments will be accepted after the public meeting until April 27, 2015.

    V. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as possible after a transcript of the public meeting is available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.

    VI. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES), and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    1. Letter dated November 14, 2014, from Mr. Neas (GPhA) and Mr. Castellani (PhRMA) to Dr. Hamburg (FDA) regarding request for listening meeting on Expedited Agency Review proposal.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03211 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-102648-15] RIN 1545-BM66 Request for Information on Suspensions of Benefits Under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Treasury invites public comments with regard to future guidance required to implement provisions of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, Division O of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235 (MPRA). MPRA generally permits a sponsor of a multiemployer defined benefit plan that is in critical and declining status to suspend certain benefits following the provision of specified notice, consideration of public comments, approval of an application for suspension, and satisfaction of other specified conditions (including a participant vote).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102648-15), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102648-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-102648-15). All materials submitted will be shared with the Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and will be available for public inspection and copying.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the request for information, Jamie Dvoretzky at (202) 317-4102; concerning submission of comments, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 212 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780 (2006)) (PPA ’06) added section 432 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), which prescribes funding rules for certain multiemployer defined benefit plans in endangered and critical status and permits plans in critical status to be amended to reduce certain otherwise protected benefits (referred to as “adjustable benefits”). Section 202 of PPA ’06 amended section 305 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Public Law 93-406 (88 Stat. 829 (1974)), as amended (ERISA), to prescribe parallel rules. PPA ’06 provided that section 432 and ERISA section 305 would sunset for plan years beginning after December 31, 2014. However, section 101 of MPRA made them permanent, with certain modifications.

    Section 201 of MPRA amended Code section 432 to add a new status, called “critical and declining status,” for multiemployer defined benefit plans. Section 432(b)(6) provides that a plan in critical status is treated as being in critical and declining status if the plan satisfies the criteria for critical status, and in addition is projected to become insolvent within the meaning of section 418E during the current plan year or any of the 14 succeeding plan years (or 19 succeeding plan years if the plan has a ratio of inactive participants to active participants that exceeds two to one or if the funded percentage of the plan is less than 80 percent).1

    1 Section 201(a) of MPRA makes parallel amendments to section 305 of ERISA. Under section 101 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43 FR 47713), the Department of the Treasury has interpretive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this document for purposes of ERISA as well as the Code.

    Section 201 of MPRA also amended section 432(e)(9) to prescribe benefit suspension rules for multiemployer defined benefit plans in critical and declining status. Section 432(e)(9)(A) provides that notwithstanding section 411(d)(6) and subject to the requirements of section 432(e)(9)(B) through (I), the plan sponsor of a plan in critical and declining status may, by plan amendment, suspend benefits that the sponsor deems appropriate. Section 432(e)(9)(B) defines “suspension of benefits” as the temporary or permanent reduction of any current or future payment obligation of the plan to any participant or beneficiary under the plan, whether or not in pay status at the time of the suspension of benefits, and sets forth other rules relating to suspensions. In the case of plans with 10,000 or more participants, section 432(e)(9)(B) requires the plan sponsor to select a plan participant in pay status (who may also be a plan trustee) to act as a retiree representative throughout the suspension approval process.

    Section 432(e)(9)(C) prescribes the conditions that must be satisfied before a plan sponsor may suspend benefits. For example, section 432(e)(9)(C)(i) provides that the plan actuary must certify, taking into account the proposed suspensions of benefits (and, if applicable, a proposed partition of the plan under section 4233 of ERISA), that the plan is projected to avoid insolvency within the meaning of section 418E, assuming the suspensions of benefits continue until the suspensions of benefits expire by their own terms or, if no such expiration is set, indefinitely. Section 432(e)(9)(D) contains limitations on the benefits that may be suspended. For example, section 432(e)(9)(D)(ii) limits the applicability of a suspension in the case of a participant or beneficiary who has attained age 75 as of the effective date of the suspension and section 432(e)(9)(D)(iii) provides that no benefits based on disability (as defined under the plan) may be suspended.

    Section 432(e)(9)(E) prescribes rules relating to possible benefit improvements while a suspension of benefits is in effect. Section 432(e)(9)(F) contains notice requirements associated with a suspension of benefits. These include the requirement under section 432(e)(9)(F)(i) that no suspension of benefits may be made unless notice to specified parties of the proposed suspension has been given by the plan sponsor (in the form and manner to be prescribed in guidance) concurrently with an application for approval of the suspension. Section 432(e)(9)(G) describes the process for approval or rejection of a plan sponsor's application for a suspension of benefits, including that the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the Secretary of Labor, shall approve an application upon finding that the plan is eligible for the suspension and has satisfied the criteria of section 432(e)(9)(C), (D), (E), and (F). As part of this process, section 432(e)(9)(G)(ii) requires the publication of a request for comments within 30 days after receipt of an application for suspension of benefits, and section 432(e)(9)(G)(iii), (iv) and (v) prescribes rules for agency action and review of the application.

    Section 432(e)(9)(H) contains rules relating to the participant vote that is required before any suspension of benefits may take effect, with special rules for systemically important plans. The special rules include an opportunity for the Participant and Plan Sponsor Advocate selected under section 4004 of ERISA to submit recommendations with respect to a suspension in certain circumstances. Section 432(e)(9)(I) contains provisions relating to judicial review.

    An application for approval of a plan amendment to suspend benefits may be made in combination with an application to the PBGC for a partition of the plan, and a plan sponsor also may ask the PBGC for technical or financial assistance with a merger. The PBGC is issuing its own request for information to seek comment on the processes associated with applying for partition or merger assistance, including how such processes should be coordinated with the benefit suspension process. The agencies will coordinate on the development of processes that will apply to applications falling within their respective jurisdictions.

    Request for Information

    Comments are requested on matters that may be addressed in future guidance implementing section 432(e)(9), and in particular on the following:

    1. How should future guidance address actuarial and other issues, including duration, related to the following certifications and determinations:

    a. The actuary's certification under section 432(b)(3) that a multiemployer plan is in critical and declining status;

    b. The actuary's section 432(e)(9)(C)(i) projection of continued solvency (taking into account the proposed suspension and, if applicable, a proposed partition under section 4233 of ERISA); and

    c. The plan sponsor's section 432(e)(9)(C)(ii) determination that the plan is projected to become insolvent unless benefits are suspended?

    2. For purposes of the section 432(e)(9)(D)(iii) limitation that a suspension is not permitted to apply to benefits based on disability (as defined under the plan), how can a plan sponsor identify which benefits are based on disability?

    3. For participants who have not yet retired:

    a. What practical issues should be considered as a result of the fact that their benefits are not yet fixed (for example, their benefits could vary as a result of future accruals, when they decide to retire and which optional form of benefit they select)?

    b. What practical issues should be considered in the case of a suspension of benefits that is combined with a reduction of future accruals or a reduction of section 432(e)(8) adjustable benefits (such as subsidized early retirement factors) under a rehabilitation plan?

    4. For participants who have retired, what practical issues should be considered regarding the section 432(e)(9)(D)(ii) age limitations on suspensions, the application of the section 432(e)(9)(E) rules on benefit improvements, or other provisions?

    5. With respect to the section 432(e)(9)(F) requirement to provide notice of the proposed suspension to plan participants and beneficiaries concurrently with the submission of the application for approval:

    a. What suggestions do commenters have for the steps that are needed to satisfy the requirement to provide notice to the plan participants and beneficiaries “who may be contacted by reasonable efforts,” including the application of that requirement to terminated vested participants?

    b. What practical issues do plan sponsors anticipate in providing individual estimates of the effect of the proposed suspensions on each participant and beneficiary?

    c. If the suspension is combined with other reductions as described in request number 3.b, how will the notice of proposed suspension interact with the notices required for those other reductions?

    d. What issues arise in coordinating benefit protections that are measured as of the date of suspension (such as the restriction on suspensions that apply to a participant or beneficiary who has attained age 75 as of the effective date of the suspension) with the timing of the application, notice, and voting process?

    6. With respect to item 5, please provide any examples of notices of proposed suspension that commenters would like to be considered in the development of a model notice.

    7. What issues arise in connection with the section 432(e)(9)(G)(ii) requirement to solicit comments on an application for suspension of benefits?

    a. Should the comments received from contributing employers, employee organizations, participants and beneficiaries, and other interested parties be made available to the public?

    b. How long should the comment period last?

    8. With respect to the section 432(e)(9)(H) participant vote, what issues arise in connection with:

    a. Preparing the ballot, including developing a statement in opposition to the suspension compiled from comments and obtaining approval of the ballot within the statutory time constraints for conducting a vote; and

    b. Conducting the vote and obtaining certification of the results of the vote?

    9. What other practical issues do commenters anticipate will arise in the course of implementing these provisions?

    Timing of Applications and Notices

    Section 201(b)(7) of MPRA provides that, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and the Secretary of Labor, shall publish appropriate guidance to implement section 432(e)(9). In addition, section 432(e)(9)(F)(i) provides that no suspension of benefits may be made unless notice of the proposed suspension has been given by the plan sponsor concurrently with an application for approval of the suspension, and section 432(e)(9)(F)(iii)(I) provides that notice must be “provided in a form and manner prescribed in guidance.” Section 432(e)(9)(G)(i) provides that the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and the Secretary of Labor, shall approve an application for suspension upon finding that the plan has satisfied the criteria of section 432(e)(9)(C), (D), (E), and (F). Because appropriate guidance is required to implement section 432(e)(9), including the procedures for the plan sponsor to submit an application for approval of a suspension of benefits and provide concurrent notice, a plan sponsor should not submit an application for a suspension of benefits until a date specified in that future guidance.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. David G. Clunie, Executive Secretary, Department of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03290 Filed 2-13-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 28 CFR Part 11 [JMD Docket No. 152; A.G. Order No. 3493-2015] RIN 1105-NYD Department of Justice Debt Collection Regulations AGENCY:

    Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule proposes to amend the regulations that govern debt collection at the Department of Justice (Department) to bring the regulations into conformity with government-wide standards, to update or delete obsolete references, and to make other clarifying or technical changes.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 20, 2015. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Department encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using the electronic comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document is also available at the http://www.regulations.gov Web site for easy reference. Paper comments that duplicate the electronic submission are not necessary as all comments submitted to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted for public review and are part of the official docket record. Should you wish to submit written comments via regular or express mail, however, they should be sent to: Dennis Dauphin, Director, Debt Collection Management Staff, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis Dauphin, Director, Debt Collection Management Staff, or Morton J. Posner, Assistant General Counsel, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-5343 or (202) 514-3452.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rule updates the Department's debt collection regulations at 28 CFR part 11, subpart A—Retention of Private Counsel for Debt Collection, Subpart B—Administration of Debt Collection, and Subpart C—Treasury Offset Program for Collection of Debts, and proposes a new Subpart D—Administrative Wage Garnishment.

    Subpart A sets forth the Department's procedures governing the retention of private counsel for debt collection authorized in 31 U.S.C. 3718(b). The Federal Debt Recovery Act initiated a pilot program authorizing the Department to contract with private counsel on a provisional basis in a limited number of judicial districts. Public Law 99-578 (1986). The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, sec. 31001, made the pilot program permanent and authorized the Department to contract with private counsel in as many judicial districts as necessary. The Department proposes to amend this rule by removing references to the private counsel program as a “pilot”; by replacing the term “Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR)” with “Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)” to align with the definitions in Federal Acquisition Regulation. See 48 CFR 1.602-2, 2.101; by adding the term “qualified HUBZone small business concerns” as defined in section 3(p)(5) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(p)(5), to conform to the DCIA; and by changing the obsolete references to a federal procurement statute and to the database used for notifying the public of federal procurement bidding opportunities. Another change corrects a typographical error.

    Subpart B prescribes the standards and procedures for collecting a debt through administrative offset. The ten-year statute of limitations for administrative offset was repealed, Public Law 110-264, sec. 14219 (codified at 31 U.S.C. 3716(e)), the Department of the Treasury deleted the limitations period from its regulation, 74 FR 68149 (Dec. 23, 2009), and the Department proposes to delete the corresponding time limit from its own regulation.

    Subpart C prescribes the standards and procedures for submitting past due, legally enforceable debts to the Department of the Treasury for collection by offset. These standards and procedures are authorized under the offset provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and the DCIA, codified in relevant part at 31 U.S.C. 3716 and 3720A, and the Department of the Treasury's implementing regulations at 31 CFR 285.2 and 285.5. The Department proposes to amend this subpart to conform to subsequent legal changes. The obsolete ten-year statute of limitations is being removed. Because the DCIA now mandates that agencies report consumer debt to credit bureaus, 31 U.S.C. 3711(e), it is no longer necessary to address the subject in Subpart C. The Department of the Treasury incorporated the Internal Revenue Service's former tax refund offset program into the Treasury Offset Program, so references to it are being updated. Other revisions provide clarity, make technical corrections, or correct a typographical error.

    Proposed Subpart D would implement the Department's authority under the DCIA, 31 U.S.C. 3720D, to collect past due indebtedness through administrative wage garnishment. Wage garnishment is a process whereby an employer withholds amounts from an employee's wages and pays those amounts to the employee's creditor in satisfaction of a withholding order. The DCIA authorizes Federal agencies to issue administrative wage withholding orders to garnish up to 15 percent of the disposable pay of a debtor to satisfy delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States. The Department of the Treasury's implementing rule at 31 CFR 285.11 provides that “[a]gencies shall prescribe regulations for the conduct of administrative wage garnishment hearings consistent with this section or shall adopt this section without change by reference.” The Department proposes to add a Subpart D consistent with 31 CFR 285.11. Subpart D would apply to wages to be garnished by non-Federal employers.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department proposes to collect delinquent nontax debt owed it through an administrative wage garnishment (AWG) process. When an AWG order is issued, employers (including small businesses) that employ workers from whom the Department is collecting a delinquent debt will be required to certify the employee's employment and earnings, garnish wages, and remit withheld wages to the Department. Such procedures are mandated by Department of the Treasury regulations issued to implement the Debt Collection Improvement Act. Employment and salary information is contained in an employer's payroll records. Therefore, it will not take a significant amount of time or result in a significant cost for an employer to certify employment and earnings. Employers of delinquent debtors may be subject at any time to garnishment orders issued by a court to collect delinquent debts of their employees owed to governmental or private creditors. The addition of an AWG process will not significantly increase the burden to which employers are already subject to collect the delinquent debt of their employees.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—Regulatory Review

    This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation.

    The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Further, both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. The Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation and believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits.

    Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. 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; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule imposes no information collection or record keeping requirements.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Debt collection, Government contracts, Government employees, Income taxes, Lawyers, Wages.

    Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Attorney General, including 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510, part 11 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 11—DEBT COLLECTION 1. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301, 5514; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 31 U.S.C. 3711, 3716, 3718, 3720A, 3720D.

    Subpart A—Retention of Private Counsel for Debt Collection
    § 11.1 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 11.1 as follows: a. Remove the word “pilot” from the first sentence; and b. Remove the word “Adminstration” and add in its place the word “Administration”.
    § 11.2 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 11.2 as follows: a. In the heading, remove the words “Pilot program” and add in their place the words “Private counsel debt collection program”; b. In the first two sentences, remove the word “pilot”; c. In the third sentence, remove the words “Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR)” and add in their place the words “Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)”; and d. In the fourth sentence, remove the term “COTRs” and add in its place the term “CORs”.
    § 11.3 [Amended]
    4. Amend § 11.3 as follows: a. In the first sentence, remove the words “the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 41 U.S.C. 251 et seq” and add in their place the words “41 U.S.C. 3307”. b. In the second sentence, adding the phrase “and law firms that are qualified HUBZone small business concerns” after the phrase “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals”; c. In the second sentence and third sentence, remove the word “pilot” and add in its place the word “program”; and d. In the third sentence, remove the words “Commerce Business Daily” and add in their place the term “FedBizOpps”. Subpart B—Administration of Debt Collection
    § 11.4 [Amended]
    5. Amend § 11.4 as follows: a. Remove the second sentence of paragraph (a); and b. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), add the number “1” after the words “26 U.S.C.”. 6. Revise the heading of subpart C to read as follows: Subpart C—Collection of Debts by Administrative and Tax Refund Offset 7. Revise § 11.10 to read as follows:
    § 11.10 [Amended]

    (a) The provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3716 allow the head of an agency to collect a debt through administrative offset. The provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3716 and 3720A authorize the Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS) and other Federal disbursing officials, to offset certain payments to collect delinquent debts owed to the United States. This subpart authorizes the collection of debts owed to the United States by persons, organizations, and other entities by means of offsetting Federal and certain state payments due to the debtor. It allows for collection of debts that are past due and legally enforceable through offset, regardless of whether the debts have been reduced to judgment.

    (b) Nothing in this subpart precludes the Department from pursuing other debt collection procedures to collect a debt that has been submitted to the Department of the Treasury under this subpart. The Department may use such debt collection procedures separately or in conjunction with the offset collection procedures of this subpart.

    8. Amend § 11.11 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), and adding a paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 11.11 [Amended]

    (a) Debt. Debt means any amount of funds or property that has been determined by an appropriate official of the Federal Government to be owed to the United States by a person, organization, or entity other than another Federal agency. For purposes of this section, the term debt does not include debts arising under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the tariff laws of the United States, or the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), except to the extent provided in sections 204(f) and 1631(b)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 404(f) and 1383(b)(4)(A), respectively) and 31 U.S.C. 3716(c). Debts that have been referred to the Department of Justice by other agencies for collection are included in this definition.

    (b) Past due. A past due debt means a debt that has not been paid or otherwise resolved by the date specified in the initial demand for payment, or in an applicable agreement or other instrument (including a post-delinquency repayment agreement), unless other payment arrangements satisfactory to the Department have been made. Judgment debts remain past due until paid in full.

    (e) Legally enforceable. Legally enforceable means that there has been a final agency determination that the debt, in the amount stated, is due, and there are no legal bars to collection by offset.

    9. Amend § 11.12 as follows: a. Revise the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c); b. Remove paragraph (b)(4); c. In paragraph (d)(5), remove the number “65” and add in its place the number “60”; d. In paragraph (d)(6) and paragraph (e), remove the term “IRS” and add in its place the term “BFS”; e. In the second sentence of paragraph (d)(6), remove the word “of” the second time it occurs and add in its place the word “or”; and f. Add paragraph (f).

    The addition and revisions read as follows:

    § 11.12 Centralized offset.

    (a) The Department must refer any legally enforceable debt more than 120 days past due to BFS for administrative offset purposes pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3716(c)(6). The Department must refer any past due, legally enforceable debt to BFS for tax refund offset purposes pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3720A(a) at least once a year. Prior to referring debts for offset, the Department must certify to BFS compliance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3716(a) and 3720A(b). There is no time limit on when a debt can be collected by offset.

    (b) * * *

    (2) The Department intends to refer the debt to BFS for offset purposes;

    (3) The debtor has 60 days from the date of notice in which to present evidence that all or part of the debt is not past due, that the amount is not the amount currently owed, that the outstanding debt has been satisfied, or, if a judgment debt, that the debt has been satisfied, or that collection action on the debt has been stayed, before the debt is referred to BFS for offset purposes.

    (c) If the debtor neither pays the amount due nor presents evidence that the amount is not past due or is satisfied or that collection action is stayed, the Department will refer the debt to BFS for offset purposes.

    (f) In the event that more than one debt is owed, payments eligible for offset will be applied in the order in which the debts became past due.

    10. Add a new § 11.13 to read as follows:
    § 11.13 Non-centralized offset.

    (a) When offset under § 11.12 of this part is not available or appropriate, the Department may collect past due, legally enforceable debts through non-centralized administrative offset. See 31 CFR 901.3(c). In these cases, the Department may offset a payment internally or make an offset request directly to a Federal payment agency.

    (b) At least 30 days prior to offsetting a payment internally or requesting a Federal payment agency to offset a payment, the Department will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3716(a). When referring a debt for offset under this paragraph (b), the Department will certify, in writing, that the debt is valid, delinquent, and legally enforceable, and that there are no legal bars to collection by offset. In addition, the Department will certify its compliance with these regulations concerning administrative offset. See 31 CFR 901.3(c)(2)(ii).

    11. Amend part 11 by adding a new subpart D to read as follows: Subpart D—Administrative Wage Garnishment
    § 11.21 Administrative wage garnishment.

    (a) Purpose. In accordance with the Department of the Treasury government-wide regulation at 31 CFR 285.11, this section provides procedures for the Department of Justice to collect money from a debtor's disposable pay by means of administrative wage garnishment to satisfy delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States.

    (b) Scope. (1) This section shall apply notwithstanding any provision of State law.

    (2) Nothing in this section precludes the compromise of a debt or the suspension or termination of collection action in accordance with applicable law. See, for example, the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), 31 CFR parts 900-904.

    (3) The receipt of payments pursuant to this section does not preclude the Department from pursuing other debt collection remedies, including the offset of Federal payments to satisfy delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States. The Department may pursue such debt collection remedies separately or in conjunction with administrative wage garnishment.

    (4) This section does not apply to the collection of delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States from the wages of Federal employees from their Federal employment. Federal pay is subject to the Federal salary offset procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 5514 and other applicable laws.

    (5) Nothing in this section requires the Department to duplicate notices or administrative proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations.

    (c) Definitions. As used in this section the following definitions shall apply:

    Agency means a department, agency, court, court administrative office, or instrumentality in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the Federal Government, including government corporations. For purposes of this section, agency means either the agency that administers the program that gave rise to the debt or the agency that pursues recovery of the debt.

    Business day means Monday through Friday. For purposes of computation, the last day of the period will be included unless it is a Federal legal holiday.

    Day means calendar day. For purposes of computation, the last day of the period will be included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a Federal legal holiday.

    Debt or claim means any amount of money, funds, or property that has been determined by an appropriate official of the Federal Government to be owed to the United States by an individual, including debt administered by a third party as an agent for the Federal Government.

    Debtor means an individual who owes a delinquent nontax debt to the United States.

    Delinquent nontax debt means any nontax debt that has not been paid by the date specified in the agency's initial written demand for payment, or applicable agreement, unless other satisfactory payment arrangements have been made. For purposes of this section, the terms “debt” and “claim” are synonymous and refer to delinquent nontax debt.

    Disposable pay means that part of the debtor's compensation (including, but not limited to, salary, bonuses, commissions, and vacation pay) from an employer remaining after the deduction of health insurance premiums and any amounts required by law to be withheld. For purposes of this section, “amounts required by law to be withheld” include amounts for deductions such as Social Security taxes and withholding taxes, but do not include any amount withheld pursuant to a court order.

    Employer means a person or entity that employs the services of others and that pays their wages or salaries. The term employer includes, but is not limited to, State and local Governments, but does not include an agency of the Federal Government.

    Evidence of service means information retained by the agency indicating the nature of the document to which it pertains, the date of mailing of the document, and to whom the document is being sent. Evidence of service may be retained electronically so long as the manner of retention is sufficient for evidentiary purposes.

    Garnishment means the process of withholding amounts from an employee's disposable pay and the paying of those amounts to a creditor in satisfaction of a withholding order.

    Withholding order means any order for withholding or garnishment of pay issued by an agency, or judicial or administrative body. For purposes of this section, the terms “wage garnishment order” and “garnishment order” have the same meaning as “withholding order.”

    (d) General rule. Whenever the agency determines that a delinquent debt is owed by an individual, the agency may initiate proceedings administratively to garnish the wages of the delinquent debtor.

    (e) Notice requirements. (1) At least 30 days before the initiation of garnishment proceedings, the agency shall mail, by first class mail, to the debtor's last known address, a written notice informing the debtor of:

    (i) The nature and amount of the debt;

    (ii) The intention of the agency to initiate proceedings to collect the debt through deductions from pay until the debt and all accumulated interest, penalties, and administrative costs are paid in full; and

    (iii) An explanation of the debtor's rights, including those set forth in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, and the timeframe within which the debtor may exercise those rights.

    (2) The debtor shall be afforded the opportunity:

    (i) To inspect and copy agency records related to the debt;

    (ii) To enter into a written repayment agreement with the agency under terms agreeable to the agency; and

    (iii) For a hearing in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section concerning the existence or the amount of the debt or the terms of the proposed repayment schedule under the garnishment order. However, the debtor is not entitled to a hearing concerning the terms of the proposed repayment schedule if these terms have been established by written agreement under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.

    (3) The agency will retain evidence of service indicating the date of mailing of the notice.

    (f) Hearing

    (1) Request for hearing. The agency shall provide a hearing, which at the agency's option may be oral or written, if the debtor submits a written request for a hearing concerning the existence or amount of the debt or the terms of the repayment schedule (for repayment schedules established other than by written agreement under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section).

    (2) Type of hearing or review. (i) For purposes of this section, whenever the agency is required to afford a debtor a hearing, the agency shall provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for an oral hearing when the agency determines that the issues in dispute cannot be resolved by review of the documentary evidence, as, for example, when the validity of the claim turns on the issue of credibility or veracity.

    (ii) If the agency determines that an oral hearing is appropriate, the time and location of the hearing shall be established by the agency. An oral hearing may, at the debtor's option, be conducted either in person or by telephone conference. All travel expenses incurred by the debtor in connection with an in-person hearing will be borne by the debtor. All telephonic charges incurred during the hearing will be the responsibility of the agency.

    (iii) In those cases when an oral hearing is not required by this section, the agency shall nevertheless accord the debtor a “paper hearing,” that is, the agency will decide the issues in dispute based upon a review of the written record. The agency will establish a reasonable deadline for the submission of evidence.

    (3) Effect of timely request. Subject to paragraph (f)(12) of this section, if the debtor's written request is received by the agency on or before the 15th business day following the mailing of the notice described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the agency shall not issue a withholding order under paragraph (g) of this section until the debtor has been provided the requested hearing and a decision in accordance with paragraphs (f)(9) and (f)(10) of this section has been rendered.

    (4) Failure to timely request a hearing. If the debtor's written request is received by the agency after the 15th business day following the mailing of the notice described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the agency shall provide a hearing to the debtor. However, the agency will not delay issuance of a withholding order unless the agency determines that the delay in filing the request was caused by factors over which the debtor had no control, or the agency receives information that the agency believes justifies a delay or cancellation of the withholding order.

    (5) Hearing official. A hearing official may be any qualified individual, as determined by the head of the agency, including an administrative law judge.

    (6) Procedure. After the debtor requests a hearing, the hearing official shall notify the debtor of:

    (i) The date and time of a telephonic hearing;

    (ii) The date, time, and location of an in-person oral hearing; or

    (iii) The deadline for the submission of evidence for a written hearing.

    (7) Burden of proof. (i) The agency will have the initial burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence or amount of the debt.

    (ii) If the agency satisfies its initial burden, the debtor must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no debt exists or that the amount of the debt is incorrect. In addition, the debtor may present evidence that the terms of the repayment schedule are unlawful or would cause a financial hardship to the debtor, or that collection of the debt may not be pursued due to operation of law.

    (8) Record. The hearing official must maintain a summary record of any hearing provided under this section. A hearing is not required to be a formal evidentiary-type hearing. However, witnesses who testify in in-person or telephonic hearings will do so under oath or affirmation.

    (9) Date of decision. The hearing official shall issue a written opinion stating the decision, as soon as practicable, but not later than 60 days after the date on which the request for such hearing was received by the agency. If an agency is unable to provide the debtor with a hearing and render a decision within 60 days after the receipt of the request for such hearing:

    (i) The agency may not issue a withholding order until the hearing is held and a decision rendered; or

    (ii) If the agency had previously issued a withholding order to the debtor's employer, the agency must suspend the withholding order beginning on the 61st day after the receipt of the hearing request and continuing until a hearing is held and a decision is rendered.

    (10) Content of decision. The written decision shall include:

    (i) A summary of the facts presented;

    (ii) The hearing official's findings, analysis, and conclusions; and

    (iii) The terms of any repayment schedules, if applicable.

    (11) Final agency action. The hearing official's decision will be final agency action for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.).

    (12) Failure to appear. In the absence of good cause shown, a debtor who fails to appear at a hearing scheduled pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section will be deemed as not having timely filed a request for a hearing.

    (g) Wage garnishment order. (1) Unless the agency receives information that the agency believes justifies a delay or cancellation of the withholding order, the agency will send, by first class mail, a withholding order to the debtor's employer:

    (i) Within 30 days after the debtor fails to make a timely request for a hearing (i.e., within 15 business days after the mailing of the notice described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section), or,

    (ii) If a timely request for a hearing is made by the debtor, within 30 days after a final decision is made by the agency to proceed with garnishment, or

    (iii) As soon as reasonably possible thereafter.

    (2) The withholding order sent to the employer under paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall be in a form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The withholding order shall contain the signature of, or the image of the signature of, the head of the agency or his/her delegatee. The order shall contain only the information necessary for the employer to comply with the withholding order. Such information includes the debtor's name, address, and Social Security Number, as well as instructions for withholding and information as to where payments should be sent.

    (3) The agency will retain evidence of service indicating the date of mailing of the order.

    (h) Certification by employer. Along with the withholding order, the agency shall send to the employer a certification in a form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The employer shall complete and return the certification to the agency within the timeframe prescribed in the instructions to the form. The certification will address matters such as information about the debtor's employment status and disposable pay available for withholding.

    (i) Amounts withheld. (1) After receipt of the garnishment order issued under this section, the employer shall deduct from all disposable pay paid to the applicable debtor during each pay period the amount of garnishment described in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.

    (2)(i) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(4) of this section, the amount of garnishment shall be the lesser of:

    (A) The amount indicated on the garnishment order up to 15 percent of the debtor's disposable pay; or

    (B) The amount calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1673(a)(2) (Restriction on Garnishment). The formula set forth at 15 U.S.C. 1673(a)(2) is the amount by which a debtor's disposable pay exceeds an amount equivalent to thirty times the Federal minimum wage. See 29 CFR 870.10.

    (3) When a debtor's pay is subject to withholding orders with priority the following shall apply:

    (i) Unless otherwise provided by Federal law, withholding orders issued under this section shall be paid in the amounts set forth under paragraph (i)(2) of this section and shall have priority over withholding orders that are served later in time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, withholding orders for family support shall have priority over withholding orders issued under this section.

    (ii) If amounts are being withheld from a debtor's pay pursuant to a withholding order served on an employer before a withholding order issued pursuant to this section, or if a withholding order for family support is served on an employer at any time, the amounts withheld pursuant to the withholding order issued under this section shall be the lesser of:

    (A) The amount calculated under paragraph (i)(2) of this section, or

    (B) An amount equal to 25 percent of the debtor's disposable pay less the amount(s) withheld under the withholding order(s) with priority.

    (iii) If a debtor owes more than one debt to the agency, the agency may issue multiple withholding orders provided that the total amount garnished from the debtor's pay for such orders does not exceed the amount set forth in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.

    (4) An amount greater than that set forth in paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of this section may be withheld upon the written consent of the debtor.

    (5) The employer shall promptly pay to the agency all amounts withheld in accordance with the withholding order issued pursuant to this section.

    (6) An employer shall not be required to vary its normal pay and disbursement cycles in order to comply with the withholding order.

    (7) Any assignment or allotment by an employee of his earnings shall be void to the extent it interferes with or prohibits execution of the withholding order issued under this section, except for any assignment or allotment made pursuant to a family support judgment or order.

    (8) The employer shall withhold the appropriate amount from the debtor's wages for each pay period until the employer receives notification from the agency to discontinue wage withholding. The garnishment order shall indicate a reasonable period of time within which the employer is required to commence wage withholding.

    (j) Exclusions from garnishment. The agency may not garnish the wages of a debtor who it knows has been involuntarily separated from employment until the debtor has been reemployed continuously for at least 12 months. To qualify for this exclusion, upon the request of the agency, the debtor must inform the agency of the circumstances surrounding an involuntary separation from employment.

    (k) Financial hardship. (1) A debtor whose wages are subject to a wage withholding order under this section, may, at any time, request a review by the agency of the amount garnished, based on materially changed circumstances such as disability, divorce, or catastrophic illness that results in financial hardship.

    (2) A debtor requesting a review under paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall submit the basis for claiming that the current amount of garnishment results in a financial hardship to the debtor, along with supporting documentation. Agencies shall consider any information submitted in accordance with procedures and standards established by the agency.

    (3) If a financial hardship is found, the agency shall downwardly adjust, by an amount and for a period of time agreeable to the agency, the amount garnished to reflect the debtor's financial condition. The agency will notify the employer of any adjustments to the amounts to be withheld.

    (l) Ending garnishment. (1) Once the agency has fully recovered the amounts owed by the debtor, including interest, penalties, and administrative costs consistent with the FCCS, the agency shall send the debtor's employer notification to discontinue wage withholding.

    (2) At least annually, an agency shall review its debtors' accounts to ensure that garnishment has been terminated for accounts that have been paid in full.

    (m) Actions prohibited by the employer. An employer may not discharge, refuse to employ, or take disciplinary action against the debtor due to the issuance of a withholding order under this section.

    (n) Refunds. (1) If a hearing official, at a hearing held pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section, determines that a debt is not legally due and owing to the United States, the agency shall promptly refund any amount collected by means of administrative wage garnishment.

    (2) Unless required by Federal law or contract, refunds under this section shall not bear interest.

    (o) Right of action. The agency may sue any employer for any amount that the employer fails to withhold from wages owed and payable to an employee in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (i) of this section. However, a suit may not be filed before the termination of the collection action involving a particular debtor, unless earlier filing is necessary to avoid expiration of any applicable statute of limitations period. For purposes of this section, “termination of the collection action” occurs when the agency has terminated collection action in accordance with the FCCS or other applicable standards. In any event, termination of the collection action will be deemed to have occurred if the agency has not received any payments to satisfy the debt from the particular debtor whose wages were subject to garnishment, in whole or in part, for a period of 1 year.

    Dated: February 3, 2015. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General.
    [FR Doc. 2015-02587 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-AR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Part 10 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0090] Medical Waivers for Merchant Mariner Credential Applicants With the Following Conditions: Cardiomyopathy; Diabetes Mellitus; Narcolepsy; and Obstructive Sleep Apnea AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed policy clarification and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is seeking public comment on the policy clarification proposed in this document regarding the specific medical documentation the Coast Guard will consider in determining whether a medical waiver is warranted for merchant mariners with cardiomyopathy, diabetes mellitus, or obstructive sleep apnea. Additionally, the proposed policy clarification specifies that narcolepsy, idiopathic hypersomnia, and other hypersomnias of central origin, are medically disqualifying and generally not waiverable due to significant risk of sudden and unpredictable incapacitation of individuals who have these conditions.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before May 19, 2015 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0090 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this document, call or email Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division (CG-CVC-4), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-2357, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing material in the docket, call Docket Operations at 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation

    You may submit comments and related material regarding whether the policy clarification proposed in this document should be incorporated into final policy on the medical evaluation guidelines for mariners with cardiomyopathy, diabetes mellitus, narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this document (USCG-2015-0090) and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0090) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this document.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0090) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

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

    Background and Purpose

    46 CFR 10.302 contains the medical standards that merchant mariners must meet prior to being issued a merchant mariner credential (MMC). In cases where the mariner does not meet the medical standards in 46 CFR 10.302, waivers may be granted when the Coast Guard determines that extenuating circumstances warrant special consideration. See 46 CFR 10.303. Current Coast Guard guidance in Enclosure (3) to Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 04-08, Medical and Physical Evaluation Guidelines for Merchant Mariner Credentials (NVIC 04-08), which is available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2008/NVIC%2004-08%20CH%201%20with%20Enclosures%2020130607.pdf.), states that the conditions of cardiomyopathy, diabetes mellitus, narcolepsy and obstructive sleep apnea 1 require further review. The same guidance publishes the “recommended evaluation data” that should be submitted for each condition; however it does not specify the medical criteria that the Coast Guard will consider in evaluating whether the risks associated with these conditions are low enough to warrant a medical waiver.

    1 Enclosure (3) to Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 04-08, Medical and Physical Evaluation Guidelines for Merchant Mariner Credentials, Item number 179, specifies that sleep apnea and other sleep disorders are subject to further review. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is one specific type of sleep apnea and is, therefore, subject to further review under the same item number.

    Since the issuance of NVIC 04-08 on September 15, 2008, there have been several instances where mariners sought waivers for these conditions. In some cases, mariners with these conditions were granted waivers; in other cases, the conditions were deemed an unacceptable risk and medical certification was denied. Published guidance on the criteria that will be used in determining whether an applicant's medical condition warrants a medical waiver will support Coast Guard efforts to consistently evaluate merchant mariners with these conditions and assess whether the risk associated with an applicant's medical condition is sufficiently mitigated to warrant a medical waiver under 46 CFR 10.303.

    Under the proposed policy, a medical waiver will be required for the conditions of cardiomyopathy, sleep apnea, and diabetes mellitus.

    In determining whether a mariner having one of the aforementioned conditions warrants a medical waiver under 46 CFR 10.303, the Coast Guard seeks public input on whether the Coast Guard should consider the following specific medical documentation and medical criteria:

    I. NVIC 04-08, Condition #77: Cardiac decompensation or cardiomyopathy. Individuals with these conditions may be denied medical certification unless they meet the criteria for a medical waiver.

    1. Submit a cardiology consultation, nuclear exercise stress test, echocardiogram and 24-hour Holter monitor.

    2. Criteria for consideration for a waiver include: a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥35%, no symptomatic or clinically significant heart failure in the past 2 years (must be New York Heart Association Class I), absence of significant ischemia on stress testing, exercise capacity of ≥8 METs, no history of syncope or ventricular arrhythmia in the past three years; and the written opinion of the treating cardiologist or electrophysiologist supports low risk for sudden death, ventricular arrhythmia, adverse cardiac event and sudden incapacitation based upon objective testing and standard evaluation tools.

    3. Note: Individuals with cardiomyopathy who have had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placed, will be evaluated under the criteria for condition #81, Anti-tachycardia devices or implantable defibrillators.2 Individuals with cardiomyopathy who have been advised to undergo placement of an ICD by their cardiologist, but have failed to comply, do not meet the low risk criteria for consideration for a medical waiver. These individuals may be denied medical certification.

    2 NVIC 04-08 Condition #81, Anti-tachycardia devices or implantable cardioverter defibrillators directs that conditions requiring use of these devices are “generally not waiverable.” Enclosure (7) to NVIC 04-08 contains the criteria for consideration for a medical waiver for conditions requiring use of these devices. The criteria are summarized as follows: (1) The applicant does not have a diagnosis of a cardiac channelopathy affecting the electrical conduction of the heart (to include Brugada syndrome, Long QT syndrome, etc.); (2) The applicant does not have a prior history of ventricular fibrillation or episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia within the last three years; (3) The ICD or anti-tachycardia device was implanted more than three years ago; (4) The ICD has not fired nor has the applicant required anti-tachycardia pacing therapy within the last three years; (5) There are no additional risk factors for inappropriate shock such as uncontrolled atrial fibrillation; (6) The applicant's left ventricular ejection fraction is greater than 35% with a steady or improving trend; (7) There is no history of any symptomatic or clinically significant heart failure in the past two years; (8) There is no evidence of significant reversible ischemia on myocardial perfusionimaging exercise stress testing; (9) The applicant's exercise capacity on formal stress testing (using standard Bruce Protocol) is greater than or equal to the 8 METs (metabolic equivalents); (10) The applicant's treating cardiologist or electrophysiologist provides a written assessment of the individual that supports a determination that the mariner is at low risk for future arrhythmia, adverse cardiac event or sudden incapacitation based upon objective testing and standard evaluation tools; (11) The applicant does not have any other medical conditions which may alone, or incombination with an ICD or anti-tachycardia device, affect the mariner's fitness.

    Justification: The Coast Guard recognizes that there is significant clinical variation within the population of individuals with cardiomyopathy, and that not all individuals with cardiomyopathy carry the same risks of sudden incapacitation or sudden death. These criteria seek to discern those individuals with cardiomyopathy who have factors that mitigate their risk, and who have prognostic indicators suggestive of a low risk of sudden incapacitation or adverse cardiac event.

    II. NVIC 04-08, Condition # 193: Diabetes mellitus treated with insulin or with history of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Individuals with this condition may be denied medical certification unless they meet the criteria for a medical waiver:

    1. Submit an evaluation from the treating physician documenting interval history and two current glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels separated by at least 90 days, the most recent of which is no more than 90 days old. An ophthalmology consultation may be required. Graded exercise testing may be required.

    2. If the evaluation of the treating physician supports good compliance with the treatment regimen, the absence of recent, severe hypoglycemic episodes,3 and the absence of impairing diabetic complications, then mariners with a consistent pattern of HbA1c levels of less than or equal to 10% may be considered for a waiver, with annual reporting requirements.

    3 Recent, severe hypoglycemic episode is an episode of hypoglycemia within the prior 12 months resulting in seizure, loss of consciousness or altered consciousness, or requiring assistance from another person for treatment.

    3. Mariners with HbA1c levels greater than 10% are generally not considered for a waiver unless extenuating circumstances confirm temporary irregularity due to acute illness, medication interaction, or other short-term occurrence that is not likely to recur.

    Justification: Although poorly controlled diabetes can lead to long term diabetic complications, the consequences of hypoglycemia pose an immediate threat of sudden incapacitation with a greater risk to public and maritime safety.

    III. NVIC 04-08, Condition #194: Diabetes requiring oral medication.

    1. Submit an evaluation from the treating physician documenting interval history and two current glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels separated by at least 90 days, the most recent of which is no more than 90 days old. Ophthalmology consultation may be required. Graded exercise testing may be required.

    2. If the evaluation of the treating physician supports good compliance with the treatment regimen, the absence of recent, severe hypoglycemic (*) episodes, and the absence of impairing diabetic complications, then mariners with a consistent pattern of HbA1c levels of less than 8% may be considered for a waiver with biennial (every two years) reporting requirements; and mariners with HbA1c levels between 8%-10% inclusive may be considered for a waiver, with annual reporting requirements.

    3. Mariners with HbA1c levels of greater than 10% are generally not considered for waiver unless extenuating circumstances confirm temporary irregularity due to acute illness, medication interaction, or other short-term occurrence that is not likely to recur.

    Justification: Although poorly controlled diabetes can lead to long term diabetic complications, the consequences of hypoglycemia pose an immediate threat of sudden incapacitation with risk to public and maritime safety.

    IV. NVIC 04-08, Condition # 179: Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Central Sleep Apnea, Narcolepsy, Periodic Limb Movement, Restless Leg Syndrome or other sleep disorders.

    1. Submit all pertinent medical information, including sleep studies and a status report. If surgically treated, please submit a post-operative polysomnogram to document cure.

    2. Narcolepsy,idiopathic hypersomnia and other hypersomnias of central origin: Due to the significant risk of sudden and unpredictable incapacitation of individuals who have these conditions, narcolepsy, idiopathic hypersomnia and other hypersomnias of central origin are considered disqualifying. Additionally, the Coast Guard does not consider the conditions of narcolepsy,idiopathic hypersomnia, or other hypersomnias of central origin, as low enough risk to warrant consideration for a medical waiver.

    3. Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA):

    A. Medical waivers for OSA require submission of an annual sleep specialist evaluation that documents treatment efficacy, the patient's treatment compliance and an assessment for symptoms of daytime sleepiness. If treated with CPAP/BiPAP, the evaluation should include a compliance information report from the positive airway pressure device that covers the preceding 12 months. For OSA treated by other means, submit a polysomnogram demonstrating the effectiveness of the alternative therapy.

    B. For purposes of receiving or maintaining a medical waiver, minimum compliance with positive airway pressure therapy is defined as:

    (i) Proper use of the CPAP/BiPAP device for at least four hours per night (or per major sleep period) during all major sleep periods while acting under the authority of the mariner credential, and

    (ii) Proper use of the CPAP/BiPAP device for at least four hours per night (or per major sleep period) on at least 70% of all nights (or major sleep periods).

    Authority:

    This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 46 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

    Dated: February 10, 2015. J.C. Burton, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03109 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    80 32 Wednesday, February 18, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2012-0025] Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc.; Determination of Nonregulated Status of Apples Genetically Engineered To Resist Browning AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public of our determination that apple events developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc., designated as events GD743 and GS784, which have been genetically engineered to resist browning, are no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc., in its petition for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of available scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to our previous notices announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and finding of no significant impact.

    DATES:

    Effective February 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may read the documents referenced in this notice and the comments we received at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0025 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    Supporting documents are also available on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml under APHIS Petition Number 10-161-01p.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email: [email protected] To obtain copies of the supporting documents for this petition, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 851-3892, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

    The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 10-161-01p) from Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc., (Okanagan) of British Columbia, Canada, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of apples (Malus x domestica) designated as events GD743 and GS784, which have been genetically engineered to resist browning. The petition states that these apples are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

    According to our process 1 for soliciting public comment when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status of genetically engineered (GE) organisms, APHIS accepts written comments regarding a petition once APHIS deems it complete. In a notice 2 published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41362-41363, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0025), APHIS announced the availability of the Okanagan petition for public comment. APHIS solicited comments on the petition for 60 days ending on September 11, 2012, in order to help identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that APHIS may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.

    1 On March 6, 2012, APHIS published in the Federal Register (77 FR 13258-13260, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0129) a notice describing our public review process for soliciting public comments and information when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms. To view the notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0129.

    2 To view the notice, the petition, the comments we received, and other supporting documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0025.

    APHIS received 1,939 comments on the petition. Several of these comments included electronic attachments consisting of consolidated documents of many identical or nearly identical letters, for a total of 72,745 comments. Issues raised during the comment period included concerns regarding marketing and economic impacts; cross-pollination; and health, nutrition, and food safety. APHIS decided, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of the comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that involves a new crop trait or raises substantive new issues. According to our public review process for such petitions (see footnote 1), APHIS first solicits written comments from the public on a draft environmental assessment (EA) and a plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a Federal Register notice. Then, after reviewing and evaluating the comments on the draft EA and the PPRA and other information, APHIS revises the PPRA as necessary and prepares a final EA and, based on the final EA, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision document (either a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement). If a FONSI is reached, APHIS furnishes a response to the petitioner, either approving or denying the petition. APHIS also publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of the GE organism and the availability of APHIS' final EA, PPRA, FONSI, and our regulatory determination.

    APHIS sought public comment on a draft EA and a PPRA from November 8, 2013, to January 30, 2014.3 APHIS solicited comments on the draft EA, the PPRA, and whether the subject apples are likely to pose a plant pest risk. APHIS received 105,971 comments during the comment period, of which 100,976 were form letters. The majority of the comments expressed general opposition to APHIS making a determination of nonregulated status of GE organisms. Issues raised during the comment period included concerns regarding potential effects on human and animal health and nontarget organisms and economic impacts on apple growers. APHIS has addressed the issues raised during the comment period and has provided responses to comments as an attachment to the FONSI.

    3 In a notice (see footnote 2) published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2013, (78 FR 67100-67101, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0025), APHIS announced the availability of a draft EA and a PPRA for public comment for 30 days, ending December 9, 2013. In a notice published in Federal Register on December 31, 2013, (78 FR 79568-79569, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0025), APHIS reopened the comment period on the draft EA and the PPRA for an additional 30 days, ending January 30, 2014. We also indicated in that notice that we would consider all comments received between December 10, 2013 (the day after the close of the original comment period) and the date of the notice.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    After reviewing and evaluating the comments received during the comment period on the draft EA and the PPRA and other information, APHIS has prepared a final EA. The EA has been prepared to provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of nonregulated status of Okanagan's apple events GD743 and GS784. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Based on our EA, the response to public comments, and other pertinent scientific data, APHIS has reached a FONSI with regard to the preferred alternative identified in the EA (to make a determination of nonregulated status of apple events GD743 and GS784).

    Determination

    Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by Okanagan, references provided in the petition, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the EA, the PPRA, comments provided by the public, and information provided in APHIS' response to those public comments, APHIS has determined that Okanagan's apple events GD743 and GS784 are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore are no longer subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain GE organisms.

    Copies of the signed determination document, PPRA, final EA, FONSI, and response to comments, as well as the previously published petition and supporting documents, are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this notice.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of February 2015. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03272 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by Eda for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [1/21/2015 through 2/11/2015] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for investigation Product(s) Detroit Tool & Engineering, Inc 1107 Springer Road, Lebanon, MO 65536 2/6/2015 The firm manufactures customized fabricated metal products including HVAC, appliances, heavy truck, machine bases, fixtures, electrical panels and rotating safety clamps Master Hatters of Texas, Inc 2945 Market Street, Garland, TX 75041 2/11/2015 The firm manufactures hats

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03258 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 4, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

    Agenda Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Status reports by working group chairs.

    3. Public comments and Proposals.

    Closed Session

    4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than February 25, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 10, 2014, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03320 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meeting

    The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on March 10, 2015, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.

    Agenda Open Session

    1. Opening remarks and introductions.

    2. Presentation of papers and comments by the Public.

    3. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.

    4. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.

    5. Other business.

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than March 3, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03322 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 5, 2015, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

    Agenda Open Session

    1. Opening Remarks and Introduction of Dr. Richard Duncan, Director Chemical and Biological Controls Division.

    2. Remarks from BIS senior management.

    3. Presentation on NSF Workshop on the Global Movement and Tracking of Chemical Manufacturing Equipment in May 2014 by Clara Zahradnik from DuPont.

    4. Report from working groups: Public Domain issues, Composite Working Group, Biological Working Group, Pump and Valves Working Group.

    5. Report on regime-based activities.

    6. Public Comments and New Business.

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] bis.doc.gov no later than February 26, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03325 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Technical Advisory Committees; Notice of Recruitment of Private-Sector Members SUMMARY:

    Seven Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) advise the Department of Commerce on the technical parameters for export controls applicable to dual-use commodities and technology and on the administration of those controls. The TACs are composed of representatives from industry representatives, academic leaders and U.S. Government representing diverse points of view on the concerns of the exporting community. Industry representatives are selected from firms producing a broad range of goods, technologies, and software presently controlled for national security, non-proliferation, foreign policy, and short supply reasons or that are proposed for such controls, balanced to the extent possible among large and small firms.

    TAC members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve terms of not more than four consecutive years. The membership reflects the Department's commitment to attaining balance and diversity. TAC members must obtain secret-level clearances prior to appointment. These clearances are necessary so that members may be permitted access to the classified information needed to formulate recommendations to the Department of Commerce. Each TAC meets approximately four times per year. Members of the Committees will not be compensated for their services.

    The seven TACs are responsible for advising the Department of Commerce on the technical parameters for export controls and the administration of those controls within the following areas: Information Systems TAC: Control List Categories 3 (electronics), 4 (computers), and 5 (telecommunications and information security); Materials TAC: Control List Category 1 (materials, chemicals, microorganisms, and toxins); Materials Processing Equipment TAC: Control List Category 2 (materials processing); Regulations and Procedures TAC: The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and Procedures for implementing the EAR; Sensors and Instrumentation TAC: Control List Category 6 (sensors and lasers); Transportation and Related Equipment TAC: Control List Categories 7 (navigation and avionics), 8 (marine), and 9 (propulsion systems, space vehicles, and related equipment) and the Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee: (1) The identification of emerging technologies and research and development activities that may be of interest from a dual-use perspective; (2) the prioritization of new and existing controls to determine which are of greatest consequence to national security; (3) the potential impact of dual-use export control requirements on research activities; and (4) the threat to national security posed by the unauthorized exports of technologies.

    To respond to this recruitment notice, please send a copy of your resume to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected]

    Deadline: This Notice of Recruitment will be open for one year from its date of publication in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03323 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-010, C-570-011] Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (certain solar products) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). Also, as explained in this notice, the Department is amending its final affirmative CVD determination to correct an error regarding the inclusion of a subsidy program that was not properly reflected on the record of the CVD investigation.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Pedersen at (202) 482-2769 or Thomas Martin at (202) 482-3936 (AD); or Gene Calvert at (202) 482-3586 or Justin Neuman at (202) 482-0486 (CVD), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 23, 2014, the Department published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) in the AD investigation of certain solar products from the PRC,1 and its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain solar products from the PRC.2 On February 5, 2015, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to sections 735(d) and 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of LTFV imports and subsidized imports of subject merchandise from the PRC.3

    1See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 79 FR 76970 (December 23, 2014).

    2See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 79 FR 76962 (December 23, 2014) (CVD Final Determination).

    3See the ITC Notification Letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance referencing ITC Investigation Nos. 701-TA-511 and 731-TA-1246-1247 (February 5, 2015).

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by these orders are modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials. For purposes of these orders, subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells produced in a customs territory other than the PRC.

    Subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

    Excluded from the scope of these orders are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of these orders are modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. Where more than one module, laminate and/or panel is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all modules, laminates and/or panels that are integrated into the consumer good. Further, also excluded from the scope of these orders are any products covered by the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, laminates and/or panels, from the PRC.4

    4See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012).

    Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030 and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.

    Amendment to the CVD Final Determination

    On December 23, 2014, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the CVD investigation.5 On December 24, 2014, Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (Trina Solar) and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. (Wuxi Suntech), respondents in the CVD investigation, submitted timely ministerial error allegations and requested that the Department correct the alleged ministerial errors in the subsidy margin calculations.6 On December 29, 2014, SolarWorld Americas, Inc., the petitioner in the CVD investigation, submitted timely rebuttal comments on Trina Solar's and Wuxi Suntech's allegations.7 No other interested party submitted ministerial error allegations or replied to Trina Solar's or Wuxi Suntech's submissions.

    5See CVD Final Determination.

    6See the Letter to the Secretary from Trina Solar, “Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China: Ministerial Errors Allegation,” (December 24, 2014); see also the Letter to the Secretary from Wuxi Suntech, “Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China: Ministerial Error Comments of Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd.,” (December 24, 2014).

    7See the Letter to the Secretary, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China: Response to Trina's Ministerial Error Allegation,” (December 29, 2014); see also the Letter to the Secretary, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China: Response to Suntech's Ministerial Error Comments,” (December 29, 2014).

    After analyzing comments and rebuttals from all interested parties, we determined, in accordance with section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made a ministerial error in our calculations for the CVD Final Determination with respect to Trina Solar. At the verification of Trina Solar's questionnaire responses, we discovered unreported subsidy programs in Trina Solar's accounting system. We translated certain line items from that accounting system at verification and found that every translated line item represented a countervailable subsidy in our CVD Final Determination. In so doing, we inadvertently countervailed a subsidy program that did not appear among the list of translated subsidy programs submitted as a verification exhibit.8 This amended final CVD determination corrects this error and revises the ad valorem subsidy rate for Trina Solar.

    8 For a detailed discussion of all alleged ministerial errors, as well as the Department's analysis, see the memorandum, “Amended Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China: Ministerial Error Allegations,” (February 6, 2015) (Ministerial Error Memorandum).

    In the CVD Final Determination, we based the estimated subsidy rate for “all others” by calculating the simple average of Trina Solar's and Wuxi Suntech's estimated subsidy rates.9 Because the subsidy rate for all others is based on the rates for Trina Solar and Wuxi Suntech, and the rate for Trina Solar changed because of the aforementioned ministerial error, we have revised the calculation for the estimated subsidy rate for all others in this amended final CVD determination.10 The amended estimated ad valorem subsidy rates are provided below.

    9See CVD Final Determination, 79 FR at 76964.

    10See Ministerial Error Memorandum at 10.

    Antidumping Duty Order

    As stated above, on February 5, 2015, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in its investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of certain solar products from the PRC.11 Because the ITC determined that imports of certain solar products from the PRC are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from the PRC, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    11See ITC Determination.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of certain solar products from the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of certain solar products from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 31, 2014, the date of publication of the AD Preliminary Determination, 12 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

    12See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR 44399 (July 31, 2014) (AD Preliminary Determination).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation (AD)

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of certain solar products from the PRC as described in the “Scope of the Orders” section, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 31, 2014, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination that certain solar products are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Further, consistent with our practice, where the product from the PRC under investigation is also subject to a concurrent CVD investigation, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 13 equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through.14 The cash deposit rates, before any adjustments for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, are as follows: (1) For each exporter/producer combination listed in the table below, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the dumping margin listed for that exporter/producer combination in the table; (2) for all other combinations of PRC exporters/producers of the merchandise under consideration, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the dumping margin established for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of the merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    13See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    14See sections 772(c)(1)(C) and 777A(f) of the Act.

    Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below, adjusted, where appropriate, for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, as discussed above.15

    15 With respect to the final affirmative countervailing duty determination in the companion investigation, because the provisional measures period has expired, the Department will only order the resumption of the suspension of liquidation, and require cash deposits for countervailing duties equal to the final subsidy rates, upon issuance of a final affirmative injury determination by the ITC. As a result, the Department will make an adjustment to AD cash deposits, where appropriate, for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through as of the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination.

    Provisional Measures (AD)

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination in an AD investigation may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of certain solar products from the PRC, we extended the four-month period to no more than six months in this case.16 As stated above, in the investigation covering certain solar products from the PRC, the Department published the preliminary determination in the AD investigation on July 31, 2014. Therefore, the six-month period beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the AD investigation ended on January 27, 2015. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    16See AD Preliminary Determination, 79 FR at 44396.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of certain solar products from the PRC, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 27, 2015, the date the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register.

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-average dumping margin (percent) Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd 26.71 Renesola Jiangsu Ltd./Renesola Zhejiang Ltd./Jinko Solar Co. Ltd./Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd Renesola Jiangsu Ltd./Jinko Solar Co. Ltd 78.42 Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd 52.13 Asun Energy Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Suzhou Asun Energy Co., Ltd.) Asun Energy Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Suzhou Asun Energy Co., Ltd.) 52.13 Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. , Ltd Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd., and Lixian Yingli New Energy Co., Ltd 52.13 BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd 52.13 Canadian Solar International Limited Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc 52.13 Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc 52.13 Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc 52.13 CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co., Ltd CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co., Ltd 52.13 Changzhou Almaden Co., Ltd Changzhou Almaden Co., Ltd 52.13 Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 52.13 ET Solar Industry Limited ET Solar Industry Limited 52.13 Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd 52.13 Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd 52.13 Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co., Ltd Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co., Ltd 52.13 Hanwha SolarOne Hong Kong Limited Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co., Ltd 52.13 Hefei JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd Hefei JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd 52.13 Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co., Ltd Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co., Ltd 52.13 Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Company Limited Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Company Limited 52.13 Jiangyin Hareon Power Co., Ltd Jiangyin Xinhui Solar Co., Ltd.; Altusvia Energy Taicang Co., Ltd.; Hareon Solar Technology Co., Ltd 52.13 Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd 52.13 Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd Shenzhen Jiawei Photovoltaic Lighting Co. Ltd 52.13 LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Nanchang) Co., Ltd LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Nanchang) Co., Ltd 52.13 Lixian Yingli New Energy Company Ltd Lixian Yingli New Energy Company Ltd 52.13 MOTECH (Suzhou) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd MOTECH (Suzhou) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd 52.13 Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd 52.13 Perlight Solar Co., Ltd Perlight Solar Co., Ltd 52.13 Risen Energy Co., Ltd Risen Energy Co., Ltd 52.13 Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd 52.13 Shanghai Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd Lianyungang Shenzhou New Energy Co., Ltd 52.13 Shenzhen Jiawei Photovoltaic Lighting Co. Ltd Shenzhen Jiawei Photovoltaic Lighting Co. Ltd 52.13 Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd 52.13 Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd 52.13 Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd 52.13 Sunny Apex Development Ltd Shenzhen Jiawei Photovoltaic Lighting Co. Ltd.,
  • Wuhan FYY Technology Co., Ltd
  • 52.13
    SunPower Systems SARL SunEnergy (S.Z.) Co., Ltd 52.13 tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd 52.13 Upsolar Global Co., Ltd. and including Upsolar Group, Co., Ltd Shandong Dahai Group Co. Ltd 52.13 Wanxiang Import & Export Co., Ltd Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co., Ltd 52.13 Wuhan FYY Technology Co., Ltd Wuhan FYY Technology Co., Ltd 52.13 Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd 52.13 Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited, Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. , Ltd. and Lixian Yingli New Energy Co. , Ltd 52.13 Yingli Green Energy International Trading Limited Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited, Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.,
  • and Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd
  • 52.13
    Zhongli Talesun Solar Co., Ltd Zhongli Talesun Solar Co., Ltd 52.13 PRC-Wide Rate 165.04
    Countervailing Duty Order

    As stated above, on February 5, 2015, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of certain solar products from the PRC.17

    17See ITC Determination.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties equal to the amounts listed below for all relevant entries of certain solar products from the PRC. These countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of certain solar products from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 10, 2014, the date of publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination, 18 and before October 8, 2014, the date on which the Department instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act. Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Entries of certain solar products from the PRC made on or after October 8, 2014, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register are not liable for the assessment of countervailing duties, due to the Department's discontinuation, effective October 8, 2014, of the suspension of liquidation.

    18See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 79 FR 33174 (June 10, 2014) (CVD Preliminary Determination).

    Suspension of Liquidation (CVD)

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act, we will instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation on all relevant entries of certain solar products from the PRC. We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated below: 19

    19See section 706(a)(3) of the Act.

    Company Subsidy rate (percent) (ad valorem) Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd 27.64 Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd 49.21 All Others 38.43 Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders with respect to certain solar products from the PRC pursuant to sections 736(a) and 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find an updated list of orders currently in effect by either visiting http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html or by contacting the Department's Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Commerce Building.

    These orders and the amended CVD Final Determination are published in accordance with sections 705(e), 706(a), 736(a), and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.211(b) and 351.224(e).

    Dated: February 10, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03183 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-853] Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty (“AD”) order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (“certain solar products”) from Taiwan.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Riggle or Magd Zalok AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0650 or (202) 482-4162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”) and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on December 23, 2014, the Department published an affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the investigation of certain solar products from Taiwan.1 On February 5, 2015, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of LTFV imports of certain solar products from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.2

    1See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 79 FR 76966 (December 23, 2014).

    2See ITC Notification letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance referencing ITC Investigation Nos. 701-TA-511 and 731-TA-1246-1247 (Final).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials.

    Subject merchandise includes crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

    Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in Taiwan are covered by this investigation. However, modules, laminates, and panels produced in Taiwan from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by this investigation.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

    Further, also excluded from the scope of this investigation are any products covered by the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).3 Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells produced in Taiwan that are covered by an existing proceeding on such modules, laminates, and panels from the PRC.

    3See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012).

    Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030 and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Antidumping Duty Order

    As stated above, on February 5, 2015, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in its investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain solar products from Taiwan. Because the ITC determined that imports of certain solar products from Taiwan are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Taiwan, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of certain solar products from Taiwan. These antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of certain solar products from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 31, 2014, the date of publication of the preliminary determination,4 and which are subject to the scope of this Order, as described above. However, antidumping duties will not be assessed on entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

    4See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR 44395 (July 31, 2014) (“Taiwan Prelim Determination”).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all entries of certain solar products from Taiwan. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits at rates equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require a cash deposit at rates equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.5 The relevant all-others rate for Taiwan, applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed.

    5See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of certain solar products from Taiwan, we extended the four-month period to no more than six months in this case.6 As stated above, in the investigation covering certain solar products from Taiwan, the Department published the preliminary determination on July 31, 2014. Therefore, the six-month period beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determination ended on January 27, 2015. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    6See Taiwan Prelim Determination, 79 FR at 44396.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of certain solar products from Taiwan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 27, 2015, the date the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation resumes on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Taiwan Exporter or producer Estimated weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Gintech Energy Corporation 27.55 Motech Industries, Inc. 11.45 All Others 19.50
    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the AD order with respect to certain solar products from Taiwan pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    This order is published in accordance with sections 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: February 10, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03179 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-980] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012 and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Huston, Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 8, 2015, the Department of Commerce published in the Federal Register its notice of preliminary results and partial rescission for the countervailing duty administrative review of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China for the period of review March 26, 2012, through December 31, 2012.1 Appendices to this notice, which listed companies for which the administrative review was rescinded and companies for which the administrative review would continue, inadvertently contained certain errors and omissions. Corrected versions of Appendix II, listing companies for which the review has been rescinded, and Appendix III, listing companies for which the review will continue, not selected for individual review, are attached to this notice. No other changes have been made to the Preliminary Results.

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012; and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 80 FR 1019 (January 8, 2015) (Preliminary Results).

    This corrected preliminary results and partial rescission is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: February 6, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix II

    Companies for which review was rescinded

    1. Aiko Solar 2. Amplesun Solar 3. Beijing Hope Industry 4. Best Solar Hi-tech 5. CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science Technology Co., Ltd. 6. CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co., Ltd. 7. China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. 8. China Sunergy 9. Chinalight Solar 10. CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co., Ltd. 11. Dai Hwa Industrial 12. EGing 13. ENN Solar Energy 14. General Solar Power 15. Golden Partner Development 16. Goldpoly (Quanzhou) 17. Hairun Photovoltaics Technology Co., Ltd 18. Hanwha Solar One (Qidong) Co., Ltd. 19. Hareon Solar Technology 20. HC Solar Power Co., Ltd. 21. JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. 22. Jetion Solar (China) Co., Ltd. 23. Jia Yi Energy Technology 24. Jiasheng Photovoltaic Tech. 25. Jiangxi Green Power Co. Ltd. 26. Jiawei Solar Holding 27. Jiawei Solarchina Co. (Shenzhen), Ltd 28. JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. 29. Jiutai Energy 30. Linuo Photovoltaic 31. Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co., Ltd. 32. Perfectenergy 33. Polar Photovoltaics 34. Qiangsheng (QS Solar) 35. QXPV (Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd) 36. Refine Solar 37. Risen Energy Co, Ltd. 38. Risun Solar (JiangXi Ruijing Solar Power Co., Ltd.) 39. Sanjing Silicon 40. Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy 41. Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. 42. Shanghai Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd. 43. Shangpin Solar 44. Shanshan Ulica 45. Shenzhen Global Solar Energy Tech. 46. Shuqimeng Energy Tech 47. Skybasesolar 48. Solargiga Energy Holdings Ltd. 49. Sunflower 50. Sunlink PV 51. Sunvim Solar Technology 52. Tainergy Tech 53. tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 54. Tianjin Jinneng Solar Cell 55. Topsolar 56. Trony 57. Weihai China Glass Solar 58. Wuxi Sun-shine Power Co., Ltd. 59. Wuxi University Science Park International Incubator Co., Ltd. 60. Yuhan Sinosola Science & Technology Co., Ltd. 61. Yuhuan Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd. 62. Yunnan Tianda 63. Yunnan Zhuoye Energy 64. Zhejinag Leye Photovoltaic Science and Technology Co., Ltd. 65. Zhejiang Top Point Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. 66. Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co, Ltd. 67. Zhenjiang Huantai Silicon Science and Technology Co., Ltd.
    Appendix III

    Companies for which review will continue, but not selected for individual review

    1. Baoding Jiansheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd. 2. Boading Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. 3. Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd. 4. Canadian Solar International Limited 5. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc. 6. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc. 7. Changzhou NESL Solartech Co., Ltd. 8. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. 9. Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. 10. CSG PVTech Co., Ltd. 11. DelSolar Co., Ltd. 12. De-Tech Trading Limited HK 13. Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGI Solar Power Technology Co., Ltd. 14. Eoplly New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. 15. Era Solar Co., Ltd. 16. ET Solar Energy Limited. 17. Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. 18. Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd. 19. Hendigan Group Dmegc Magnetics 20. Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. 21. Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co., Ltd. 22. Innovosolar 23. Jiangsu Green Power PV Co., Ltd. 24. Jiangxi Sunlink PV Technology Ltd. 25. Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd. 26. Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co., Ltd. 27. Jiawei Solarchina Co. Ltd. 28. Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. 29. Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd. 30. Jinko Solar International Limited 31. Konca Solar Cell Co., Ltd. 32. Kuttler Automation Systems (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. 33. LDK Solar Hi-tech (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. 34. LDK Solar Hi-tech (Nanchang) 35. Leye Photovoltaic Science & Technology Co., Ltd. 36. Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. 37. Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 38. Magi Solar Technology 39. Motech (Suzhou) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd. 40. MS Solar Investments LLC 41. Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd. 42. Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd. 43. Ningbo ETDZ Holdings Ltd. 44. Perlight Solar Co., Ltd. 45. ReneSola 46. Renesola Jiangsu Ltd. 47. Shenzen Topray Solar Co., Ltd. 48. Shanghai Machinery Complete Equipment (Group) Corp., Ltd. 49. Shenglong PV Tech. 50. Shenzhen Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 51. ShunFeng PV 52. Solarbest Energy—Tech (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. 53. Sopray Energy 54. Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd. 55. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd. 56. Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 57. Suzhou Shenglong PV-Tech Co., Ltd. 58. Tianwei New Energy (Chengdu) PV Module Co., Ltd. 59. Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co, Ltd. 60. Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co, Ltd. 61. Topray 62. Upsolar Group, Co. Ltd. 63. Wanxiang Import & Export Co., Ltd. 64. Wuxi Sunshine Power 65. Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 66. Yangzhou Rietech Renewal Energy Co., Ltd. 67. Yangzhou Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 68. Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited. 69. Yingli Green Energy International Trading Company Limited. 70. Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co. Ltd. 71. Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd. 72. Zhejiang Xinshun Guangfu Science and Technology Co., Ltd. 73. Zhejiang ZG-Cells Co, Ltd. 74. Zhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd. 75. Zhiheng Solar Inc. 76. Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Sciences & Technology Limited Liability Company
    [FR Doc. 2015-03340 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-023, C-560-829] Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China and Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Tran at (202) 482-1503 or Joy Zhang at (202) 482-1168 (People's Republic of China (PRC)); David Goldberger at (202) 482-4136 or Katherine Johnson at (202) 482-4929 (Indonesia), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The Petitions

    On January 21, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain uncoated paper from the PRC and Indonesia filed in proper form on behalf of United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union; Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. Glatfelter Company; and Packaging Corporation of America (collectively, the petitioners). The CVD petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, the PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal.1 The petitioners are domestic producers of uncoated paper,2 and a certified union with workers engaged in the manufacture and production of the domestic like product in the United States.3

    1See “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Portugal and Countervailing Duties on Imports from China and Indonesia,” dated January 21, 2015 (Petitions).

    2See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-2 and Exhibit I-2.

    3Id. at, I-1—I-2 and Exhibit I-2.

    On January 26 and 27, 2015, the Department requested information and clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.4 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on January 29 and 30, 2015.5

    4See Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Supplemental Questions,” dated January 26, 2015 (PRC Deficiency Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to the petitioners, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal, and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia and the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,” dated January 26, 2015 (General Issues Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia: Supplemental Questions,” dated January 27, 2015 (Indonesia Deficiency Questionnaire); and Memorandum to the File entitled “Petitions for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China: Addendum to Supplemental Questions,” dated January 27, 2015 (PRC Addendum).

    5See Letter from the petitioners entitled “Certain Uncoated Paper From The People's Republic Of China/Petitioners' Response To The Department's Questions Regarding The Petition,” dated January 29, 2015 (PRC CVD Supplement); Letter from the petitioners entitled “Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia/Petitioners' Response To The Department's Questions Regarding The Petition,” dated January 30, 2015 (Indonesia CVD Supplement); and Letter from the petitioners entitled “Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, The People's Republic of China, Indonesia, And Portugal/Petitioners' Response To The Department's General Questions Regarding The Petition,” dated January 30, 2015 (General Issues Supplement).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the petitioners allege that the Government of the PRC (GOC) and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) are providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of certain uncoated paper from the PRC and Indonesia, respectively, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.6

    6See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

    Period of Investigations

    The period of the investigation for both the PRC and Indonesia is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.7

    7 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is certain uncoated paper from the PRC and Indonesia. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.8

    8See General Issues Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,9 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The period for scope comments is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. All such comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (“EST”) on March 2, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on March 12, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.10

    9See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    10 According to the Department practice, when a date falls on a weekend or a federal holiday, submissions become due the next business day; see Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of the PRC and Indonesia CVD investigations, as well as the concurrent Australia, Brazil, the PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal AD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).11 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    11 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the reference to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC and the GOI of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC and the GOI the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.12 Consultations were held with the GOC on February 5, 2015. Consultations were held with the GOI on February 9, 2015. All memoranda are on file electronically via ACCESS.13

    12See Letter of Invitation from the Department to the GOI dated January 21, 2015, and Letter of Invitation from the Department to the GOC dated January 26, 2015.

    13See supra fn.10 for information pertaining to ACCESS.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,14 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.15

    14See section 771(10) of the Act.

    15See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we determined that uncoated paper constitutes a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.16

    16 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions Covering Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal (Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia (Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, and compared their shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.17 Because total industry production data for the domestic like product for 2014 are not reasonably available and the petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data,18 we relied upon the shipment data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.19

    17See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-2 through I-4 and Exhibit I-3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 5-8 and Exhibits I-S4 through I-S7.

    18See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-3 and Exhibit I-4.

    19 For further discussion, see PRC CVD Checklist and Indonesia CVD Checklist, at Attachment II.

    Based on the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental submission, and other information readily available to the Department, we determine that the petitioners have established industry support.20 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments 21 of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).22 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total shipments of the domestic like product.23 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.24 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    20Id.

    21 As mentioned above, the petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states “production levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.”

    22See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD Checklist and Indonesia CVD Checklist, at Attachment II.

    23Id.

    24Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.25

    25Id.

    Injury Test

    Because Indonesia and the PRC are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia and the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. The petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold of three percent provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.26 In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. The petitioners also demonstrate that subject imports from Indonesia, which has been designated as a developing country under section 771(36)(A) of the Act, exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.27

    26See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-23, I-24 and Exhibit I-12; see also General Issues Supplement, at 11 and Exhibit I-S11.

    27Id.

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic industry, including mill closures, decline in production, and decline in shipments; reduced employment variables; and adverse impact on financial performance.28 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.29

    28See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-22 through I-43 and Exhibits I-3 and I-10 through I-26; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 8-11 and Exhibits I-S1 and I-S8 through I-S13.

    29See Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal.

    Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting the allegations.

    The petitioners allege that producers/exporters of certain uncoated paper in the PRC and Indonesia benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the governments of these countries, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain uncoated paper from the PRC and Indonesia receive countervailable subsidies from the governments of these countries, respectively.

    The PRC

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 21 of the 22 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist.

    Indonesia

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 14 of the 15 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist.

    A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation is available on ACCESS and at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named eight companies as producers/exporters of certain uncoated paper from the PRC and six companies as producers/exporters of certain uncoated paper from Indonesia.30 Following standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of uncoated paper during the period of investigation under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) numbers: 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO shortly after the announcement of these case initiations. The Department invites comments regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

    30See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOC and GOI via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain uncoated paper from the PRC and/or Indonesia are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.31 A negative ITC determination for either country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country;32 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    31See section 703(a) of the Act.

    32Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations. Interested parties should review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD proceedings.33 The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction information filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations. Interested parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    33See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.34 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 35 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    34See section 782(b) of the Act.

    35See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: February 10, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    Appendix I Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations includes uncoated paper in sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per square meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; that either is a white paper with a GE brightness level1 of 85 or higher or is a colored paper; whether or not surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, perforated, or punched; irrespective of the smoothness of the surface; and irrespective of dimensions (Certain Uncoated Paper).

    1 One of the key measurements of any grade of paper is brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter the paper the better the contrast between the paper and the ink. Brightness is measured using a GE Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of light off a grade of paper. One is the lowest reflection, or what would be given to a totally black grade, and 100 is the brightest measured grade. “Colored paper” as used in this scope definition means a paper with a hue other than white that reflects one of the primary colors of magenta, yellow, and cyan (red, yellow, and blue) or a combination of such primary colors.

    Certain Uncoated Paper includes (a) uncoated free sheet paper that meets this scope definition; (b) uncoated groundwood paper produced from bleached chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp (BCTMP) that meets this scope definition; and (c) any other uncoated paper that meets this scope definition regardless of the type of pulp used to produce the paper.

    Specifically excluded from the scope are (1) paper printed with final content of printed text or graphics and (2) lined paper products, typically school supplies, composed of paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines that would make the paper unsuitable for copying or printing purposes.

    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) categories 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. Some imports of subject merchandise may also be classified under 4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.5000, 4802.62.6020, 4802.62.6040, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 4802.69.3000, 4811.90.8050 and 4811.90.9080. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2015-03337 Filed 2-17-15; 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; 2013-2014; Partial Rescission of the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On November 28, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) based on multiple timely requests for an administrative review. The review covers 42 companies. Based on withdrawals of the requests for review of certain companies from M&B Metal Products Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”), and Hangzhou Yingqing Material Co. Ltd (“Yingqing Material”), we are now rescinding this administrative review with respect to 35 companies.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katie Marksberry, 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) 482-7906.

    Background

    In October 2014, the Department received multiple timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the PRC.1 Based upon these requests, on November 28, 2014, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the Order covering the period October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014.2 The Department initiated the administrative review with respect to 42 companies.3 On December 19, 2014, Petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review on 35 companies.4 Additionally, on February 2, 2015, Yingqing Material withdrew its request for a review of itself.5

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 58111 (October 6, 2008) (“Order”).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 70850 (November 28, 2014).

    3Id.

    4See Letter to the Department from Petitioners, Re: Petitioner's Withdrawal of Review Requests for Specific Companies, dated December 19, 2014.

    5See Letter to the Department from Yingqing Material; Re: Withdrawal from Review, dated February 2, 2015.

    Partial Rescission

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. All requests for administrative reviews on the 35 companies listed in the Appendix were withdrawn.6 Accordingly, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to these entities, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    6 As stated in Change in Practice in NME Reviews, the Department will no longer consider the non-market economy (“NME”) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, 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 Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    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, 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.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: February 6, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. APPENDIX 1 Da Sheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd. 2 Feirongda Weaving Material Co. Ltd. 3 Hangzhou Qingqing Mechanical Co. Ltd. 4 Hangzhou Yingqing Material Co. Ltd 5 Hongye (HK) Group Development Co. Ltd. 6 Liaoning Metals & Mineral Imp/Exp Corp. 7 Nanton Eason Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. 8 Ningbo Bingcheng Import & Export Co., Ltd. 9 Ningbo Peacebird Import & Export Co., Ltd. 10 Shang Zhou Leather Shoes Plant 11 Shanghai Bao Heng Relay Making Co., Ltd. 12 Shanghai Ding Ying Printing & Dyeing Co. Ltd. 13 Shanghai Ganghun Beddiry Clothing Factory 14 Shanghai Guoxing Metal Products Co. Ltd. 15 Shanghai Jianhai International Trade Co., Ltd. 16 Shanghai Lian Development Co. Ltd. 17 Shanghai Shuang Qiang Embroidery Factory 18 Shanghai Tonghui 19 Shangyu Baoli Electro Chemical Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. 20 Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. 21 Shangyu Tongfang Labour Protective Articles Co., Ltd. 22 Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 23 Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. 24 Shaoxing Meideli Hanger Co. Ltd. 25 Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. 26 Shaoxing Shuren Tie Co., Ltd. 27 Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. 28 Shaoxing Zhongdi Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. 29 Tianjin Innovation International 30 Tianjin Tailai Import and Export Co. Ltd. 31 Wesken International (Kunshan) Co. Ltd. 32 Xia Fang Hanger (Cambodia) Co., Ltd. 33 Zhejiang Hongfei Plastic Industry Co. Ltd. 34 Zhejiang Jaguar Import and Export Co. Ltd. 35 Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03193 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 25, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta from Italy and provided interested parties an opportunity to comment.1 The review initially covered two mandatory respondents, Molino e Pastificio Tomasello S.p.A. (Tomasello), and Rummo,2 and eight non-selected companies.3 We rescinded the review with respect to Alica and Lensi in the Preliminary Results. 4 The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results differ from the Preliminary Results. For the final weighted-average dumping margin, see the “Final Results of Review” section below.

    1See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission; 2012-2013, 79 FR 50614 (August 25, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    2 The “Rummo Group” consists of Rummo S.p.A., a producer and seller of subject merchandise, Lenta Lavorazione, a seller of subject merchandise, Pasta Castiglioni, a producer and seller of subject merchandise, and the ultimate holding company (with no operations), Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (collectively, “Rummo”).

    3 The non-selected companies are: Alica srl (Alica); Dalla Costa Alimentare srl; Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A.; Ghigi Industria Agroalimentare in San Clemente srl; Pasta Lensi S.r.l (Lensi); Pasta Zara S.p.A.; Pastificio Toscano srl; Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani S.r.L. We rescinded, in part, this administrative review with respect to Alica and Lensi.

    4See Preliminary Results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Moore (Tomasello) or Cindy Robinson (Rummo), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3692 or (202) 482-3797, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 25, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. 5 On September 24, 2014, Rummo and Tomasello submitted case briefs. On September 24, 2014, Rummo also requested a hearing. On October 3, 2014, Petitioners 6 filed a rebuttal brief with respect to Rummo. On November 13, 2014, the Department held a public hearing.7 On December 19, 2014, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review from December 23, 2013 to February 21, 2014.8

    5 The Department issued the briefing schedule in a Memorandum to the File, dated January 7, 2014. This briefing schedule indicated that the case and rebuttal briefs were due by close of business January 15, 2014 and January 22, 2014, respectively.

    6 The Petitioners are New World Pasta Company and Dakota Growers Pasta Company.

    7See the hearing transcript dated November 13, 2014, which 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 in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    8 Because February 21, 2015, is a Saturday, the deadline for the final results will be Monday, February 23, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.9

    9 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 17th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy; 2012-2013” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.10 A list of the issues that parties 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 CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    10Id.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we recalculated Rummo's and Tomasello's weighted-average dumping margins for these final results.

    For Rummo, we revised our margin program by utilizing the non-consolidated customer code for one of Rummo's consolidated customers.11 As a result of this change, we applied the average-to-average (A-to-A) comparison to calculate Rummo's weighted-average dumping margin. In addition, we made a correction to our margin program for Rummo's U.S. direct selling expenses which were inadvertently double counted in the Preliminary Results. 12

    11See Issues and Decision Memorandum at comment 4; see also Memorandum to the File, Through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office III, from Cindy Robinson, Case Analyst, Office III, titled “Certain Pasta from Italy: Calculation Memorandum—the Rummo Group,” dated December 23, 2014 (Rummo Calc. Memo), for details.

    12See Issues and Decision Memorandum at comment 5 and Rummo Calc. Memo for details.

    We made a change to our margin program for Tomasello with respect to certain billing adjustments. As a result of this revision, we applied the average-to-transaction (A-to-T) method for the U.S. sales passing the Cohen's d test and the A-to-A method for the U.S. sales not passing the Cohen's d test to calculate the weighted-average dumping margin for Tomasello.13

    13See Sales Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results for Molino e Pastificio Tomasello S.p.A. (Tomasello).

    As a result of the aforementioned recalculations of Tomasello's and Rummo's rates, the weighted-average dumping margin for the six non-selected companies changed.

    Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department determines the following weighted-average dumping margins 14 for the period July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, are as follows:

    14 The rate applied to the non-selected companies is a weighted-average percentage margin calculated based on the publicly-ranged U.S. volumes of the two reviewed companies with an affirmative dumping margin, for the period July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. See Memorandum to the File, titled, “Certain Pasta from Italy: Margin for Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination,” from Stephanie Moore, Case Analyst, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, dated concurrently with this notice.

    Producer and/or Exporter Weighted-average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio, Rummo S.p.A., Lenta Lavorazione, and Pasta Castiglioni (collectively the Rummo Group) 4.26 Molino e Pastificio Tomasello S.p.A. 1.71 Dalla Costa Alimentare srl 2.36 Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A 2.36 Ghigi Industria Agroalimentare in San Clemente srl 2.36 Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani S.r.L 2.36 Pasta Zara S.p.A 2.36 Pastificio Toscano srl; 2.36
    Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine and the CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.15 For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.

    15 In these final results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the amount of dumping calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the amount of dumping for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.16 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.

    16See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Automatic Assessment Clarification).

    We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents 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 15.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation as modified by the section 129 determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    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: February 10, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope IV. List of Comments Comment 1: Consideration of an Alternative Comparison Method in Administrative Reviews Comment 2: The Utilization of the Cohen's d Test in Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 3: Application of the Average-to-Transaction Method to Non-dumped U.S. Sales Comment 4: Definition of “Purchaser” in the Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 5: Correction for Rummo's U.S. Direct Selling Expenses Comment 6: The Commission Offset for Rummo's Constructed Export Price (CEP) Sales Comment 7: Treatment of Tomasello's Billing Adjustments V. Analysis VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-03334 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-805] Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Pursuant to Settlement AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Flessner or Robert James, 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) 482-6312 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 9, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009.1

    1See Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 36086 (June 21, 2011) (Final Results).

    In the Final Results, the Department assigned to Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mueller), an exporter of certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico to the United States, a rate of 19.81 percent for the 2008-09 period of review. The Department had conducted administrative reviews of Mueller, Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (TUNA), and Ternium, S.A.de C.V. (Ternium). The Department based Mueller's margin, in part, on facts available because an unaffiliated supplier refused to supply the Department with its costs of production, necessary to conduct the sales-below-cost test on Mueller's home market sales.

    Following the publication of the Final Results, Mueller filed a lawsuit with the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging the Department's final results of administrative review.2 The CIT upheld the Department's final results.3 Mueller timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC or Court).4 The CAFC remanded for the Department to reconsider the margin calculated for Mueller.5

    2See Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. United States, Court No. 11-00319, Slip Op. 12-156 (December 21, 2012).

    3See Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. United States, Court No. 11-00319, Slip Op. 13-57 (May 2, 2013).

    4See Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. United States, 753 F.3rd 1227 (Fed. Circ., 2014).

    5Id., at 1235-36.

    The United States and Mueller have now entered into an agreement to settle this dispute. The Court issued its amended Order of Judgment by Stipulation on February 6, 2015.6 Pursuant to the Court's amended Order of Judgment by Stipulation, the amended final weighted-average dumping margin for Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. is 13.70 percent, as agreed to by the parties.

    6See Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. United States, Court No. 11-00319, Slip Op. 15-9 (February 6, 2015).

    Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review in the Federal Register.

    Because Mueller's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the Department has calculated importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates. We calculated importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total entered value associated with those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review where an importer-specific assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The cash deposit rate for Mueller will be that stipulated in the settlement agreement, 13.70 percent.

    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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing this determination and publishing these final results of antidumping duty administrative review pursuant to settlement and notice in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1516(e).

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03478 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-873; A-791-815] Ferrovanadium From the People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and the Republic of South Africa (“South Africa”) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of these antidumping duty orders.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Hill or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3518 or 202-482-5193, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On November 1, 2013, the Department published a notice of initiation of the second sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ferrovanadium from the PRC and South Africa, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).1 As a result of its reviews, the Department determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on ferrovanadium from the PRC and South Africa would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the orders be revoked.2 On February 3, 2015, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on ferrovanadium from the PRC and South Africa would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 78 FR 65614 (November 1, 2013).

    2See Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 14216 (March 13, 2014).

    3See Ferrovanadium from China and South Africa; Determinations, 80 FR 5787 (February 3, 2015).

    Scope of the Orders

    The scope of these orders covers all ferrovanadium regardless of grade, chemistry, form, shape, or size. Ferrovanadium is an alloy of iron and vanadium that is used chiefly as an additive in the manufacture of steel. The merchandise is commercially and scientifically identified as vanadium. It specifically excludes vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium, such as nitride vanadium, vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium oxides, vanadium waste and scrap, and vanadium-bearing raw materials such as slag, boiler residues and fly ash. Merchandise under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 2850.00.2000, 8112.40.3000, and 8112.40.6000 are specifically excluded. Ferrovanadium is classified under HTSUS item number 7202.92.00. Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of these orders remains dispositive.

    Continuation of the Orders

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping orders on ferrovanadium from the PRC and South Africa. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty 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 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, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

    These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: February 6, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03336 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Cyber Security Business Development Mission to Poland and Romania May 11-15, 2015 AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, is amending the Notice published at 79 FR 58746 (September 30, 2014), regarding the executive-led Cyber Security Business Development Mission to Poland and Romania, scheduled for May 11-15, 2015, to announce new leadership in the trade mission and to extend the date of the application deadline from March 1, 2015 to the new deadline of March 13, 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Amendments to Announce Leadership and Revise the Dates.

    Background

    The United States Department of Commerce is pleased to announce that the Cyber Security Business Development Mission to Poland and Romania will now be led by the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, Bruce H. Andrews. Due to this change in leadership, it has been determined that additional time is needed to allow for additional recruitment and marketing in support of the Mission. Applications will now be accepted through March 13, 2014 (and after that date if space remains and scheduling constraints permit). Interested U.S. companies and trade associations/organizations providing cyber security software and critical infrastructure goods and services which have not already submitted an application are encouraged to do so.

    The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis in accordance with the Notice published at 79 FR 58746 (September 30, 2014) The applicants selected will be notified as soon as possible.

    Contact Information

    Gemal Brangman, International Trade Specialist, Trade Missions, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202-482-3773, Fax: 202-482-9000, [email protected]

    Frank Spector, Trade Missions Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03341 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-602-807, A-351-842, A-570-022, A-560-828, A-471-807] Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George McMahon or Eve Wang at (202) 482-1167 or (202) 482-6231 (Australia); Julia Hancock or Paul Walker at (202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-0413 (Brazil); Christopher Hargett or Stephanie Moore at (202) 482-4161 or (202) 482-3692 (the People's Republic of China (PRC)); Stephen Bailey or Blaine Wiltse at (202) 482-0193 or (202) 482-6345 (Indonesia); and Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482-2593 (Portugal), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions

    On January 21, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received the antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain uncoated paper (uncoated paper) from Australia, Brazil, the PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal, filed in proper form on behalf of the petitioners.1,2 The Petitions were accompanied by two countervailing duty (CVD) petitions on imports of uncoated paper from the PRC and Indonesia.3 The petitioners are domestic producers of uncoated paper,4 and a certified union with workers engaged in the manufacture and production of the domestic like product in the United States.5

    1 United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union; Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. Glatfelter Company; and Packaging Corporation of America (collectively known as (the petitioners)).

    2See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia, and Portugal; and Countervailing Duties on Imports from the People's Republic of China and Indonesia, dated January 21, 2015 (Petitions).

    3See Petitions.

    4See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-2 and Exhibit I-2.

    5Id., at I-1-I-2 and Exhibit I-2.

    On January 26, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.6 Additionally, on January 27, 2015, the Department held a teleconference call with the petitioners regarding issues in the Petition on the PRC and the scope of the Petitions.7 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on January 29, 2015, and January 30, 2015.8,9 On February 2 and 3, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions on Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and the PRC.10 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on February 3, 2015.11 Additionally, on February 3, 2015, the Department issued a third request for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition on Australia.12 The petitioners filed their response to the Department's third request on the Petition on Australia on February 4, 2015.13

    6See Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled “Re: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal, and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia and the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions” dated January 26, 2015 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire), and country-specific letters from the Department to the petitioners concerning supplemental questions on each of the country-specific records, dated January 26, 2015.

    7See Memorandum to the File from Whitney Schalbik, Import Policy Analyst, entitled “Re: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China and Indonesia; Subject: Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioners” dated January 27, 2015.

    8See Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners' Response to the Department's January 26, 2015 Supplemental Questions—Portugal Dumping Allegation” dated January 29, 2015 (Portugal Supplement).

    9See Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners' Response to the Department's General Questions Regarding the Petition” dated January 30, 2015 (General Issues Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners' Response to the Department's January 26, 2015, Supplemental Questionnaire: Australia Dumping Allegation” dated January 30, 2015 (Australia Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Brazil—Petitioners' Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the Petition” dated January 30, 2015 (Brazil Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners' Response to the Department's January 26, 2015, Supplemental Questionnaire: Indonesia Dumping Allegation” dated January 30, 2015 (Indonesia AD Supplement); and Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from the PRC—Petitioners' Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the Petition” dated January 30, 2015 (PRC AD Supplement).

    10See Memorandum to the File from Michael Martin, Lead Accountant, Office of Accounting, from Angie Sepulveda, Senior Accountant, entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia: Financial Expense,” dated February 2, 2015; Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Brazil: Second Supplemental Questions”, dated February 2, 2015; Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia: Second Supplemental Questions”, dated February 2, 2015; and Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China: PRC: Second Supplemental Questions,” dated February 2, 2015.

    11See Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners' Response to the Department's February 2, 2015, Supplemental Questions—Australia Dumping Allegation” dated February 3, 2015 (Australia Second Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners' Response to the Department's February 2, 2015, Supplemental Questions—Brazil Dumping Allegation” dated February 3, 2015 (Brazil Second Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners' Response to the Department's February 2, 2015, Supplemental Questions—Indonesia Dumping Allegation” dated February 3, 2015 (Second Indonesia AD Supplement); and Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic offo China, and Portugal—Petitioners'/Petitioners' Response to the Department's February 2, 2015, Supplemental Department's Additional Questions—China Dumping Allegation “Regarding the Petition,” dated February 3, 2015 (the PRC Second PRC AD Supplement).

    12See Memorandum to the File from George McMahon, Case Analyst, Office III, entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia: Phone Call with Cousel for Petitioners,” dated February 3, 2015.

    13See Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners' Submission of Revised Information Per the Department of Commerce's Request—Australia Dumping Allegation” dated February 4, 2015 (Australia Third Supplement).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.14

    14See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

    Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on January 21, 2015, the periods of investigation (POI) are, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows: January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, for Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and Portugal; and July 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, for the PRC.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on the Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.15

    15See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).16 The period for scope comments is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. All such comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on March 2, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 12, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments.

    16See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).17,18 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    17See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and the handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    18 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of uncoated paper to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: 1) General product characteristics and 2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe uncoated paper, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 2, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 12, 2015. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, PRC, and Portugal LTFV investigations.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,19 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.20

    19See section 771(10) of the Act.

    20See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we determined that uncoated paper constitutes a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.21

    21 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper from Australia (Australia AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions Covering Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper from Brazil (Brazil AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper from Indonesia (Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper from Portugal (Portugal AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, and compared their shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.22 Because total industry production data for the domestic like product for 2014 are not reasonably available and the petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data,23 we relied upon the shipment data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.24

    22See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-2 through I-4 and Exhibit I-3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 5-8 and Exhibits I-S4 through I-S7.

    23See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-3 and Exhibit I-4.

    24 For further discussion, see Australia AD Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    Based on the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, we determine that the petitioners have established industry support.25 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments 26 of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).27 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total shipments of the domestic like product.28 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.29 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    25Id.

    26 As mentioned above, the petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states “production levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.”

    27See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Australia AD Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    28Id.

    29Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.30

    30Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.31

    31See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-23, I-24 and Exhibit I-12; see also General Issues Supplement, at 11 and Exhibit I-S11.

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic industry, including mill closures, decline in production, and decline in shipments; reduced employment variables; and adverse impact on financial performance.32 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.33

    32See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-22 through I-43 and Exhibits I-3 and I-10 through I-26; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 8-11 and Exhibits I-S1 and I-S8 through I-S13.

    33See Australia AD Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal.

    Allegations of Sales at LTFV

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

    Export Price

    For Australia, the petitioners based U.S. export price (EP) on the average unit value (AUV) of imports from Australia obtained from ITC Dataweb under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading, 4802.56.1000, for the period of January through November 2014 (the most recent data available for the POI). The petitioners state that all imports of uncoated paper from Australia entered under this HTSUS subheading during the POI,34 and that this HTSUS subheading appears to include data for imports of uncoated paper most comparable to the products used to calculate NV.35

    34 The petitioners stated and the Department confirmed that U.S. import data from were available through November 2014 at the time of the petition filing. Accordingly, the U.S. import data covers the period January 2014—November 2014. See Volume II of the Petition at II-19 and Exhibit II-42; see also Australia AD Supplement, at II-SQ-7.

    35See Australia AD Initiation Checklist for further information on this U.S. price calculation.

    For Brazil, the petitioners based EP on a price quote for subject merchandise produced in Brazil by a producer of uncoated paper and AUVs of U.S. imports from Brazil obtained from ITC Dataweb under HTSUS subheadings 4802.56.1000 and 4802.56.7040 36 for the period of January through November 2014 (the most recent data available for the POI). The petitioners state that these HTSUS subheadings most closely correspond to the specific product that is the basis for NV.37 The price quote is supported by an affidavit from a person that directly received this information.38

    36See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.

    37See id.

    38See id.

    For Indonesia, the petitioners based EP on the AUVs of U.S. imports from Indonesia obtained from ITC Dataweb under HTSUS subheadings 4802.56.1000 and 4802.56.7040 for the period of January through November 2014 (the most recent data available for the POI). The petitioners state that these HTSUS subheadings cover uncoated paper most comparable to the products used to calculate NV. The petitioners also based EP on transaction-specific prices. To do so, the petitioners obtained ship manifest data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Automated Manifest System (AMS), compiled by Stewart Trade Data Services, Inc., and directly linked monthly U.S. port-specific import statistics by HTSUS subheading (obtained via Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division Merchandise Imports and Stewart Trade Data Services, Inc.) for imports of uncoated paper to shipments by the Indonesian producer(s) identified in the ship manifest data.39

    39See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.

    For the PRC, the petitioners based EP on the AUV of U.S. imports from the PRC obtained from ITC Dataweb under HTSUS subheading 4802.56.7040 for the period of July through November 2014 (the most recently available data for the POI). The petitioners assert that this HTSUS subheading most closely corresponds to the product used to calculate NV. The petitioners also based EP on producer-specific prices for a PRC producer of uncoated paper for shipments from the PRC under HTSUS subheading 4802.56.7040 during the period of July through November 2014. The petitioners obtained ship manifest data from CBP's AMS, via Datamyne, and linked monthly U.S. port-specific import statistics (obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau via Datamyne), for imports of uncoated paper entered under HTSUS subheading 4802.56.7040 to shipments by the PRC producer identified in the ship manifest data. 40

    40See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.

    With respect to the PRC, the petitioners originally provided import statistics and ship manifest data for imports of uncoated paper from the PRC and Hong Kong to use as the basis for calculating EP, alleging that imports from the PRC are being transshipped through Hong Kong and that imports from Hong Kong are actually imports from the PRC. Because the allegation of transshipment is more appropriately dealt with in the course of the investigation, we have relied on the AUV of imports of uncoated paper from the PRC and the producer-specific prices for the PRC producer's shipments that are clearly designated as originating from the PRC in both the official import statistics and the ship manifest data for purposes of the initiation.41

    41See id.

    For Portugal, the petitioners based EP on the AUVs of U.S. imports from Portugal obtained from ITC Dataweb under HTSUS subheadings 4802.56.4000 and 4802.56.7040 42 for the period January through November 2014 (the most recent data available for the POI). The petitioners state that these HTSUS subheadings cover uncoated paper most comparable to the products used to calculate NV.43

    42 The petitioners also calculated an AUV using export data from Portugal. Because the AUVs calculated from U.S. import data are available and the petitioners did not claim the U.S. import data are unreliable, we have relied on the AUVs the petitioners calculated using U.S. import data, in accordance with our normal practice with respect to calculating AUVs. See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist. See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.

    43See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.

    For each country's respective AUV, price quote, and/or transaction-specific price, that forms the basis of EP, the petitioners, based on the stated terms of delivery, deducted from these prices the adjustments, charges, and expenses associated with exporting and delivering the product to the U.S. customer, where appropriate.44

    44 For further information on the U.S. price calculation, see Australia AD Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.

    Normal Value

    For Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and Portugal, the petitioners based NV on price quotes or price information from producer(s) and/or distributors/resellers of uncoated paper.45 46 For each country, the petitioners provided an affidavit or declaration from a market researcher for the price quotes or price information that specified the price and quantity, terms of delivery, and terms of payment.47 Additionally, the petitioners made deductions for adjustments, charges, and movement expenses consistent with the terms of delivery, where applicable.48

    45See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist; and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.

    46 The petitioners submitted several other methods as potential options to calculate NV but because we are using the aforementioned prices as the basis for NV, in accordance with our standard methodology, the Department is not using the other NV calculation methods provided by the petitioners for purposes of determining antidumping duty margins for purposes of initiation. See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist; and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.

    47Id.

    48Id.

    With respect to the PRC, the petitioners state that the Department has a long-standing policy of treating the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country for antidumping purposes.49 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The Department has not revoked the PRC's NME status as of the date of these Petitions. Moreover, no recent changes to the PRC's economy require reconsideration of its NME status. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of the investigation covering merchandise from the PRC, all parties, including the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

    49See Volume VII of the Petitions, at VII-6, VII-7.

    For the PRC, the petitioners calculated NV using the NME methodology prescribed by the applicable statute and regulations. The petitioners provided the FOPs used in the manufacture of uncoated paper and valued FOPs based on a market economy country selected as a surrogate.50

    50See Volume VII of the Petition, at Exhibits 18-20, and 22—23.

    The petitioners identified South Africa as a country that is economically comparable to the PRC, based on per-capita GNI data.51 The petitioners contend that South Africa is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, i.e., uncoated paper. The petitioners further state that the South African data for valuing the FOPs for uncoated paper are available and reliable.52 Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate-country selection and will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs no later than 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.53

    51See Volume VII of the Petition, at 7, citing Memorandum to Minoo Hatton, “Request for a list of Surrogate Countries for a New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China” (September 30, 2014).

    52See Volume VII of the Petition, at VII-7 through VII-9.

    53See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i).

    Factors of Production

    Because the petitioners do not have access to actual FOPs for any PRC manufacturers, the petitioners based consumption rates, including direct materials, labor, energy, and packing, for the production of merchandise under consideration on the experience of a U.S. producer.54 The petitioners valued the FOPs using surrogate value information from South Africa.55

    54See Volume VII of the Petition, at 13 and Exhibit VII-18; PRC AD Supplement, at Exhibit VII-S5.

    55See Volume VII of the Petition, at 14-16.

    Valuation of Raw Materials

    The petitioners valued the direct material FOPs using publicly available South African import data obtained from Global Trade Atlas (GTA) in U.S. dollars for the period May 2014 through October 2014.56 The petitioners excluded all import values from all countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies, from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries, and from unspecified partner countries.57

    56See Volume VII of the Petition, at 14 and Exhibit VII-20.

    57Id.

    Valuation of Labor

    The petitioners calculated the labor expense rate using 2012 data for South Africa from the International Labor Organization (ILO).58 The petitioners adjusted this rate for inflation using the consumer price index for South Africa published by the International Monetary Fund and converted the rate to U.S. dollars using the POI average exchange rate.59

    58See PRC Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit VII-S4.

    59Id., at 7 and Exhibit II-11; see also PRC AD Supplement, at 5, item 9, and Exhibits II-S7 and II-S8.

    Valuation of Energy and Water

    The petitioners valued electricity using rates published by Eskom, a South African electricity generator, effective April 2014 to March 2015.60 The petitioners valued natural gas using the prices charged for piped natural gas by Sasol Gas Limited, reported by the Energy Regulator of South Africa, for the period April 2012 through March 2013.61 The petitioners converted natural gas values from cost per kiloJoule to cost per million British thermal units, adjusted for inflation using the South African producer price index, and converted to U.S. dollars using POI average exchange rates.62 The petitioners valued hog fuel and fuel oil #2 from South African import statistics.63 The petitioners valued water using water rates reported by Rand Water, a water service provider in South Africa, for the period July 2010 through June 2011, adjusted for inflation and converted to U.S. dollars.64

    60See Volume VII of the Petitions, at 15 and Exhibit VII-23.

    61Id.

    62Id.

    63Id.

    64Id.

    Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit

    The petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead expenses, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit) based on the 2013 financial statements of Mondi Ltd (Mondi), a South African producer of identical merchandise.

    Valuation of Packing Inputs

    The petitioners valued packing materials using publicly available South African import data obtained from GTA. The petitioners valued labor associated with packing using information published by the ILO.65

    65See Volume VII at of the Petitions, at 14 and Exhibits VII-19, VII-20 and VII-22.

    Sales-Below-Cost Allegation

    The petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of uncoated paper in the Australian, Brazilian, and Indonesian markets were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation of uncoated paper imports from Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia.66

    66See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation Checklist; and Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.

    With respect to sales-below-cost allegations in the context of investigations, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or producers.67 The SAA states further that “Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country . . . on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.” 68 Consequently, the Department intends to consider the petitioners' allegations on a country-wide basis for each respective country for purposes of this initiation.

    67See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 833 (1994).

    68Id.

    Finally, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains the requirement that the Department have “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that below-cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation.” 69 “ `Reasonable grounds' will exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.” 70 As explained in the “Cost of Production” section below, we find reasonable grounds exist that indicate sales in Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia were made at below-cost prices.

    69Id.

    70Id.

    Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses.

    For Australia, the petitioners calculated COM (except for depreciation) based on the experience of a U.S. producer adjusted for known differences between the United States and Australia, during the proposed POI. The petitioners multiplied the U.S. producer's usage quantities by publicly-available data to value the inputs used to manufacture uncoated paper in Australia. To determine the depreciation, SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioners relied on financial statements of a producer of uncoated paper in Australia.71

    71See Australia AD Initiation Checklist.

    For Brazil, the petitioners calculated COM (except for depreciation) based on the experience of a U.S. producer adjusted for known differences between the United States and Brazil, during the proposed POI. The petitioners multiplied the U.S. producer's usage quantities by publicly-available data to value the inputs used to manufacture uncoated paper in Brazil. To determine the depreciation, SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioners relied on financial statements of a producer of uncoated paper in Brazil.72

    72See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.

    For Indonesia, the petitioners calculated COM based on the experience of a U.S. producer adjusted for known differences between the United States and Indonesia during the proposed POI. The petitioners multiplied the U.S. producer's usage quantities by publicly-available data to value the inputs used to manufacture uncoated paper in Indonesia. To determine the depreciation, SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioners relied on financial statements of a producer of uncoated paper in Indonesia.73

    73See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.

    Based upon a comparison of the ex-factory price of the foreign like product in the home market to the COP of the product for Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia, respectively, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product in the home market were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.74 Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation relating to sales of uncoated paper in Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia, respectively.

    74See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation Checklist; and Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.

    Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For Australia, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners also calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). The petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial expense, and packing figures used to compute the COP. The petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as the basis for the depreciation and SG&A expense rates to calculate the profit rate. However, because these financial statements did not report a profit, the petitioners conservatively did not include a profit rate.75

    75See Australia AD Initiation Checklist.

    For Brazil, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners also calculated NV based on CV. The petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial expense, and packing figures used to compute the COP. The petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as the basis for the depreciation and SG&A expense rates to calculate the profit rate. However, because these financial statements did not report a profit, the petitioners conservatively did not include a profit rate.76

    76See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.

    For Indonesia, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners also calculated NV based on CV. The petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial expense, and packing figures used to compute the COP. The petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as the basis for the depreciation and SG&A expense rates to calculate the profit rate.77

    77See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV (based on home market price and constructed value) in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for uncoated paper from: 1) Australia range from 49.90 percent to 222.46 percent; 78 2) Brazil range from 86.90 percent to 172.07 percent; 79 3) Indonesia range from 12.08 to 66.82 percent; 80 and 4) Portugal range from 2.23 to 22.59 percent.81 Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for uncoated paper from the PRC range from 243.65 to 271.87 percent.82

    78See Australia AD Initiation Checklist.

    79See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.

    80See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.

    81See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.

    82See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of LTFV Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named six companies as producers/exporters of uncoated paper from Indonesia.83 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market-economy countries, the Department will, where appropriate, select respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports of uncoated paper under HTSUS numbers: 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. For Indonesia, we intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five-business days of publication of this Federal Register notice.84 The Department invites comments regarding respondent selection within seven days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

    83See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.

    84See Certain Steel Nails From India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 79 FR 36019, 36024 (June 25, 2014).

    Although the Department normally relies on import data from CBP to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD investigations, the Petitions identified only one company as a producer/exporter of uncoated paper in Australia: Paper Australia Pty. Ltd.; two companies as producers/exporters of uncoated paper in Brazil: International Paper and Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A.; and one company as a producer/exporter of uncoated paper in Portugal: Portucel/Soporcel.85 In addition, the petitioners provided information from independent third party sources as support for identifying those producers/exporters from Australia, Brazil, and Portugal.86 Furthermore, we currently know of no additional producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration from these countries. Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters in the investigations for Australia, Brazil, and Portugal (i.e., the companies cited above for each respective investigation). We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Parties wishing to comment must do so within five days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the date noted above.

    85See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.

    86 See Volume II of the Petitions, at II-1-II-2 at footnote 1, and Exhibit II-3; Volume V of the Petitions, at V-1 through V-2 and Exhibit V-1; Volume VI of the Petitions, at Exhibits VI-1 and VI-2.

    With respect to the PRC, the petitioners identified eight potential respondents.87 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity-and-value questionnaires to each potential respondent and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the quantity-and-value questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforecement/news.asp.

    87See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.

    Exporters/producers of uncoated paper from the PRC that do not receive quantity-and-value questionnaires by mail may still submit a quantity-and-value response and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The quantity-and-value questionnaire must be submitted by all the PRC exporters/producers no later than February 24, 2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All quantity-and-value questionnaires must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.88 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.89 For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will only be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status when they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that respondents from the PRC submit a response to both the quantity-and-value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.

    88See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    89 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with section 351.301(a) of the Department's regulations, which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

    Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 states:

    {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.

    This practice is necessary to prevent the avoidance of payment of antidumping duties by firms shifting exports through exporters with the lowest assigned cash-deposit rates. The Department's previous practice of accounting for changes in producers during administrative reviews is not sufficient to prevent these activities, because in many industries, producer can appear and disappear frequently prior to the administrative review. Only by limiting the application of the separate rate to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers can the Department prevent the “funneling” of subject merchandise through the exporters with the lowest rates.90

    90See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6-7 (emphasis added).

    Therefore, for the Department to grant separate-rate status, the identity of all producers supplying a particular exporter eligible for a separate rate must be public information to ensure that CBP can apply the rate to the proper combination of exporter(s) and producer(s) eligible for a particular rate.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and/or Portugal are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.91 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 92 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    91See section 733(a) of the Act.

    92Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations. Review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD proceedings.93 The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under section 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2) filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) quantity-and-value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations. Review Extension of Time Limits, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    93See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.94 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 95 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    94See section 782(b) of the Act.

    95See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3627 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: February 10, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations includes uncoated paper in sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per square meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; that either is a white paper with a GE brightness level 1 of 85 or higher or is a colored paper; whether or not surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, perforated, or punched; irrespective of the smoothness of the surface; and irrespective of dimensions (Certain Uncoated Paper).

    1 One of the key measurements of any grade of paper is brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter the paper the better the contrast between the paper and the ink. Brightness is measured using a GE Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of light off a grade of paper. One is the lowest reflection, or what would be given to a totally black grade, and 100 is the brightest measured grade. “Colored paper” as used in this scope definition means a paper with a hue other than white that reflects one of the primary colors of magenta, yellow, and cyan (red, yellow, and blue) or a combination of such primary colors.

    Certain Uncoated Paper includes (a) uncoated free sheet paper that meets this scope definition; (b) uncoated ground wood paper produced from bleached chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp (BCTMP) that meets this scope definition; and (c) any other uncoated paper that meets this scope definition regardless of the type of pulp used to produce the paper.

    Specifically excluded from the scope are (1) paper printed with final content of printed text or graphics and (2) lined paper products, typically school supplies, composed of paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines that would make the paper unsuitable for copying or printing purposes.

    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) categories 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. Some imports of subject merchandise may also be classified under 4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.5000, 4802.62.6020, 4802.62.6040, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 4802.69.3000, 4811.90.8050 and 4811.90.9080. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2015-03338 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Second Japan-U.S. Decommissioning and Remediation Fukushima Recovery Forum, Tokyo, Japan April 9-10, 2015 AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Event Description

    The U.S. Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA), with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy, is organizing the second Japan-United States Decommissioning and Remediation Fukushima Recovery Forum (“Fukushima Recovery Forum”) on April 9-10, 2015 in Tokyo, Japan. Building on the first Fukushima Recovery Forum held in February 2014, the 2nd Fukushima Recovery Forum will continue to develop U.S.-Japanese cooperation on Fukushima recovery efforts. The event will allow U.S. firms to hear from Japanese Ministries, utilities, and commissioning entities on the status of Fukushima recovery. It will be a forum for U.S. and Japanese firms to make contacts while sharing experiences, expertise, and lessons learned in remediation and decommissioning, including work underway at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station, and in Tohoku, the area affected by the accident at Fukushima. The event also addresses interest in cooperation in areas related to nuclear power as Japan moves forward with its plan for restarting its nuclear reactors and decommissioning some of its commercial reactor fleet. U.S. firms will also network with Japanese firms and identify potential business partners.

    ITA hopes that this cooperation between the U.S. and Japanese private sectors will lead to solutions that will enhance Fukushima recovery efforts. ITA is seeking the participation of a maximum of 25 U.S. companies or representatives of trade organizations that produce technology or provide services in the decommissioning or remediation sector, including water treatment and waste management. Staff from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Global Markets, Industry & Analysis (I&A), and U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service (CS) units will also be available in Tokyo to provide export counseling and civil nuclear trade policy guidance to participating companies.

    Support for the Fukushima Recovery Forum was confirmed at meetings of the U.S-Japan Bilateral Commission on Civil Nuclear Cooperation. The Bilateral Commission is a senior-level, forum for consultations on mutual issues of concern to further strengthen bilateral cooperation and advance shared interests in the area of civil nuclear cooperation. The Bilateral Commission is chaired by the Department of Energy and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI).

    The Decommissioning and Environmental Management Working Group (DEMWG) under the Bilateral Commission addresses the long-term consequences of the Fukushima accident, including facility decommissioning, spent fuel storage, decontamination, and remediation of contaminated areas. The Fukushima Recovery Forum is under the auspices of the DEMWG to further industry cooperation in support of Fukushima recovery efforts.

    Event Goals

    The Fukushima Recovery Forum is an event to bring together U.S. and Japanese private sector firms in the remediation, decommissioning, and waste management industries to develop relationships that will assist with the recovery of the Fukushima region. The Forum is intended to create better market opportunities for U.S. companies. It will do this by:

    • Allowing U.S. firms to meet key Japanese officials involved in the planning of decommissioning, remediation, and other work related to Fukushima Recovery.

    • Creating a venue where U.S. and Japanese firms can share experiences, expertise, and lessons learned in remediation and decommissioning, including on work already completed at Fukushima Dai-ichi, and in Tohoku.

    • Giving U.S. and Japanese firms an opportunity to discuss key technical challenges related to Fukushima clean-up and nuclear decommissioning.

    • Fostering collaboration between the U.S. and Japanese private sector to solve other challenges related to remediation and decommissioning.

    • Providing an opportunity for companies from both the United States and Japan to network, build relationships and identify partners for current projects and potential joint future work.

    Event Scenario

    On March 11, 2011, an earthquake and tsunami hit Japan and led to a series of events at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station in which several units and their adjacent spent fuel pools experienced beyond-design-basis accidents. The four reactors at the site (Units 1-4) that received the brunt of the damage (of the six reactors at the site) also have integral spent fuel pools containing significant amounts of spent nuclear fuel, which were also damaged by the disaster and the subsequent explosions. Japan faces an unprecedented cleanup and decontamination challenge that will take many years to resolve as it strives to decommission Fukushima Dai-ichi and remediate the surrounding areas. In response to the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Japanese government introduced a system that limits the maximum operating period for nuclear power plants to 40 years. In January 2015, Japanese utilities announced plans to decommission five aging nuclear reactors.

    The U.S. Government, and specifically the U.S. Department of Energy and its National Laboratories, have been involved in numerous exchanges of scientific and technical information and expertise with the Government of Japan to find solutions to problems created by the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi related to decommissioning and decontamination. The U.S. Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA), with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy, proposed the Japan-United States Decontamination and Remediation Fukushima Recovery Forum to bring U.S. and Japanese firms together to complement the existing exchanges of information and expertise by providing an opportunity for coordination between the U.S. and Japanese private sectors to find solutions from U.S. firms that would assist Japan with its recovery process. In February 2014, ITA organized the first Japan-U.S. Decommissioning and Remediation Fukushima Recovery Forum in Tokyo. This two day event brought together 51 representatives from 26 U.S. firms and 101 representatives from 46 Japanese firms to discuss potential partnerships to help with Fukushima recovery.

    Participating firms will:

    • Receive a briefing on the status of Fukushima Dai-ichi decommissioning and decontamination work from relevant officials from the Japanese Government and industry.

    • Participate in panel or breakout discussions focusing on decontamination, remediation and waste management. Firms with appropriate experience or technologies will be asked to present during these discussions.

    • Exchange views on viable solutions to the challenges on Fukushima recovery with counterparts from the Japanese private sector;

    • Participate in one-on-one networking sessions with interested Japanese firms;

    • Attend a networking reception with senior leaders from Japan's Government and industry hosted by a senior U.S. Government representative from the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo;

    • Take advantage of the Commercial Service in Tokyo's business advisory services if there is sufficient interest by participating U.S. firms and mission resources can accommodate such interest.

    • There may be an opportunity to participate in an optional tour to the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant. This tour would incur additional fees.

    Proposed Schedule April 9

    Participate in discussions with U.S. and Japanese firms consisting of presentations and dialogues on specific aspects of Fukushima Recovery, including decommissioning, remediation, waste management, and water management.

    Participate in networking opportunities with Japanese firms.

    Attend a networking reception with senior leaders from Japan's Government and industry hosted by a senior U.S. Government representative from the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.

    April 10

    Participate in briefings by Japanese Government officials and other entities on the status of the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station and surrounding area.

    Participate in networking activities coordinated by ITA staff.

    Event updates related to the Fukushima Recovery Forum can be found at: http://export.gov/japan/fukushima/forum/.

    Participation Requirements

    All parties interested in participating in the Fukushima Recovery Forum must submit an application package for consideration by the U.S. Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated based on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A maximum of 25 companies will be selected to participate in the Forum from the applicant pool. U.S. companies already doing business in Japan as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter to the Japanese market for the first time may apply.

    Fees and Expenses:

    After a company has been selected to participate in the Forum, a participation fee is required. The participation fee is $930 for large firms and $665 for small or medium-sized firms.1 The fee for each additional company representative is $500. As space permits, up to four additional representatives can be accommodated per company. Fees will cover the cost for interpreters, a booklet containing information about participating U.S. and Japanese firms, and reception costs.

    1 An SME is defined as a firm with 500 or fewer employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see http://www.sba.gov/size). Parent companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when determining business size. The dual pricing reflects the Commercial Service's user fee schedule that became effective May 1, 2008. For additional information, see http://www.export.gov/newsletter/march2008/initiatives.html.

    Exclusions:

    The participation fee does not include personal travel expenses such as airfare, lodging, most meals, incidentals, and local ground transportation and personal interpreters used during the networking sessions. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms. Business visas may be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain visas are also not included in the Fukushima Recovery Forum costs. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.

    Conditions for Participation

    Applicants must submit a completed mission application signed by a company official, together with supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, interest in doing business in Japan, and goals for participation by February 27, 2015. If the U.S. Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, it may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account in its evaluation.

    Each applicant must also certify that the products or services it seeks to export through its participation in the Fukushima Recovery Forum are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.

    Selection Criteria for Participation

    Selection will be based on the following criteria:

    • Suitability of the company's products or services to the Japanese decommissioning or remediation sector, including water management and waste management;

    • The company's potential for business in Japan, including likelihood of exports resulting from participation in the Fukushima Recovery Forum;

    • The company's ability to identify and engage on policy issues relevant to U.S. competitiveness in the Japanese decontamination or remediation sectors; and

    • Consistency of the company's goals and objectives with the scope of the Fukushima Recovery Forum.

    Additional factors, such as balance of company size, industry subsector, location, and demographics, may also be considered during the review process.

    Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.

    Timeframe for Recruitment and Participation

    Recruitment for the Fukushima Recovery Forum will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register, posting on CS Japan's Web site, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity through the ITA network. Recruitment will begin immediately and conclude no later than February 27, 2015. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions beginning on or about March 2, 2015. Applications received after March 2, 2015 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    Applications for participation in the Fukushima Recovery Forum are available on line at: http://export.gov/japan/fukushima/forum/.

    DATES:

    The Fukushima Recovery Forum will take place April 9-10, 2015. Applications are due no later than February 27, 2015.

    Contacts Danius Barzdukas, Japan Desk/Office of East Asia and APEC, U.S. Department of Commerce | International Trade Administration, Phone: 202-482-1147, [email protected] Gregory Taevs, U.S. Commercial Service Tokyo, U.S. Department of Commerce | International Trade Administration, +81-3-3224-5070, [email protected] Jon Chesebro, Senior Nuclear Trade Specialist, Industry & Analysis | Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce | International Trade Administration, Phone: (202) 482-1297, [email protected] Frank Spector, International Trade Specialist.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03366 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application and Reports for Scientific Research and Enhancement Permits under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before April 20, 2015.

    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 and instructions should be directed to Gary Rule, NOAA Fisheries, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd. Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232, (503) 230-5424 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) imposed prohibitions against the taking of endangered species. Section 10 of the ESA allows permits authorizing the taking of endangered species for research/enhancement purposes. The corresponding regulations established procedures for persons to apply for such permits. In addition, the regulations set forth specific reporting requirements for such permit holders. The regulations contain two sets of information collections: (1) Applications for research/enhancement permits, and (2) reporting requirements for permits issued.

    The required information is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on endangered species, to make the determinations required by the ESA prior to issuing a permit, and to establish appropriate permit conditions. To issue permits under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must determine that (1) such exceptions were applied for in good faith, (2) if granted and exercised, will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species, and (3) will be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

    The currently approved application and reporting requirements apply to Pacific marine and anadromous fish species, as requirements regarding other species are being addressed in a separate information collection.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submissions may be electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0402.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Federal government; State, local, or tribal government; business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 160.

    Estimated Time Per Response: Permit applications, 12 hours; permit modification requests 6 hours; annual or final reports, 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 835.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $500 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    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: February 11, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03191 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Fisheries: Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Cost Recovery AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before April 20, 2015.

    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 and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7008 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The purpose of the IFQ fee is to recover actual costs incurred in managing and enforcing the IFQ Program (75%) and to make funds available for Congress to appropriate for support of the North Pacific IFQ Loan Program (25%).

    An IFQ permit holder incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish that is landed under his or her IFQ permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is responsible for self-collecting the fee liability for all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings on his or her permit(s). Fees must be collected at the time of a legal landing of halibut or sablefish, filing of a landing report, or sale of such fish during a fishing season or in the last quarter of the calendar year in which the fish is harvested.

    II. Method of Collection

    Paper format; electronically (Internet), email, U.S. mail, and fax.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0398.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

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

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,963.

    Estimated Time Per Response: Two hours for paper and 5 minutes for Internet IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report; and two hours for paper and 5 minutes for IFQ Fee Submission Form.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,926.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $898 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    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: February 11, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03190 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 130312237-5115-01] RIN 0648-XC567 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Yellowtail Damselfish as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of 90-day petition finding.

    SUMMARY:

    We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list yellowtail damselfish (Microspathodon chrysurus) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the petitions and related materials are available upon request from the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or online at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ListingPetitions.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jason Rueter, NMFS Southeast Region, 727-824-5312.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 14, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list eight reef fishes of the family Pomacentridae as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The eight species are orange clownfish (Amphiprion percula), black-axil chromis (Chromis atripectoralis), blue-green damselfish (Chromis viridis), Hawaiian dascyllus (Dascyllus albisella), reticulated damselfish (Dascyllus reticulatus), yellowtail damselfish or jewelfish (Microspathodon chrysurus), blackbar devil or Dick's damselfish (Plectroglyphidodon dickii), and blue-eyed damselfish (Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus). The petition is available on our Web site (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petitions/pomacentrid_reef_fish_petition_2012.pdf). Given the geographic range of these species, we divided the lead for the response to the petition between our Southeast Regional Office (SERO) and our Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO). SERO led the response to the petition to list the yellowtail damselfish (Microspathodon chrysurus) in this finding; PIRO led the response for the remaining species separately and published a 90-day finding on those species on September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52276).

    ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned, during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we are to conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a “may be warranted” finding at the 90-day stage does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.

    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).

    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).

    Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage to make a determination whether a petitioned action “may be” warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish a “strong likelihood” or a “high probability” that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding.

    We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition, including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.

    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, or habitat integrity), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).

    Information presented on impacts or threats should be such that it reasonably suggests that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act, or have acted, on the petitioned species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.

    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other organizations or agencies, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society (AFS), or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other federal or state statutes may be informative, but the classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source information that the classification is based upon, in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

    Species Description

    The yellowtail damselfish is a reef fish (Family Pomacentridae) that inhabits shallow coral reefs usually at depths between 1-10 m (depth range can be up to 120 m; Loris and Rucabado, 1990) in the western Atlantic Ocean including Bermuda, southern Florida, and the Caribbean Sea (Allen, 1991), south to Brazil (Moura et al., 1999), and also including the Gulf of Mexico (Bohlke and Chaplin, 1993). Yellowtail damselfish occupy non-overlapping, often contiguous territories on solid substrata averaging 44 m2 in size (range 14-109 m2, n = 22; P. Sikkel, unpublished data) in which they feed on epilithic microalgae (algae growing on rock) and associated microfauna (Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). Adults are primarily algae-eaters (Robins et al., 1986), feeding on microalgae, epiphytic (growing on a plant) diatoms, and to a lesser extent live coral, and are therefore known as facultative corallivores (Cole et al., 2008). Adults of both sexes are solitary and they aggressively defend their territories against conspecifics and other species to a lesser extent (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). The territories of females tend to be shallower and closer to shore than those of males (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006).

    Yellowtail damselfish spawning peaks for four to five weeks in February to March and again in July to August (Deloach, 1999). Spawning occurs during the first 1-3 hours of daylight (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006) at regular 3-day intervals from 3 days before to 3 weeks after the full moon (Pressley, 1980; Robertson et al., 1990). Females can travel up to 120 m from their territory to find mates (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). Females lay their entire clutch within the male territory during a spawning event and will often mate with the same male over successive spawning trips (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). Male damselfish prepare nests within their territories, frequently in coral rubble, and protect the eggs (Pressley, 1980). Embryos hatch approximately five days after fertilization (Pressley, 1980), and larvae enter a 21 to 27 day pelagic phase. They then tend to settle on shallow patch reefs, often inhabited by Millepora (fire coral), which Deloach (1999) states makes up much of the early diet, and Acropora species rubble habitats (Wilkes et al., 2008).

    Analysis of the Petition

    We evaluated whether the petition presented the information required in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) and found that the petition contains the species' taxonomic description, current geographic distribution, habitat characteristics, and threats that could be affecting it. The petition does not present any information on past or present population numbers, instead it acknowledges that abundance and population trends are unknown for the petitioned species, but suggests that the decrease in average live coral cover across the Caribbean from 50 to 60 percent coverage in the 1970s to 8 percent coverage today suggests reasons for concern. The petition does not provide information regarding the status of yellowtail damselfish over all or a significant portion of its range, other than a discussion of threats. The petition includes supporting references.

    The petition states that yellowtail damselfish are vulnerable to coral habitat loss and degradation due to temperature-induced coral bleaching and ocean acidification, and that this vulnerability is heightened given their reliance on live branching corals such as species of Millepora and Acropora. The petition states yellowtail damselfish are threatened by ocean warming and ocean acidification that directly impairs its sensory capabilities, behavior, aerobic capacity, swimming ability, and reproduction. The petition also states that the global marine aquarium trade and lack of regulatory mechanisms further threaten yellowtail damselfish by decreasing their populations in the wild.

    Information on Population Status, Trends and Demographics Relevant to Extinction Risk

    As stated above, the petition does not include any information on past or present population numbers, and it acknowledges that abundance and population trends are unknown. The petition does not provide information regarding the status of yellowtail damselfish over all or a significant portion of its range, although one of the references cited describes the species as “common on shallow reefs in the tropical Western Atlantic,” occurring at densities of up to four individuals per 100 m2 in the Barbados (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). The petition does not identify any risk classifications by other organizations for this species.

    There is some information in our files on population status and trends for this species in the Florida Keys. We have data on the abundance of yellowtail damselfish from our Southeast Fisheries Science Center's (SEFSC) Reef fish Visual Census (RVC). The RVC is a long-term, spatially-extensive survey that has assessed trends in abundance of reef fishes in the Florida Keys, by collection of standardized data on trends in frequency of occurrence and density. The RVC survey includes data from 1980 through 2012 for the forereef, high relief spur and groove habitats, the preferred habitat zone for yellowtail damselfish (NMFS SEFSC, 2014). These data show yellowtail damselfish abundance declined during the 1980's but stabilized in the 1990's with no apparent trends through 2012. The RVC data recorded yellowtail damselfish in 93 percent of samples (annual average) in the 1980's. Since 1991, the frequency of occurrence has averaged around 79 percent, with no apparent trend. Similarly, the density of fish, when present, averaged 5 fish per standardized sample in the 1980's, and since 1991, the average annual density when present has been 2.7 fish per standardized sample, with no apparent trend (NMFS SEFSC, 2014). The observed decline in yellowtail damselfish frequency and density between the 1980's and the subsequent period of 1991-2012 in these data are correlated with the documented widespread loss of coral habitat that occurred during the 1980's, as noted in the petition. These data also indicate that since the initial decline, the long term trend in yellowtail damselfish frequency and density over 22 years of data collection has remained stable. We interpret these data as indicating a population that has demonstrated long term stability, despite significant habitat changes and a one-time population decline. Thus, we do not believe the available information on population status and trends suggest an extinction risk of concern for the species.

    Information on Impacts and Threats to the Species

    We also evaluated whether the information in the petition and information in our files concerning the extent and severity of one or more of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors suggest these impacts and threats may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species, posing a risk of extinction for yellowtail damselfish that is cause for concern. As stated above in the petition analysis section, the petition states that four of the five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of yellowtail damselfish: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In the following sections, we assess the information presented in the petition and readily available in our files to determine whether the petitioned action may be warranted.

    Present and Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range

    The petition states that yellowtail damselfish are “dependent on live coral for shelter, reproduction, recruitment, and/or food, which makes them highly vulnerable to coral habitat loss and degradation due to ocean warming and ocean acidification and they are habitat specialists that rely on branching corals which are particularly susceptible to bleaching.” First we will evaluate the petition's arguments that dependency of the yellowtail damselfish on certain species of live corals is a source of extinction risk, and then we will evaluate the arguments that climate change impacts to the species' habitat pose extinction risk that is cause for concern.

    Dependency on Branching Coral Species

    The petition cites several studies in support of the argument that the yellowtail damselfish specializes on, or relies upon, branching corals such as Millepora and Acropora species. The petition cites Allen (1991) for the proposition that juvenile yellowtail damselfish “are usually seen among branches of the yellow stinging coral Millepora.” Deloach (1999) is cited for an association between juveniles and blade fire coral, M. complanata. Deloach (1999) is also cited as finding that Millepora makes up much of the early diet of yellowtail damselfish. The Web site www.species-identification.org is similarly cited for the statement that yellowtail damselfish are known to feed on the polyps of Millepora corals, though as the petition notes from another citation, this species is considered a facultative and not an obligate corallivore (Cole et al., 2008). Regardless of the importance as food or habitat to yellowtail damselfish, the petition does not present information that suggests Millepora corals have been affected by the numerous threats other corals face, thus we assume their role in the yellowtail damselfish's life cycle is unchanged. Additionally, Brainard et al. (2011), state “Millepora are among the first to bleach and die, but they seem to have a special aptitude for recovering by recruiting new colonies.” Further, Veron (2000) describes Millepora species as “common on reefs.” Therefore, we do not find population trends of Millepora pose an extinction risk that is cause for concern for yellowtail damselfish.

    We also reviewed the information in the petition regarding the association between adult yellowtail damselfish and elkhorn coral. The petition cites Deloach (1999) in describing habitat use by yellowtail damselfish. In Deloach (1999), we found the statement “[l]arge females reign over widespread territories of varying sizes on reef crests, while males typically occupy deeper zones of Elkhorn rubble.” This was the only information presented in the citation relative to elkhorn coral, but it does not indicate yellowtail damselfish specialize on, or rely upon, branching coral.

    The petition also cites Tolimieri (1998) as a source for the premise that yellowtail damselfish are “significantly associated with Acropora corals and total live coral cover.” Tolimieri (1998), investigated microhabitat substrate use by several damselfish species on the Tague Bay Reef, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. This study evaluated use of Porites spp., Porites spp. rubble, Montastrea spp., Montastrea spp. rubble, Acropora spp. rubble, total live coral, boulder (unidentified coral) rubble, algae, and pavement/sand substrates. The author found that yellowtail damselfish were associated more than would be expected by random chance with dead Acropora palmata rubble, but not with live coral cover or the only live branching coral in the study area—Porites porites. The association between yellowtail damselfish and Acropora spp. coral rubble was statistically significant (p = 0.043), but only explained 32 percent of the variation in abundance of yellowtail damselfish between the various study sites on this reef.

    The petition presents Wilkes et al. (2008) for an association of adult yellowtail damselfish with live branching staghorn coral in the Dry Tortugas, Florida. Wilkes et al. (2008) described their study objective as determining what effect, if any, on damselfish could be discerned from much of the live staghorn coral in Dry Tortugas National Park having been reduced to rubble by extreme cold snaps and disease. Wilkes et al. (2008) compared damselfish densities on the largest remaining live staghorn coral formation and nearby staghorn coral rubble habitat, but did not directly investigate damselfish use of any other habitat types in the park. This study found that the density of adult yellowtail damselfish was greater at sites with live staghorn coral compared to nearby sites comprised of dead and broken staghorn coral rubble. There was no significant difference in density of juvenile yellowtail damselfish between the two sites. These authors suggest that “complex reef topography of branching corals like Acropora are thought to be a major factor affecting reef fish distribution and abundance” and that the higher adult densities observed in this study “may be related to the increase in three-dimensional habitat that would provide predator refuge dimensions more conducive to adult body sizes that require larger shelter spaces.” The authors conclude that “reductions in damselfish density are the likely outcome in reefs where expanses of live branching coral are in decline and are being replaced by relatively low-dimensional fields of reef rubble.” Finally, Wilkes et al. (2008) note that “some damselfish species may require the habitat complexity provided by branching corals, whereas others are better suited to exploit a wide range of habitat types and display no specific coral preference.” However, the authors make no conclusion about yellowtail damselfish and their habitat usage, though they do note another study (Wallman et al., 2006) that found that patch reefs lacking in live branching corals within Dry Tortugas National Park support populations of adult yellowtail damselfish.

    In our files we also have available Waldner and Robertson (1980) that considers patterns of spatial distribution and resource partitioning in damselfish to explain how ecologically similar reef fishes can co-exist on various spatial scales. Field surveys recorded yellowtail damselfish in Puerto Rico between 1976 and 1978 at both inshore and offshore reefs and recorded substrate within 15 cm (5.9 inches) of where the species was observed or the substrate where the fish sought refuge when rapidly approached by a diver. A total of 54 adult yellowtail damselfish were reported on 4 out of 6 substrate types: 48 percent of observations were associated with non-branching massive corals such as Montastraea annularis, 24 percent of the observations were associated each with elkhorn (A. palmata) and staghorn (A. cervicornis) coral, and 4 percent were associated with Millepora spp. When the amount of the different substrate types within the transect area was considered, elkhorn coral was found to be a most-used substrate. Waldner and Robertson (1980) then compared their results with the results of other studies that occurred throughout the West Indies in the 1970's and concluded their results were in agreement in most cases that adult yellowtail damselfish were most characteristically associated with elkhorn coral and Millepora in very shallow to moderate depth range.

    Prior to the 1980's, Acropora corals were the overwhelmingly dominant reef-building coral on Caribbean reefs, to the extent that depth zones were named after these species (“elkhorn zone,” “staghorn zone”) (Goreau, 1959). Given the dominance of these corals, it is reasonable to expect that yellowtail damselfish and many other reef fishes were found associated with acroporids then as well. For example, Waldner and Robertson (1980) found a significant association between yellowtail damselfish and elkhorn corals in the 1970's. During the 1980's, a massive die-off of Acropora species occurred in the Caribbean. The decline in Acropora species was greater than 90 percent (Ginsburg, 1994; Hughes, 1994; McClanahan and Muthiga, 1998). As the SEFSC RVC data indicate, yellowtail damselfish abundance declined in fore-reef, spur and groove habitats in the Florida Keys in the 1980's. The initial decline in yellowtail damselfish abundance is likely linked to the widespread die-off of corals. However, the yellowtail damselfish population has remained stable since 1991. Although the Florida Keys population is at a lower level than it was in the 1970's and 1980's, the stability in abundance indicates that it is not so low that depensatory processes, such as declining mate-finding ability or escalating risk of predation, are an extinction risk factor. Therefore, we conclude that the yellowtail damselfish is not dependent on acroporid corals to the extent that the decline of Acropora habitat presents an extinction risk that is cause for concern.

    In summary, we acknowledge that yellowtail damselfish was historically associated with Acropora corals in the Caribbean (Waldner and Robertson, 1980), and exhibited a population decline in habitats dominated by Acropora concurrent with the massive die-off of corals in the 1980s. However, the available information demonstrates yellowtail damselfish associate with a variety of coral species and habitats (Tolimieri, 1998; Wilkes et al, 2008) within the coral-reef ecosystem (e.g., branching, boulder, and dead rubble), and appear in at least one instance (Florida Keys) to have inhabited reef areas at stable population levels for over 20 years after the widespread decline of acroporids. Therefore, the loss of the branching elkhorn and staghorn corals does not constitute an extinction risk for the yellowtail damselfish that is a cause for concern.

    Climate Change Impacts to Coral Reef Ecosystems Generally as a Threat to Yellowtail Damselfish

    The petition discusses at length climate change impacts to corals and coral reefs and future predictions for worsening impacts to corals at a global scale, and argues that these impacts pose extinction risk to yellowtail damselfish through destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat. As discussed above, while the petition establishes an association with live branching coral species for yellowtail damselfish, we have established that they also associate with other coral species and forms within the coral-reef ecosystem and are not reliant upon branching corals for habitat.

    Many of the references provided in the petition offer global predictions on future rises in sea surface temperature (Donner et al., 2005; Donner, 2009), ocean acidity (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007), or coral reef decline in general (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Veron et al., 2009). Emission rates of greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with ocean warming have in recent years met or exceeded levels found in the worst-case scenarios considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), resulting in all scenarios underestimating the projected future climate condition. New information suggests that regardless of the emission concentration pathway, more than 97 percent of reefs will experience severe thermal stress by 2050 (Meissner et al., 2012). At the same time new information also highlights the spatial and temporal “patchiness” of warming (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014). This patchiness moderates vulnerability of corals to extinction because most species are not limited to one habitat type but occur in numerous types of reef environments that are predicted, on local and regional scales, to experience variable thermal regimes and ocean chemistry at any given point in time (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014). Overall, there is ample evidence that climate change (including that which is already committed to occur from past GHG emissions and future emissions reasonably certain to occur) and will lead to a worsening environment for corals.

    If many coral species are to survive anticipated global warming, corals and their zooxanthellae will have to undergo significant acclimatization and/or adaptation. There has been a recent research emphasis on the processes of acclimatization and adaptation in corals. For example, the results of a study funded by NOAA and conducted by the agency's scientists and its academic partners suggests some coral species may be able to adapt to moderate climate warming, improving their chance of surviving through the end of this century, if there are large reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (Logan et al, 2013). Results of this study further suggest some corals have already adapted to part of the warming that has occurred in the past. The study modeled a range of possible coral adaptive responses to thermal stress, and projected that, through processes such as genetic adaptation, acclimation, and symbiont shuffling, the reefs could reduce the rate of temperature-induced bleaching by 20 to 80 percent of levels currently projected to occur by the year 2100, if there are large reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. The authors emphasize the caveat that coral adaptation will not significantly slow the loss of coral reefs if there is no decrease in GHG emissions and further, that not all species will be able to adapt fast enough or to the same extent.

    Thus, as a whole, the body of research on coral adaptation to global warming is inconclusive on how these processes may affect particular coral species' extinction risk, given the projected intensity and rate of ocean warming (Brainard et al., 2011).

    Similarly, because of the increase in carbon dioxide and other GHGs in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, ocean acidification has already occurred throughout the world's oceans, including in the Caribbean, and is predicted to considerably worsen between now and 2100. Overall, available information demonstrates that most corals exhibit declining calcification rates with rising carbon dioxide concentrations, declining pH, and declining carbonate saturation state—although the rate and mode of decline can vary among species (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014). Spatially, while carbon dioxide levels in the surface waters of the ocean are generally in equilibrium with the lower atmosphere, there can be considerable spatial variability in seawater pH across reef-building coral habitats, resulting in colonies of a species experiencing high spatial variability in exposure to ocean acidification (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014).

    As we have discussed elsewhere (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014), vulnerability of a coral species to a threat is a function of susceptibility and exposure, considered at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Susceptibility of a coral species to a threat is primarily a function of biological processes and characteristics, and can vary greatly between and within taxa (i.e., family, genus, or species). Susceptibility depends on direct effects of the threat on the species, and it also depends on the cumulative (i.e., additive) and interactive (i.e., synergistic or antagonistic) effects of multiple threats acting simultaneously on the species. For example, ocean warming affects coral colonies through the direct effect of bleaching, together with the interactive effect of bleaching and disease, because bleaching increases disease susceptibility. Vulnerability of a coral species to a threat also depends on the proportion of colonies and populations that are exposed to the threat. Exposure is primarily a function of the distribution of the threat. The degree or intensity of exposure to a threat is primarily a function of physical processes and characteristics that limit or moderate the intensity of the threat across the range of the species. In our final listing rule responding to a petition to list 83 species of corals, we found that not all coral species are highly vulnerable to the threats associated with global climate change (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014). Even some species found to be susceptible to ocean warming were found not warranted for listing because they may have a buffering capacity to resist adverse effects on their status, due to high abundance, wide range, and/or high habitat heterogeneity.

    With information indicating yellowtail damselfish associate with a variety of coral habitats, and because susceptibility of coral species to climate change impacts is highly variable, we cannot infer any level of extinction risk from habitat loss due to climate change for yellowtail damselfish. Further, in a review of six studies examining the effects of coral bleaching on coral-reef fishes, Pratchett et al. (2008) found the density of 45 of 116 fish species' showed significant changes 1-3 years post-bleaching. The responses ranged from local extinction to several-fold increases in abundance. Though the damselfishes included in their study showed mixed results, Pratchett et al. (2008) found “fishes that increased in abundance were mostly dietary and habitat generalist species,” but some herbivores also showed increases. Thus, we do not view this study as providing any reliable prediction of yellowtail damselfish responses to coral bleaching. The petition also cites Bonin (2012) for effects of coral bleaching on damselfish. The paper concludes that as a result of coral mortality from bleaching, “[fish] specialists will increasingly be forced to use alternative recruitment habitats, and that is likely to reduce population replenishment.” As noted above, however, yellowtail damselfish is not a specialist on any particular coral species. Bonin (2012) further states that the “available evidence suggests that the presence of conspecifics provides a stronger cue for settlement than does microhabitat (Booth, 1992; Lecchini et al., 2005a; 2005b).” Thus, the presence of established individuals of the same fish species was more important for settling recruits than was habitat in that study. A third study cited by the petition, Booth and Beretta (2012), provided examples of fish recruit abundance decline independent of coral bleaching and concluded “these examples highlight the stochastic nature of recruitment, and caution against the hasty attribution of cause and effect in explaining changes in recruitment through time.” Graham et al. (2007) was also cited by the petition as an example of the effects of bleaching on coral-reef fishes. The authors concluded that “of the indirect effects of bleaching that we have identified, one of the most significant for the reef ecosystem as a whole is likely to be the decline in smaller size classes of herbivorous fishes (mainly surgeonfishes and parrotfishes with some rabbitfishes and two species of damselfish).” The petition also cites Wilson et al. (2006) for effects of bleaching on coral-reef fishes; however, Wilson et al. (2006) found “abundances of species reliant on live coral for food and shelter consistently declined during this time frame, while abundance of some species that feed on invertebrates, algae and/or detritus increased. The response of species, particularly those expected to benefit from the immediate loss of coral, is variable.” Thus, given that yellowtail damselfish is not an obligate corallivore and has a varied diet including algae and invertebrates, this study is not indicative of potential adverse impacts to yellowtail damselfish from coral bleaching. Finally, the petition cites Bonin et al. (2009) for effects of bleaching on coral-reef fishes. This study examined the effects of bleaching on two species of gobies that are live-coral symbionts. Again, this information does not allow us to infer any level of extinction risk from coral reef habitat loss due to climate change impacts for yellowtail damselfish.

    Therefore, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing yellowtail damselfish as threatened or endangered may be warranted due to loss or degradation of coral habitat that may result from global climate change.

    Overutilization for Commercial and Recreational Purposes

    The petition provides information indicating damselfish are the most commonly harvested group of fishes in the global trade of marine aquarium fish. The petition does not include any information specific to the collection of yellowtail damselfish, nor does it provide any explanation of how harvest of yellowtail damselfish is an extinction risk to the species. Due to the pugnacious behavior of yellowtail damselfish and its solitary nature (Robins et al., 1986), it is likely a less desirable species for use in aquaria compared to damselfish that are schooling planktivores such as the blue-green chromis. Though we do not have information in our files for harvest and trade impacts across the entire range of the species, we do have information in our files about harvest of damselfish in Florida for the aquarium trade; 9,780 damselfish were collected in 2009 from Florida waters for the aquarium trade. There are 14 species of damselfish in Florida waters and yellowtail damselfish is considered “common” (Humann, 1999), but specific information regarding the contribution of yellowtail damselfish to the aquarium trade harvest in Florida is not available (FWRI, 2009). Even if we assumed the entire Florida harvest in 2009 was comprised of yellowtail damselfish and is representative of ongoing harvest levels, we do not believe the collection of nearly 10,000 individuals in Florida annually would constitute an extinction risk that is cause for concern to the status of yellowtail damselfish. Because field surveys throughout the Florida Keys forereef, high relief spur and groove habitat indicate yellowtail damselfish have remained stable in frequency and density for the last 22 years (NMFS SEFSC, 2014), we believe harvest is not contributing to a decline in total numbers within Florida. In summary, we find the petition and information in our files do not present substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest that listing yellowtail damselfish as threatened or endangered may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, educational, or scientific purposes.

    Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petition states the regulatory mechanisms addressing greenhouse gas pollution, protecting coral reef habitat, and controlling the aquarium trade are inadequate to protect the yellowtail damselfish and that the “widespread and growing trade in coral-reef fish and corals adds to the cumulative stresses . . . from ocean warming and ocean acidification.” The petition states that both international and domestic laws controlling greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate and/or have failed to control emissions, “as acknowledged by NMFS in its Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species and Accompanying Management Report.” We concur there is information in the petition, readily available in our files, and from scientific literature that indicates GHG emissions and associated ocean warming, acidification and other synergistic effects are contributing to extinction risk for some species of reef building corals (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014), and that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to prevent these emissions from causing serious harmful impacts to corals. However, we do not have information in our files, and we are not aware of any literature, indicating GHG emissions are negatively affecting yellowtail damselfish (e.g., through sensory impacts, discussed below). As discussed above, yellowtail damselfish associate with a variety of coral-reef habitats and we have no information from which to conclude the impacts of GHG emissions on coral reefs present extinction risk that is cause for concern for yellowtail damselfish. Therefore, we also cannot conclude that inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to control these emissions is causing extinction risk that is cause for concern for this species.

    The petition states that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect coral reef habitats from local threats (e.g., overfishing), despite international and domestic efforts to reduce threats to reefs. The petition cites Burke et al. (2011), as concluding that “[m]ore than 60% of the world's coral reefs are under immediate and direct threat from one or more local sources,” and that “[of] local pressures on coral reefs, overfishing—including destructive fishing—is the most pervasive immediate threat, affecting more than 55 percent of the world's reefs.” The petition states “this high level of threat clearly indicates that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the coral reefs on which the petitioned Pomacentrids depend.” However, the petition fails to discuss how yellowtail damselfish may be susceptible to this generalized threat to coral reefs.

    The petition states that regulation of the aquarium trade is inadequate to control trade and prevent collection detrimental to the species' survival. The petition cites Tissot et al. (2010) for evidence of “weak governance capacity in major source countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines; high international demand, particularly from the United States . . . and inadequate enforcement of the few existing laws, allowing collectors to use illegal and harmful collection methods such as sodium cyanide.” Drawing inferences based on Indo-Pacific species and the regulatory mechanisms governing their collection is inappropriate because yellowtail damselfish do not occur in the foreign countries in the Indo-Pacific discussed as having inadequate governance and enforcement of laws. There is no information in our files indicating yellowtail damselfish is a highly prized, collected, or traded marine organism. We conclude the threats characterization in the petition regarding inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to control harmful harvest of yellowtail damselfish is unsubstantiated.

    In summary we find the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest that existing regulatory mechanisms related to any identified threats to the species are inadequate such that they may be causing an extinction risk for the yellowtail damselfish.

    Other Natural or Manmade Factors

    The petition states that ocean acidification and ocean warming, in addition to causing habitat loss, “directly threaten the survival of the petitioned species through a wide array of adverse impacts that are predicted to lead to negative fitness consequences and population declines.” The petition states “ocean acidification impairs the sensory capacity and behavior of larval clownfish and damselfish.” The petition refers to a number of sources to demonstrate that in the laboratory, behavioral responses of larval fish can be affected by elevated carbon dioxide levels.

    The petition states “research on the effects of ocean acidification on six species of larval damselfish found that elevated carbon dioxide levels expected within this century impair damselfish smell, vision, learning, behavior, and brain function, leading to a higher risk of mortality.” Results from two of these six damselfish are from Munday et al. (2010) who found that “700 ppm carbon dioxide is close to the threshold at which adaptation of behavioral responses might be possible in reef fishes, provided that the variation in sensitivity to elevated carbon dioxide we observed between individuals at this concentration has a genetic basis. The olfactory capacity of approximately one-half of the larvae was unaffected by exposure to 700 ppm carbon dioxide, and these individuals exhibited less risky behavior in the field (remained closer to shelter) compared with affected individuals.” The effect on olfactory capacity appears to be an individual response and not necessarily a population response. A variable individual response does not constitute a risk to the entire population and therefore, there is not sufficient evidence of extinction risk to yellowtail damselfish posed by elevated carbon dioxide impacts on olfactory capacity.

    Results from the other four of these six damselfish species are from Ferrari et al. (2011), where the effects of carbon dioxide exposure on the antipredator responses of four sympatric species who share the same ecology and life history was tested; all four are congeners in a different genus than yellowtail damselfish and all are found in the Pacific Ocean. The four damselfish in the Ferrari et al. (2011) study were specifically selected to compare similar species response to carbon dioxide in order to predict ecological impacts on marine communities. The concentrations of carbon dioxide tested ranged from those similar to recent atmospheric concentrations (390 ppm) to those representing highly elevated (700 and 850 ppm) atmospheric levels. This was accomplished by placing juveniles collected in traps into 35 L rearing aquariums that were either aerated with 390 ppm (current-day control), 728 ± 88, or 1008 ± 78 ppm (mean ± SD) carbon dioxide enriched air (Munday et al., 2009; Dixson et al., 2010) creating environments with 700 and 850 ppm CO2 (see Munday et al. (2010) for more details). While Ferrari et al. (2011) predicted the difference in behavioral response in the lab would translate into differential survival in the field, the “four congeneric species showed striking and unexpected variation in CO2 tolerance.” The antipredator responses were reduced at the 700 ppm level, but did not disappear, while at the 850 ppm level, three out of four species did not show an adaptive antipredator response, and the fourth maintained an antipredator response similar to the response level of the 700 ppm exposure. Additionally, all fish displayed antipredator responses to odors from injured conspecifics, which is considered a reliable cue of general predation risk (Ferrari et al., 2010). The results by Ferrari et al. (2011) were described by the petitioner as highlighting how individual effects from elevated carbon dioxide are highly uncertain and constitute an extinction risk for the petitioned species. However, merely identifying factors that could negatively impact a species does not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. Because Ferrari et al. (2011) found “marked intraspecific variation,” we interpret these results to demonstrate variability in physiological responses within the functional group examined (functional groups were defined by their carbon dioxide tolerance). Further, Ferrari et al. (2011) found predation rates and prey selectivity were impacted by exposure to elevated levels of dissolved carbon dioxide, but the outcome of the interaction was dependent on the size of juvenile prey, not on the species. Additionally, Ferrari et al. (2011) concluded that if the negative effects of carbon dioxide were balanced between prey and predators, we would not expect any change in overall mortality rate. These data do not provide reliable information for conclusions about the response of the yellowtail damselfish, much less a population-level response that might occur if the carbon dioxide levels tested are eventually reached. Finally, Ferrari et al. (2011) note that their experimental results may represent a worst case scenario in that it assumes absence of adaptation. We do not have information in our files, and we are not aware of any literature, indicating increased carbon dioxide levels have reduced fitness of any western Atlantic damselfish, or that increased levels may pose an extinction risk that is cause for concern for yellowtail damselfish.

    The petition also states that elevated sea surface temperatures “can influence the physiological condition, developmental rate, growth rate, early life history traits, and reproductive performance of coral reef fishes, all of which can affect their population dynamics, community structure, and geographical distributions,” citing Nilsson et al. (2009). We reviewed Nilsson et al. (2009) and found the results show physiological responses to changes in water temperature. Nilsson et al. (2009) examined the capacity of five species of marine fish to perform aerobically (aerobic scope). They found that all five species exhibited a decline in aerobic capacity at elevated water temperatures (31, 32, or 33 °C) compared to the control (29 °C); the three damselfish species tested retained over half their aerobic scope at 33 °C, while all capacity for additional oxygen uptake was exhausted at 33 °C for the two cardinalfish species tested. One damselfish species' oxygen uptake was reduced from 142% at 29 °C to 81% at 31 °C while another species' uptake went from 300% at 29 °C to 178% at 33 °C. These results indicate that damselfish are thermally tolerant and as Nilsson et al. (2009) state, “populations of thermally tolerant species are likely to persist at higher temperatures, but populations of thermally sensitive species could decline on low-latitude reefs if individual performance falls below levels needed to sustain viable populations.

    The petition cites several other sources, primarily Johansen and Jones (2011), which found increasing temperatures have negative effects on the aerobic capacity and swimming performance of some damselfish, though the species tested did not include the yellowtail damselfish or any of its congeners. These studies also revealed inter-specific differences in the response to elevated temperature and discussed how acclimation, developmental plasticity, and adaptation can alleviate temperature-related physiological impacts. All but one of these studies were single generation studies and did not evaluate trans-generational plasticity for any species to determine if the species are able to adapt or acclimate to new environmental conditions over time. In fact, the one study that did (Donelson et al., 2011) found that “complete compensation in aerobic scope occurred when both parents and offspring were reared throughout their lives at elevated temperature. Such acclimation could reduce the impact of warming temperatures and allow populations to persist across their current range. This study reveals the importance of trans-generational (across generations) acclimation as a mechanism for coping with rapid climate change and highlights that single generation studies risk underestimating the potential of species to cope.” The petition does not provide any information about the aerobic scope of yellowtail damselfish, nor do we have any information in our files. Therefore, we do not believe Nilsson et al. (2009), Donelson et al. (2011), and Johansen and Jones (2011), are reliable sources for the premise that elevated sea temperatures will affect the physiological response of yellowtail damselfish to the extent it poses an extinction risk of concern to the species.

    Results from a study by Munday et al. (2008) are also included in the petition to indicate how larval growth rates and recruitment of some reef fishes can increase with warmer water. Munday et al. (2008) documented high variability in response at both the individual and species level. Many coral reef fishes have geographical ranges spanning a wide temperature gradient and some have short generation times. These characteristics are conducive to acclimation or local adaptation to climate change and provide potential for more resilient species to persist (Munday et al., 2008).

    Thus, we conclude the petition did not explain, nor do we have information in our files explaining, how physiological effects of elevated carbon dioxide or elevated temperature would have negative effects on yellowtail damselfish. As we have noted, many of the references presented by the petition show highly variable physiological responses by individuals and species to various stimuli (elevated carbon dioxide or increased temperatures) and no reliable inference to yellowtail damselfish population responses can be drawn. We conclude the petition does not provide reliable support for the premise that the effects of ocean warming or ocean acidification may be posing extinction risk that is cause for concern for yellowtail damselfish.

    In summary, we conclude the petitions' characterization of ocean acidification and ocean warming as posing negative fitness consequences to be broad statements of generalized threats and do not indicate that ocean acidification and ocean warming directly threaten the survival or pose extinction risk that is cause for concern to the yellowtail damselfish. Therefore, we conclude the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted due to other natural or manmade factors.

    Synergistic threats

    Additionally, we do not find that the combination of proposed threats to yellowtail damselfish poses extinction risk that is cause for concern for yellowtail damselfish. The proposed threat from loss of habitat or habitat degradation is overstated because not all coral species are highly vulnerable to the threats associated with global climate change, some coral species will survive, and yellowtail damselfish are capable of habitat adaptations in response to changes in composition of coral species on reefs; harvest of the species is minimal; and physiological responses to increased carbon dioxide levels and sea temperature vary widely. Therefore, we do not believe these proposed threats act synergistically on yellowtail damselfish to pose extinction risk that is cause for concern.

    Finding

    After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the yellowtail damselfish as either an endangered species or as a threatened species may be warranted.

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references is available on our Web site: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_consideration/index.html .

    Authority

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

    Dated: February 11, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03326 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD710 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Approved Monitoring Service Providers AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice, approved monitoring service providers.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has approved five companies to provide at-sea monitoring services to Northeast multispecies vessels in fishing year 2015. Regulations implementing Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan require third-party at-sea monitoring service providers to apply to, and be approved by, NMFS in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act in order to be eligible to provide at-sea monitoring services to sectors.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the list of NMFS-approved sector monitoring service providers are available at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/ or by sending a written request to: 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Brett Alger.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brett Alger, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 675-2153, fax (978) 281-9135, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Amendment 16 (75 FR 18262; April 9, 2010) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) expanded the sector management program, including requirements to ensure accurate monitoring of sector at-sea catch and dockside landings, and common pool dockside landings. Framework Adjustment 48 to the FMP (Framework 48, 78 FR 26118, May 3, 2013) revised the goals and objectives for sector monitoring programs.

    Standards for Approving At-Sea Monitoring Service Providers

    Regulations at 50 CFR 648.87(b)(4) describe the criteria for NMFS approval of at-sea monitoring service providers. NMFS is approving service providers for fishing year 2015 (beginning May 1, 2015) based on: (1) Completeness of applications, (2) determination of the applicant's ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of a sector monitoring service provider, and (3) performance as NMFS-funded providers in fishing year 2014. NE multispecies sectors are required to design and implement independent, third-party at-sea monitoring programs in fishing year 2015, and are responsible for the costs of these monitoring requirements, unless otherwise instructed by NMFS.

    For fishing year 2014, NMFS approved A.I.S., Inc.; East West Technical Services, LLC; MRAG Americas, Inc.; Fathom Research, LLC; and ACD USA Ltd. as service providers based on the completeness of their application, addressing the regulatory requirements (§ 648.87(b)(4)(i)), determination of ability, and performance during previous fishing years. Once approved, providers must document having met performance requirements in order to maintain eligibility (§ 648.87(b)(4)(ii)). NMFS can disapprove any previously approved service provider during the fishing year if the service provider in question ceases to meet the performance standards. NMFS must notify service providers of disapproval in writing.

    Approved Monitoring Service Providers

    NMFS received complete applications from five companies interested in providing at-sea monitoring services in fishing year 2015; these were the same five approved in fishing year 2014. The Regional Administrator has approved the following service providers as eligible to provide at-sea monitoring services in fishing year 2015 because they have met the application requirements and applicable performance standards:

    Table 1—Approved Fishing Year 2015 Providers Provider name Address Phone Fax Website ACD USA Ltd. 4 Parker St., 2nd Floor, Gloucester, MA 01930 902-422-4745 902-422-9780 www.atlanticcatchdata.ca. A.I.S., Inc. 89 N. Water St., P.O. Box 2093, New Bedford, MA 02741 508-990-9054 508-990-9055 aisobservers.com. East West Technical Services, LLC 86 Mumford Rd., Narragansett, RI 02882 860-910-4957 860-223-6005 www.ewts.com. Fathom Research, LLC 1213 Purchase St., New Bedford, MA 02740 508-990-0997 508-991-7372 www.fathomresearchllc.com. MRAG Americas, Inc. 65 Eastern Ave., Unit B2C, Essex, MA 01929 978-768-3880 978-768-3878 www.mragamericas.com. Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03273 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD774 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.

    DATES:

    The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet March 6-12, 2015. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 8 a.m., reconvening each day through Thursday, March 12, 2015. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held at 8 a.m. on Sunday, March 8 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meetings of the Council and its advisory entities will be held at the Hilton Vancouver Washington, 301 W. 6th Street, Vancouver, WA 98660; telephone: (360) 993-4500.

    Council Address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220. Instructions for attending the meeting via live stream broadcast are given under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: (503) 820-2280 or (866) 806-7204 toll free; or access the Pacific Council Web site, http://www.pcouncil.org for the current meeting location, proposed agenda, and meeting briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The March 8-12, 2015 meeting of the Pacific Fishery Management Council will be streamed live on the internet. The live meeting will be broadcast daily starting at 9 a.m. Pacific Time (PT) beginning on Sunday, March 8, 2015 through Thursday, March 12, 2015. The broadcast will end daily at 6 p.m. PT or when business for the day is complete. Only the audio portion, and portions of the presentations displayed on the screen at the Council meeting, will be broadcast. The audio portion is listen-only; you will be unable to speak to the Council via the broadcast. Join the meeting by visiting this link http://www.joinwebinar.com, enter the Webinar ID for this meeting, which is 138-252-315 and enter your email address as required. It is recommended that you use a computer headset as GoToMeeting allows you to listen to the meeting using your computer headset and speakers. If you do not have a headset and speakers, you may use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting by dialing this TOLL number 1-480-297-0021 (not a toll free number); entering the phone audio access code 326-426-740; and then entering your Audio Pin which will be shown to you after joining the webinar. The webinar is broadcast in listen only mode.

    The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order. Agenda items noted as “(Final Action)” refer to actions requiring the Council to transmit a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the Secretary of Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Additional detail on agenda items, Council action, and meeting rooms, is described in Agenda Item A.4, Proposed Council Meeting Agenda, and will be in the advance March 2015 briefing materials and posted on the Council Web site www.pcouncil.org.

    A. Call to Order 1. Opening Remarks 2. Roll Call 3. Executive Director's Report 4. Approve Agenda B. Open Comment Period 1. Comments on Non-Agenda Items C. Enforcement Issues 1. Annual U.S. Coast Guard Fishery Enforcement Report D. Habitat 1. Current Habitat Issues E. Ecosystem Management 1. California Current Ecosystem Report Including Integrated Ecosystem Assessment 2. Review of Fishery Ecosystem Plan Initiatives 3. NMFS Climate Science Strategy Update 4. Unmanaged Forage Fish Protection Final Action (Final Action) F. Salmon Management 1. National Marine Fisheries Service Report 2. Review of 2014 Fisheries and Summary of 2015 Stock Abundance Forecasts 3. Identification of Management Objectives and Preliminary Definition of 2015 Salmon Management Alternatives (Final Action) 4. Council Recommendations for 2015 Management Alternative Analysis 5. Further Council Direction for 2015 Management Alternatives 6. Adoption of 2015 Management Alternatives for Public Review 7. Salmon Hearings Officers G. Pacific Halibut Management 1. Report on the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Meeting 2. Incidental Catch Recommendations for the Salmon Troll and Fixed Gear Sablefish Fisheries (Final Action for Sablefish) H. Highly Migratory Species Management 1. National Marine Fisheries Service Report 2. Recommendations for International Management Activities Including US-Canada Albacore Treaty Area Fishery Update 3. Final Exempted Fishing Permit Approval (Final Action) 4. Drift Gillnet Management and Monitoring Plan Including Final Action on Hard Caps (Final Action) I. Administrative Matters 1. Legislative Matters 2. National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region Strategic Plan Update 3. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes 4. Membership Appointments and Council Operating Procedures 5. Future Council Meeting Agenda and Workload Planning Schedule of Ancillary Meetings Day 1—Friday, March 6, 2015 Habitat Committee  8:30 a.m. Coastal Pelagic Species Subcommittee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee  10 a.m. Day 2—Saturday, March 7, 2015 Scientific and Statistical Committee  8 a.m. Ecosystem Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Legislative Committee  1 p.m. Day 3—Sunday, March 8, 2015 California State Delegation  7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation  7 a.m. Washington State Delegation  7 a.m. Ecosystem Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team  8 a.m. Scientific and Statistical Committee  8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team  8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants  3 p.m. Tribal Policy Group  Ad hoc Tribal and Washington Technical Group  Ad hoc Day 4—Monday, March 9, 2015 California State Delegation  7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation  7 a.m. Washington State Delegation  7 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team  8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team  8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants  Ad hoc Tribal Policy Group  Ad hoc Tribal and Washington Technical Group  Ad hoc Day 5—Tuesday, March 10, 2015 California State Delegation  7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation  7 a.m. Washington State Delegation  7 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team  8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team  8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants  Ad hoc Tribal Policy Group  Ad hoc Tribal and Washington Technical Group  Ad hoc Day 6—Wednesday, March 11, 2015 California State Delegation  7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation  7 a.m. Washington State Delegation  7 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team  8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team  8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants  Ad hoc Tribal Policy Group  Ad hoc Tribal and Washington Technical Group  Ad hoc Day 7—Thursday, March 12, 2015 California State Delegation  7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation  7 a.m. Washington State Delegation  7 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel  8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team  8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants  Ad hoc Tribal Policy Group  Ad hoc Tribal and Washington Technical Group  Ad hoc

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03204 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD757 Nominations to the Marine Mammal Scientific Review Groups AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Secretary of Commerce established three independent regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) to provide advice on a range of marine mammal science and management issues. NMFS has conducted a membership review of the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific SRGs and is soliciting nominations for new Members to fill vacancies on the Atlantic and Pacific SRGs. Nominees should possess demonstrable expertise in the areas specified below, be able to conduct thorough scientific reviews of marine mammal science, and be able to fulfill the necessary time commitments associated with a thorough review of documents and attendance at one annual meeting.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received by March 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations should be sent to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: SRGs.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected]; or Seth Sykora-Bodie, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8409, [email protected] Information about the SRGs is available via the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/group.htm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 117(d) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish three independent regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) to advise the Secretary (authority delegated to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)). The Alaska SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off Alaska that are under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Pacific SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off the Pacific coast, Hawaiian Islands and the U.S. Territories in the Central and Western Pacific that are under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Atlantic SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Territories in the Caribbean that are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    The SRGs meet annually. Prior to the meetings, SRG Members review draft stock assessment reports and other relevant documents. SRGs comprise highly-qualified individuals with expertise in marine mammal biology and ecology, population dynamics and modeling, commercial fishing technology and practices, and stocks taken under section 101(b) of the MMPA. The SRGs provide expert reviews of draft marine mammal stock assessment reports and other information related to the matters identified in section 117(d)(1) of the MMPA, including:

    (A) Population estimates and the population status and trends of marine mammal stocks;

    (B) Uncertainties and research needed regarding stock separation, abundance, or trends, and factors affecting the distribution, size, or productivity of the stock;

    (C) Uncertainties and research needed regarding the species, number, ages, gender, and reproductive status of marine mammals;

    (D) Research needed to identify modifications in fishing gear and practices likely to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations;

    (E) The actual, expected, or potential impacts of habitat destruction, including marine pollution and natural environmental change, on specific marine mammal species or stocks, and for strategic stocks, appropriate conservation or management measures to alleviate any such impacts; and

    (F) Any other issue which the Secretary or the groups consider appropriate.

    SRG Members collectively serve as independent advisors to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide their expert review and recommendations through participation in the SRG. Members attend meetings and undertake activities as independent persons providing expertise in their subject areas. Members are not appointed as representatives of professional organizations or particular stakeholder groups, including government entities, and are not permitted to represent or advocate for those organizations, groups or entities during SRG meetings, discussions and deliberations.

    NMFS has developed terms of reference for the SRGs, which state that the agency will annually review the expertise available on the SRG and identify gaps in expertise needed to provide advice pursuant to section 117(d) of the MMPA. In conducting the reviews, NMFS will continue to attempt to achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, a balanced representation of viewpoints among the individuals on each SRG. NMFS has conducted a review of the expertise available on the three SRGs and has identified gaps. NMFS is now soliciting nominations for individuals with the following expertise.

    For the Atlantic SRG (including waters off the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Territories in the Caribbean), NMFS seeks individuals with expertise in one or more of the following areas (in no particular order of priority): Quantitative ecology; habitat modeling; population dynamics; statistical analyses; passive acoustics; abundance estimation (including line transect methods, mark-recapture methods, quantitative bycatch estimation, and/or survey design); and fisheries gear/techniques, with particular emphasis on pot/trap and gillnet fisheries along the Atlantic coast and in Gulf of Mexico fisheries.

    For the Pacific SRG (including waters off the Pacific coast, Hawaiian Islands and the U.S. Territories in the Central and Western Pacific), NMFS seeks individuals with expertise in one or more of the following areas (in no particular order of priority): Quantitative ecology; habitat modeling; population dynamics; fisheries gear/techniques, particularly of Hawaiian and Pacific Islands fisheries; Hawaii and Pacific Islands ecology; marine mammal genetics; passive acoustics; marine mammal population structure; abundance estimation (including line transect methods, mark-recapture methods, and quantitative bycatch estimation).

    NMFS is not seeking nominations for the Alaska SRG in this solicitation.

    Nominations for new Members should be accompanied by the individual's curriculum vitae and detailed information regarding (a) how the recommended person meets the minimum selection criteria for SRG Members, (b) how the recommended person would augment existing expertise or bring needed expertise to the group, and (c) how the recommended person's participation on the SRG would contribute to achieving a balanced representation of viewpoints. Self-nominations are acceptable. The following contact information should accompany each nomination: nominee's name, address, telephone number, and email address.

    When reviewing nominations, NMFS will consider the following criteria:

    (1) Ability to make time available for the purposes of the SRG;

    (2) Knowledge of the species (or closely related species) of marine mammals in the SRG's region;

    (3) Scientific or technical achievement in a relevant discipline, which may include ecology, life history, fishing technology and practices, biology, genetics, resource management, or biological modeling, to be considered an expert peer reviewer for the topic;

    (4) Demonstrated experience working effectively on teams;

    (5) Expertise relevant to current and expected needs of the SRG, in particular, expertise required to provide adequate review and knowledgeable feedback on current or developing stock assessment issues, techniques, etc. In practice, this means that each Member should have expertise in more than one topic as the species and scientific issues discussed in SRG meetings are diverse; and

    (6) No conflict of interest with respect to their duties as a member of the SRG.

    A Scientific Review Group Member cannot be a registered Federal lobbyist. Membership is voluntary and, except for reimbursable travel and related expenses, service is without pay. The terms of reference specify that the term of service for SRG Members is three years and Members may serve up to three consecutive terms. Nominations should be sent to (see ADDRESSES) and must be received by March 20, 2015.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. Perry Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03196 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2014-ICCD-0159] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Comprehensive Transition Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities Expenditure Report AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2014-ICCD-0159 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tammy Gay, 816-268-0432.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Comprehensive Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities Expenditure Report

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0113

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 34.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 68.

    Abstract: The Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. 110-315, added provisions for the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, in section 750 and 766 that enable eligible students with intellectual disabilities to receive Federal Pell Grant, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, and Federal Work Study funds if they are enrolled in an approved program. The Comprehensive Transition Programs (CTP) for Students with Intellectual Disabilities expenditure report is the tool for reporting the use of these specific funds. The data will be used by the Department to monitor program effectiveness and accountability of fund expenditures. The data is used in conjunction with institutional program reviews to assess the administrative capability and compliance of the applicant.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03185 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0011] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights Certificate AGENCY:

    Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0011 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Elizabeth Weigman, (901) 604-9330.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights Certificate.

    OMB Control Number: 1870-0503.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 25.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4.

    Abstract: The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has enforcement responsibilities under several civil rights laws, including Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, the Age Discrimination Act, and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. To meet these responsibilities, OCR collects assurances of compliance from applicants for Federal financial assistance from, and applicants for funds made available through, the Department of Education, as required by regulations. These entities include, for example, State educational agencies, local education agencies, and postsecondary educational institutions. If a recipient violates one or more of these civil rights laws, OCR and the Department of Justice can used the signed assurances of compliance in an enforcement proceeding.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03288 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2014-ICCD-0147] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program (TEACH Grant Program) Agreement to Serve AGENCY:

    Federal Student Assistance (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2014-ICCD-0147 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jon Utz, 202-377-4040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program (TEACH Grant Program) Agreement to Serve.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0083.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program (TEACH Grant Program) Agreement to Serve.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 34,116.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 17,058.

    Abstract: As a condition for receiving a TEACH Grant, a student must sign an Agreement to Serve. A new Agreement to Serve must be signed for each award year during which a student wishes to receive a TEACH Grant. By signing the Agreement to Serve, a TEACH Grant recipient agrees to meet the teaching service obligation and other terms and conditions of the TEACH Grant Program that are described in the Agreement to Service. In accordance with these terms and conditions, if a TEACH Grant recipient does not fulfill the required teaching service obligation or otherwise fails to meet the requirements of the TEACH Grant Program, any TEACH Grant funds the individual received will be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan that the grant recipient must repay in full, with interest. The Agreement to Serve also explains the repayment terms and conditions that will apply if a TEACH Grant is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03281 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13102-003] Birch Power Company; Notice of Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review and Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Original License (Major Project).

    b. Project No.: 13102-003.

    c. Date Filed: July 2, 2013.

    d. Applicant: Birch Power Company.

    e. Name of Project: Demopolis Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: At the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Demopolis Lock and Dam, on theTombigbee River, west of the city of Demopolis in Marengo and Sumter Counties, Alabama. The proposed project would occupy approximately 23 acres of federal land administered by the Corps.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Nicholas E. Josten, GeoSense, 2742 Saint Charles Ave., Idaho Falls, ID 83404, (208) 528-6152.

    i. FERC Contact: Adam Peer, (202) 502-8449 or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: April 25, 2015.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-13102-003.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The proposed project would utilize the existing Corps' Demopolis Lock and Dam and Reservoir, and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 900-foot-long excavated intake channel (headrace); (2) two 60-foot-long by 32-foot-wide trash racks with 2.5-inch bar spacing; (3) a 201-foot-long by 80-foot-wide powerhouse containing two 24-megawatt (MW) Kaplan turbines, having a total installed capacity of 48 MW; (4) a substation; (5) a forebay oxygen diffuser line system to enhance dissolved oxygen; (6) a 1,880-foot-long excavated tailrace channel; (7) a 1,700-foot-long retaining wall along the north side of tailrace channel; (8) a 4.4-mile-long, 115-kilovolt transmission line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be about 213,000 megawatt-hours.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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 Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Scoping Process:

    The Commission intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) on the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.

    Scoping Meetings

    FERC staff will conduct one agency scoping meeting and one public meeting. The agency scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the public scoping meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

    Agency Scoping Meeting

    DATE: Thursday, March 26, 2015.

    TIME: 9:00 a.m. (EDT).

    PLACE: Demopolis Civic Center.

    ADDRESS: 501 N. Commissioner's Avenue, Demopolis, AL 36732.

    Public Scoping Meeting

    DATE: Thursday, March 26, 2015.

    TIME: 7:00 p.m. (EDT).

    PLACE: Demopolis Civic Center.

    ADDRESS: 501 N. Commissioner's Avenue, Demopolis, AL 36732.

    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link (see item m above).

    Environmental Site Review

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project Environmental Site Review. The time and location of this meeting is as follows:

    PROJECT: Demopolis Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project.

    DATE: Thursday, March 26, 2015.

    TIME: 2:00 p.m. (EDT).

    LOCATION: Demopolis Civic Center Parking Lot, 501 N. Commissioner's Avenue, Demopolis, AL 36732.

    All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend. All participants should meet at the time and location specified above. All participants are responsible for their own transportation to the site. Anyone with questions about the Environmental Site Review should contact Nicholas E. Josten, GeoSense, 2742 Saint Charles Ave., Idaho Falls, ID 83404, (208) 528-6152 on or before March 19, 2015.

    Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that should be analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not require a detailed analysis.

    Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.

    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the EA.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03263 Filed 2-17-15; 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: EC15-71-000.

    Applicants: Enel Cove Fort, LLC, Enel Stillwater, LLC,EGP Stillwater Solar, LLC, Origin Wind Energy, LLC,EFS Green Power Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Enel Cove Fort, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 2/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150209-5278.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-822-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Report Filing: Informational Report per May, 9, 2014 Order in Docket No. ER14-822-000. to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 2/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150209-5219.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-266-001.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-2-10_PSCo Sttlmnt Losses Amend Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-359-002.

    Applicants: Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-746-001.

    Applicants: RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Supplement to Reactive Rate Schedule Change Request to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-786-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Report Filing: 2015-02-10_SA 2523 Supplement ITC-Pheasant Run GIA (J075) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5062.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1015-000.

    Applicants: AltaGas Brush Energy Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): AltaGas Brush Energy Inc. Notice of Succession to be effective 2/10/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150209-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1016-000.

    Applicants: Shafter Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Shafter Solar, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 3/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150209-5256.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1017-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Tie-Line Facilities Agreement with Valle Del Sol Energy, LLC to be effective 4/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1018-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): LGIA and Distribution Service Agmt with Valle Del Sol Energy, LLC to be effective 4/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1019-000.

    Applicants: Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application for MBR to be effective 2/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1020-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 MBR Application to be effective 4/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA14-3-000.

    Applicants: NextEra Energy Companies.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the NextEra Energy Companies.

    Filed Date: 2/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150209-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/15.

    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: February 10, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03198 Filed 2-17-15; 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: EC15-72-000.

    Applicants: RE Columbia, LLC, Recurrent Energy, LLC, Canadian Solar Inc.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Requests for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and Expedited Consideration of RE Columbia, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-643-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Response to Deficiency Letter Dated 01/27/2015 in Docket No. ER15-643-000 to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150211-5165.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1021-000.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule Nos. 76 & 77 Concurrence in SCE Amended_Restated RS Nos. 424 & 267 to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150211-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1022-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: Application for One Time Waiver of San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 2/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150210-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1023-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement No. 193—Amendment 3, ANPP Hassayampa—Administrative Change to be effective 2/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150211-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1024-000.

    Applicants: Zone One Energy, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Baseline New to be effective 4/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150211-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1025-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revised SA No. 3341 among PJM and Southeastern Power Administration to be effective 1/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 2/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150211-5241.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/15.

    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: February 11, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03259 Filed 2-17-15; 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: PR15-10-001.

    Applicants: Southcross Nueces Pipelines LLC.

    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e), (g): Amendment to be effective 2/6/2015; TOFC: 1270.

    Filed Date: 2/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150206-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/15.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: PR15-19-000.

    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Midstates Natural Gas) Corp.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1),: Update to Currently Effective Rates to be effective 1/4/2015; TOFC: 1000.

    Filed Date: 2/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150204-5151.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: CP15-31-000.

    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

    Description: Notice cancelling rate for natural gas transportation service of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

    Filed Date: 12/16/14.

    Accession Number: 20141216-5318.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: CP07-403-003.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC, et al.

    Description: Abbreviated Joint Application Requesting Amendment of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity of Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 1/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150123-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: CP07-398-007.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC, et al.

    Description: Abbreviated Joint Application Requesting Amendment of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity of Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 1/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150123-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-431-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate ConocoPhillips 2014-02-04 to be effective 2/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150204-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-432-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 02/04/15 Negotiated Rates—Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (HUB) 7540-89 to be effective 2/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150204-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-433-000.

    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate PAL Agreement—Koch Energy Services, LLC to be effective 2/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150204-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-434-000.

    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 2015 Miscellaneous and Housekeeping Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150204-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-435-000.

    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Vol 2—Expiration—Non-Conforming Agreement-Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc. to be effective 2/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150205-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-436-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015-02-05 Tenaska IT to be effective 2/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150205-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-437-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 02/06/15 Negotiated Rates—Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (HUB) 7540-89 to be effective 2/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150206-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-438-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 02/06/15 Negotiated Rates—ConEdison Energy Inc. (HUB) 2275-89 to be effective 2/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150206-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-439-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 02/06/15 Negotiated Rates—Sequent Energy Management (HUB) 3075-89 to be effective 2/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150206-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-440-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: New Firm and Interruptible Lateral Service (FLS and ILS) to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150206-5197.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.

    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 date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1272-002.

    Applicants: National Grid LNG, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Section 36 to be effective 3/1/2015 under RP14-1272 Filing Type: 580.

    Filed Date: 2/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150206-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    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: February 9, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03199 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-44-000] Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC v. PacificCorp; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on February 9, 2015, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against the PacificCorp (Respondent) alleging that PacifiCorp has implemented actions and activities to: (1) Ignore the Commission's regulatory authority; (2) circumvent the Commission's December 16, 2013 Order in Docket No. EL-14-1-000; 1 (3) violate the Respondent's Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 11 (OATT); (4) violate FERC Orders for the Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, including FERC Order 2003; (5) engage in trickery including the submission of subtle misrepresentations of tariff language sufficient to alter and change the original meaning and intent of the tariff; (6) engage in activities and practices that include acts against individuals in protected classes such as race, color, religion, sex and even citizenship and immigration status as defined in Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination Laws; (7) disparaging treatment with respect to the Respondent requiring the Complainant to produce additional information in excess of the mandated requirements in order to process the Complainants' Interconnection Request; (8) the processing of an invalid Interconnection Request for a Respondent favored Interconnection Customer, Blue Mountain Power Partners, LLC on parcels of land whereby the developmental rights for said parcels of land belong to the Complainant; and (9) the processing of an invalid Interconnection Request for a Respondent favored Interconnection Customer, Latigo Wind Park, LLC on land where a transmission cable from the Interconnection Customer's Generating Facility Collector Substation to the Point of Interconnection, Pinto Substation crosses land whereby the developmental rights belong to the Complainant, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    1Pioneer Wind Park I, LLC, 145 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2013).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is 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