Federal Register Vol. 80, No.89,

This proposal is issued under the Order (7 CFR part 1218). The Order is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).

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, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process.

This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.

This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.

Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.

This proposal invites comments on expanding the membership of the Council under the Order. The Council administers the Order with oversight by USDA. Under the program, assessments are collected from domestic producers and importers and used for research and promotion projects designed to increase the demand for highbush blueberries. This proposal would increase the number of Council members from 16 to 20, adding two producers, one importer, and one exporter. This would help ensure that the Council reflects the geographical distribution of domestic blueberry production and imports into the United States. This proposal would also add eligibility requirements for the public member, clarify the Council's nomination procedures and its ability to serve the diversity of the industry, and increase the number of members needed for a quorum. This proposal also invites comments on prescribing late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. These changes would help facilitate program administration. All of these actions were unanimously recommended by the Council at its meeting on October 3, 2014.

Section 1218.40(a) of the Order currently specifies that the Council be composed of no more than 16 members and alternates appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary). Ten of the 16 members and alternates are producers. One producer member and alternate are from each of the following regions within the United States: Region #1 Western Region; Region #2 Midwest Region; Region #3 Northeast Region; and Region #4 Southern Region. One producer member and alternate are from each of the top six blueberry producing states, based upon the average of the total tons produced over the previous three years. Currently, these states include Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, New Jersey, and California. Average tonnage is based upon production and assessment figures generated by the Council.

Of the remaining six Council members and alternates, three members and alternates are importers. One member and alternate must be an exporter, defined in section 1218.40 as a blueberry producer currently shipping blueberries into the United States from the largest foreign blueberry production area, based on a three-year average (currently Chile). One member and alternate must be a first handler, defined in section 1218.40 as a United States based independent or cooperative organization which is a producer/shipper of domestic blueberries. Finally, one member and alternate must represent the public.

Section 1218.40(b) of the Order specifies that, at least once every five years, the Council will review the geographical distribution of the production of blueberries in the United States and the quantity of imports. The review is conducted through an audit of state crop production figures and Council assessment records. If warranted, the Council will recommend to the Secretary that its membership be altered to reflect changes in the geographical distribution of domestic blueberry production and the quantity of imports. If the level of imports increases, importer members and alternates may be added to the Council.

The Council met on October 3, 2014, and reviewed domestic production and assessment data for the pasts three years (2011-2013). This data for the top blueberry producing states is summarized in Table 1 below.

As shown in Table 1, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, New Jersey, California, North Carolina, and Florida, respectively, were the top eight highbush blueberry producing states based on the 3-year average of both production and assessments paid from 2011-2013. Mississippi and Indiana, respectively, were the ninth and tenth highest blueberry producing states from 2011-2013. Blueberry production in Florida, the smallest producer of the top eight producing states, was more than double that of Mississippi.

Since the Council's inception in 2001 and continuing until 2006, there were five state positions on the Council; producers from Michigan, Oregon, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina held those five positions. In 2006, a sixth state position was added to the Council, with the State of Washington earning a seat (71 FR 44553; August 7, 2006). Production shifted in the coming years, and by 2014, California became the sixth top blueberry producing state and earned a position on the Council, with its 3-year average production surpassing that of North Carolina.

After reviewing state production data, the Council recommended revising its membership so that one producer member and alternate from each of the top eight producing blueberry states have seats on the Council, based upon the average of the total tons produced over the previous 3 years. Thus, the number of state positions on the Council would be increased from six to eight. Based upon recent production figures, this would allow North Carolina and Florida to each have a state member and alternate seat on the Council. Section 1218.40(a)(2) would be revised accordingly.

The Council also reviewed import data and compared it to domestic data. Table 2 below shows the domestic (U.S.) production figures and quantity of imports from 2011-2013 as well as assessments paid for domestic and imported blueberries for those years. The table also shows the 3-year average of domestic production, imports and assessments paid for 2011-2013.

As shown in Table 2, the quantity of imported blueberries as well as assessments paid by importers has increased from 2011-2013. Based upon a 3-year average of total assessments paid under the program, domestic blueberries account for 59 percent of assessments paid and imports account for 41 percent of assessments paid. Additionally, based on a 3-year average of the total tonnage covered under the program, domestic production accounts for 64 percent of the tonnage and imports account for 36 percent of the tonnage.

The Council also reviewed import data by country. Table 3 below shows the quantity of imports by country from 2011-2013 as well as the 3-year average.

As shown in Table 3, Chile and Canada, respectively, were the top two foreign production areas shipping blueberries into the United States from 2011-2013. Argentina has been the third top foreign production area shipping blueberries into the United States, although the quantity of Argentinian imports is much lower than the quantity of blueberries from Chile and Canada.

Regarding membership on the Council, representatives from Canada were the exporter member and alternate from the time of the Council's inception and continuing through 2009. Since 2010, representatives from Chile have been the exporter member and alternate on the Council.

Upon reviewing import data, the Council recommended adding one importer member and one alternate to its membership. This would increase the number of importer positions from three to four. The Council also recommended adding one exporter member and one alternate to its membership to represent foreign producers currently shipping blueberries into the United States from the second largest foreign blueberry production area, based on a 3-year average. This would increase the number of exporter positions from one to two, allowing exporters from both Chile and Canada to be represented on the Council. Section 1218.40(a) of the Order is proposed to be amended accordingly.

Thus, the number of Council members would increase from 16 to 20. Of the 20 members, 12 would be domestic producers, 4 would be importers, 2 would be exporters, and 1 each would be a handler and public member. Of the 18 Council members representing domestic producers, importers and exporters, 66.7 percent would represent the domestic industry and 33.3 percent of the Council would represent imports or foreign production. This would realign the Council's membership to better reflect the geographic distribution of domestic and imported blueberries.

The Council reviewed other Order provisions regarding its membership and operations. The Council recommended revising paragraph (a)(6) of section 1218.40 to clarify eligibility requirements for the public member and alternate member positions. Specifically, the Council recommended that the public member and alternate not be a blueberry producer, handler, importer, exporter or have a financial interest in the production, sales, marketing or distribution of blueberries.

The Council also recommended adding language to the Order to clarify its ability to serve the diversity of the industry. The Council recommended adding a new paragraph (c) to section 1218.40 to specify that, when the industry makes recommendations for nominees to serve on the Council, it should take into account the diversity of the population served and the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the members to serve a diverse population, size of the operations, methods of production and distribution, and other distinguishing factors to ensure that the recommendations of the Council take into account the diverse interest of persons responsible for paying assessments, and others in the marketing chain, if appropriate.

The Council recommended minor revisions to section 1218.41 of the Order regarding nominations and appointments. The procedures to nominate state and regional producers, as well as importers, exporters, first handlers, and public members would not change. The section would merely be revised to add clarity regarding the process for nominating members in states with and without a state blueberry commission or marketing order.

The Council also recommended adding language to section 1218.41 to expand the number of nominees submitted to the Secretary for consideration. Paragraph (a) of section 1218.41 currently provides that, when a state has a blueberry commission or marketing order in place, the state commission or committee will nominate members to serve on the Council. At least two nominees must be recommended to the Secretary for each member and each alternate position. The Council recommended that other qualified persons who are interested in serving in the respective state positions but are not nominated by their State marketing order or commission be designated by the State organization and/or Council as additional nominees for consideration by the Secretary. Section 1218.41(a) would be revised accordingly.

Likewise, paragraph (d) of section 1218.41 currently provides that nominations for the importer, exporter, first handler, and public member positions be made by the Council. Two nominees for each member and each alternate position are submitted to the Secretary for consideration. The Council recommended that other qualified persons who are interested in serving in these positions but are not recommended by the Council be designated by the Council as additional nominees for consideration by the Secretary. The current paragraph (d) in section 1218.41 would be modified accordingly and would become paragraph (c).

The Council also recommended adding a new paragraph (d) to section 1218.41 to specify that producer, handler and importer nominees must be in compliance with the Order's provisions regarding the payment of assessments and filing of reports. This would help ensure that only persons in compliance with the Order's obligations serve on the Council. Further, this section would clarify that producer and importer nominees must produce or import, respectively, 2,000 pounds or more of highbush blueberries annually. This would bring the Order in line with how the program has been administered since its inception. Section 1218.41 is proposed to be revised accordingly.

The Council recommended revisions to section 1218.45 regarding procedures. First, the Council recommended increasing the number of members needed for a quorum. Paragraph (a) of section 1218.45 currently specifies that nine members are needed for a quorum, which is a majority of the current 16-member Council. Increasing the number of Council members to 20 warrants increasing the number members needed for a quorum to 11, which would be a majority of the proposed 20-member Council.

The Council also recommended adding flexibility to its procedures so that members participating in Council meetings may cast votes on issues either in person or by electronic or other means as deemed appropriate. Specifically, a new paragraph (f) would be added to section 1218.45 to specify that all votes at meetings of the Council and committees may be cast in person or by electronic voting or other means as the Council and Secretary deem appropriate to allow members participating by telephone or other electronic means to cast votes.

The Order specifies that the funds to cover the Council's expenses shall be paid from assessments on producers and importers, donations from persons not subject to assessments and from other funds available to the Council. First handlers are responsible for collecting and submitting reports and producer assessments to the Council. Handlers must also maintain records necessary to verify their reports. Importers are responsible for paying assessments to the Council on highbush blueberries imported into the United States through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs). The Order also provides for two exemptions. Producers and importers who produce or import less than 2,000 pounds of blueberries annually, and producers and importers of 100 percent organic blueberries are exempt from the payment of assessments.

Section 1218.52(e) of the Order specifies that all assessment payments and reports must be submitted to the office of the Council. Assessments on imported blueberries are collected by Customs prior to entry into the United States. Assessments on domestic blueberries for a crop year must be received by the Council no later than November 30 of that year. A late payment charge shall be imposed on any handler who fails to remit to the Council, the total amount for which any such handler is liable on or before the due date established by the Council. In addition to the late payment charge, an interest charge shall be imposed on the outstanding amount for which the handler is liable. The rate of interest must be prescribed in regulations issued by the Secretary.

Assessment funds are used for research and promotion activities that are intended to benefit all industry members. Thus, it is important that all assessed entities pay their assessments in a timely manner. Entities who fail to pay their assessments on time may reap the benefits of Council programs at the expense of others. In addition, they may utilize funds for their own use that should otherwise be paid to the Council to finance Council programs.

The Council recommended prescribing rates of late payment and interest charges for past due assessments in the Order's regulations. A late payment charge would be imposed upon handlers who fail to pay their assessments to the Council within 30 calendar days of the date when assessments are due. This one-time late payment charge would be 5 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.

Additionally, interest at a rate of 1 percent per month on the outstanding balance, including any late payment and accrued interest, would be added to any accounts for which payment has not been received within 30 calendar days of the date when assessments are due. Interest would continue to accrue monthly until the outstanding balance is paid to the Council.

This action is expected to help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities. Accordingly, a new Subpart C would be added to the Order for provisions implementing the blueberry Order, and a new section 1218.520 would be added to Subpart C. Late payment charges and interest on past due assessments are not applicable for assessments on imported blueberries because the assessments are collected by Customs at the time of entry.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (first handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7 million.

There are approximately 2,000 domestic producers, 80 first handlers and 200 importers of highbush blueberries covered under the program. Dividing the highbush blueberry crop value for 2013, $715,958,000,7 by the number of producers (2,000) yields an average annual producer revenue estimate of $357,979. It is estimated that in 2013, about 60 percent of the first handlers shipped under $7 million worth of highbush blueberries. Based on 2013 Customs data, it is estimated that almost 90 percent of the importers shipped under $7 million worth of highbush blueberries. Based on the foregoing, the majority of producers, first handlers and importers may be classified as small entities. We do not have information concerning the number of exporters and their size. Comments providing any information or data concerning exporters are requested.

Regarding value of the commodity, as mentioned above, based on 2013 NASS data, the value of the domestic highbush blueberry crop was about $716 million. According to Customs data, the value of 2013 imports was about $563 million.

This proposal invites comments on amending sections 1218.40, 1218.41 and 1218.45 of the Order regarding Council membership, nominations, and procedures, respectively. The Council administers the Order with oversight by USDA. Under the program, assessments are collected from domestic producers and importers and used for research and promotion projects designed to increase the demand for highbush blueberries. This proposal would increase the number of Council members from 16 to 20, adding two producers, one importer, and one exporter. This would help ensure that the Council reflects the geographical distribution of domestic blueberry production and imports into the United States. Authority for this action is provided in section 1218.40(b) of the Order and section 515(b) of the 1996 Act.

This proposal would also prescribe charges for past due assessments under the Order. A new section 1218.520 would be added to the Order specifying a one-time late payment charge of 5 percent of the assessments due and interest at a rate of 1 percent per month on the outstanding balance, including any late payment and accrued interest. This section would be included in a new Subpart C—Provisions for Implementing the Blueberry Promotion, Research and Information Order. Authority for this action is provided in section 1218.52(e) of the Order and section 517(e) of the 1996 Act.

Regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule on affected entities, expanding the Council membership and other proposed changes to the Order's membership provisions impose no additional costs on industry members. Eligible producers, importers and exporters interested in serving on the Council would have to complete a background questionnaire. Those requirements are addressed later in this proposal in the section titled Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

Prescribing charges for past due assessments imposes no additional costs on handlers who pay their assessments on time. It merely provides an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in compliance with the Order. For all entities who are delinquent in paying assessments, both large and small, the charges would be applied the same. As for the impact on the industry as a whole, this action would help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities.

Additionally, as previously mentioned, the Order also provides for two exemptions. Producers and importers who produce or import less than 2,000 pounds of blueberries annually, and producers and importers of 100 percent organic blueberries are exempt from the payment of assessments. Of the 2,000 producers, it is estimated that 1,860 producers and 180 importers produce or import over the 2,000-pound threshold and pay assessments under the program.

Regarding alternatives, the Council has been reviewing its membership and contemplating adding new members to reflect changes in the geographic distribution of blueberries for the past few years. As previously mentioned, in 2014, California became the sixth top blueberry producing state, which earned that state a member and alternate seat on the Council, while North Carolina lost its member and alternate seat. The Council formed a subcommittee that considered various options. One option was to eliminate the four regional producer positions and allocate nine seats to producers representing the nine top producing blueberry states and one seat to a producer representing all other producing states (producer at-large). Another option considered was to increase the number of state producer positions from six to seven so that North Carolina would have a seat. The Council also considered maintaining the status quo. Ultimately the Council recommended revising the Order so that the top eight producing blueberry states would be represented on the Council.

The Council also considered adding two importers rather than one importer and one exporter to its membership. However, upon reviewing the import statistics, the Council concluded that it was important to have foreign producer representation from the top two countries shipping blueberries into the United States represented on the Council. Thus, the Council recommended adding one importer and one exporter member and alternates to the Council.

Regarding requirements for late assessments, the Council considered not prescribing rates for late charges and interest. However, the Council concluded that the rates should be codified along with the applicable date when charges would be applied so that the Order is clear on what is required. Additionally, the 1996 Act requires that the rates be prescribed by the Secretary.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Order have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0093. Eligible producers, importers, exporters, handlers, and public members interested in serving on the Council must complete a background questionnaire (Form AD-755) to verify their eligibility. This proposed rule would not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved and would impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping burden on blueberry producers, importers, exporters, handlers or public members.

As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

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

Regarding outreach efforts, this action was discussed by the Council at meetings in October 2012 and in 2013 and at executive and subcommittee meetings held in 2014. The Council met in October 2014 and unanimously made its recommendation. All of the Council's meetings are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.

We have performed this initial RFA analysis regarding the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and we invite comments concerning the potential effects of this action.

While this proposed rule set forth below has not received the approval of USDA, it has been determined that it is consistent with and would effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.

A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule by the date specified will be considered prior to finalizing this action.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1218 is proposed to be amended as follows:

Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Statutory Authority B. Background C. Regulatory Process II. Discussion A. Review of Existing Regulatory and Voluntary Programs 1. California Energy Commission 2. ENERGY STAR 3. Consortium for Energy Efficiency 4. Australia and New Zealand 5. European Union B. Scope 1. Definitions 2. Phase, Horsepower, and Application 3. Product Type 4. Sales Configuration C. Test Procedure and Rating Metrics D. Data Needs for Rulemaking Analyses 1. Market and Technology Assessment 2. Energy Use Analysis 3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis III. Public Participation I. Introduction A. Statutory Authority

Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), Public Law 94-163, (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment.2 “Pumps” are listed as a type of covered industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures.

While pumps are treated as a type of covered equipment, EPCA does not define what a pump is. To address this issue, DOE recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that would establish definitions and test procedures for pumps. That proposal (hereafter “the pumps test procedure NOPR”), proposed to define dedicated-purpose pool pumps to be a category of pump. 80 FR 17586, 17641 (April 1, 2015).

Currently, no Federal energy conservation standards exist for any types of pumps, including dedicated-purpose pool pumps (i.e. “pool pumps”). DOE excluded this category of pumps from its recent efforts to develop consensus-based energy conservation standards and an appropriate test procedure for pumps. See 80 FR 17826 (April 2, 2015) (proposing consensus-based energy conservation standards for pumps) and 80 FR 17586 (April 1, 2015) (proposing test procedures for certain categories of pumps). Those efforts, which were the product of a pumps working group (“working group”) that had been created through the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”), examined a variety of categories of pumps. While pool pumps were one of the pump categories that were actively considered during the working group's discussions to regulate pump energy consumption, the working group ultimately recommended that DOE initiate a separate rulemaking to address this category of pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 0092 at p. 2) Consistent with that recommendation, DOE is issuing this request for information (“RFI”) to examine the feasibility of establishing standards for pool pumps. The working group's recommendations and related documentation are contained in Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, which is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

Prior to issuing a proposed rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for a given type of product or equipment, DOE typically issues a Framework document, in which DOE describes the issues, analyses, and process that it is considering for the development of energy conservation standards. After receiving comment on the Framework document, DOE typically prepares a preliminary analysis and associated preliminary Technical Support Document (“TSD”). The preliminary analysis provides interested parties with an initial draft of potential energy conservation standard levels that DOE may consider along with their potential impacts on consumers, manufacturers, and the nation.

Following these steps, DOE would publish a NOPR to propose a new or amended conservation standard. As with the prior steps outlined above, DOE would afford interested parties an opportunity to provide oral and written comment on the proposal. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6295(p) and 6316(a). The NOPR presents DOE's proposed energy conservation standard levels and a summary of both the burdens and benefits of the proposed standards, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(a). The details of DOE's standards analysis are provided in an accompanying TSD. After receiving and considering comments on the NOPR, DOE may issue a final rule that would prescribe new energy conservation standards. The analysis of any final standards would also be contained in a TSD accompanying the final rule.

In a test procedure rulemaking, DOE prepares a NOPR and provides interested parties an opportunity to present oral and written comments, data, information, views and arguments with respect to such test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) DOE takes into account relevant information and comments submitted by interested parties and will adopt any new test procedures, including relevant sampling provisions and rating information, in a test procedure final rule.

With respect to the dedicated-purpose pool pumps at issue, DOE is considering, but has not yet decided, to use an alternative rulemaking approach to the one described above. In particular, DOE is considering pursuing a negotiated rulemaking. In DOE's experience, a negotiated rulemaking can be an efficient and effective mechanism for establishing test procedures and energy conservation standards for commercial equipment, especially for equipment that has not previously been subject to Federal standards. Using this approach, DOE would engage in discussions with interested parties (in lieu of the Framework document and preliminary analysis stages) to help frame and develop the specifics of the NOPR, which would be subject to public comment prior to the issuance of a final rule.

Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on whether a negotiated rulemaking would be an appropriate mechanism to pursue energy conservation standards and test procedures for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. If commenters believe a negotiated rulemaking should be pursued for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, DOE requests suggestions from interested parties regarding persons or entities that might be interested in taking part in such a negotiation, including efficiency advocates, manufacturers, customers, utility representatives, and any other interested parties.

Should DOE decide to initiate a rulemaking to explore new energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, DOE is required to follow certain statutory criteria. EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) To determine whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, seven factors. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) These factors, as well as the series of analyses DOE conducts to fulfill these requirements, are shown in Table I.1

DOE reviewed several existing and proposed regulatory and voluntary energy conservation programs for pool pumps. These programs are described below.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) first issued standards for residential pool pumps under the California Code of Regulations 2006.3 See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1601-1608 (2013). The CEC standards were subsequently adopted by a number of other States.4 The CEC's regulations cover all residential pool pump and motor combinations, replacement residential pool pump motors, and portable electric spas.

The CEC's current standard has prescriptive design requirements instead of performance based regulations for residential pool pump and motor combinations. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1605.3, subd. (g)(5). The CEC defines “residential pool pump and motor combination” as a residential pool pump motor coupled to a residential pool pump. “Residential pool pump” is defined as an impeller attached to a motor that is used to circulate and filter pool water in order to maintain clarity and sanitation. “Residential pool pump motor” refers to a motor that is used as a replacement residential pool pump motor or as part of a residential pool pump and motor combination. (Motors used in these applications are electrically-driven.) The CEC imposes a design standard that prohibits the use of split phase start 5 and capacitor start—induction run 6 motor designs in residential pool pump motors manufactured on or after January 1, 2006. (Id. § 1605.3, subd. (g)(5)(A)) The CEC also requires that residential pool pump motors with a motor capacity 7 of 1 horsepower (hp) or greater manufactured on or after January 1, 2010, have the capability of operating at two or more speeds. The “low” speed must have a rotation rate that is no more than one-half of the motor's maximum rotation rate, and must be operated with an applicable multi-speed pump control. (Id. § 1605.3, subd. (g)(5)(B))

The CEC also prescribes design requirements for pump controls. Pump motor controls that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2008, and are sold for use with a pump that has two or more speeds are required to be capable of operating the pool pump at a minimum of two speeds. The default circulation speed setting shall be no more than one-half of the motor's maximum rotation rate, and high speed overrides should be temporary and not for a period exceeding 24 hours. (Id. § 1605.3, subd. (g)(5)(B)) 8

In addition to these prescriptive design requirements, the CEC also requires manufacturers of residential pool pump and motor combinations and manufacturers of replacement residential pool pump motors 9 to report certain data regarding the characteristics of their certified equipment. This includes information necessary to verify compliance with the requirements of § 1605.3(g)(5), as well as the tested flow and input power of the equipment at several specific load points. Manufacturers must also submit the pool pump and motor combinations' Energy Factor (EF) in gallons per Watt-hour (gal/Wh) when tested in accordance with the specified test procedure for residential pool pumps. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1604(g)(3) (see section II.C below for more information).

DOE understands that the CEC is considering revising its pool pump regulations. A recent report by the CEC, “Analysis of Standards Proposal for Residential Swimming Pool and Portable Spa Equipment,” 10 considers updated regulations for all single-phase dedicated-purpose pool pump motors under 5 total hp (THP).11 This report recommends that pool pump motors be covered regardless of whether they are sold with a new pump, or sold as replacement for use with an existing pump wet-end. The report also recommends regulating pool pump motors regardless of whether it is used in an application that requires filtration. Additionally, the report recommends that the CEC move to performance based standards, rather than prescriptive design requirements.

The ENERGY STAR® 12 specifications for pool pumps 13 provide criteria for how a product can earn the ENERGY STAR label. The specification is applicable to single-phase residential inground pool pumps that are single-speed, multi-speed, variable-speed, or variable-flow, and have a hp rating of between >0.5 and ≤4 THP. ENERGY STAR defines a residential inground pool pump as a primary filter pump intended for installation with a permanently installed Residential Inground Swimming Pool with dimensions as defined in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/National Spa and Pool Institute (NSPI)-5 (ANSI/NSPI-5 2003), “Standard for Residential Inground Swimming Pools.” Further, ENERGY STAR specifically excludes residential above ground pool pumps,14 residential auxiliary pool pumps,15 and residential portable spa pumps 16 from ENERGY STAR certification.

The ENERGY STAR specifications for residential pool pumps establish a required EF for the equipment. EF is defined as the volume of water pumped in gallons, divided by the electrical energy consumed by the pump motor while pumping that water. The EF rating is established separately for single-speed and multi-speed pumps, as shown in Table II.1.

Regarding multi-speed pumps, ENERGY STAR specifically excludes multi-speed pumps with manual pump controls that are not sold ready to connect to external pump controls. ENERGY STAR also differentiates between variable-speed pumps that can operate at continuously variable speeds and variable-flow pumps that are equipped with controls that can continuously vary speed to control flow.

Effective on January 1, 2013, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) established voluntary testing, rating, and labeling requirements to encourage the market penetration of high-efficiency swimming pool pumps and pool pump controllers.17 CEE's testing and performance requirements for pool pumps features two “tiers” and are specified in terms of EF. These requirements are shown in Table II.2.

CEE's performance requirements for pool pump controls feature two tiers, with similar requirements to those adopted by the CEC. Under the CEE program, a pool pump control must:

(1) have the ability to operate the pool pump at either two (for tier 1) or more than two (for tier 2) speeds;

(2) contain a default filtration speed that is no more than one-half of the motor's maximum rotation speed; and

(3) contain a default setting that returns the pool pump to the lowest user preset speed within one cycle, or 24 hours.

The Australia state and territory governments and the New Zealand government operate the Energy Rating Labeling Program. The Energy Rating program established the voluntary Energy Rating Labeling Program for swimming pool pump-units in April 2010.18 This program establishes testing, labeling, and minimum efficiency requirements for swimming pool pumps for suppliers who choose to participate.19 The program relies on Australian Standard (AS) 5102-2009, “Performance of household electrical appliances—Swimming pool pump—units, Parts 1 and 2” (AS 5102-2009) as the basis for the efficiency levels and testing requirements for residential pool pumps. The AS 5102-2009 standard:

(1) Applies to pumps intended to be used in swimming pools and spa pools;

(2) covers all single-phase pumps that are capable of a flow rate equal to or greater than 120 L/min (32 gpm);

(3) applies to single-speed, dual-speed, multi-speed, and variable-speed pumps with an input power of less than or equal to 2500 W for any of the available speeds;

(4) covers pumps for the circulation of water through pool filters, sanitization devices, cleaning devices, water heaters (including solar), and pumps for circulation of water through spa or jet outlets or other features forming part of the pool;

(5) covers newly manufactured pumps that form part of a complete new pool installation or intended for sale as replacements for existing pools; and

(6) covers all water-retaining structures designed for human use—

(i) that are capable of holding more than 680 liters of water 20 (179.6 gallons), and

(ii) that incorporate, or are connected to, equipment that is capable of filtering and heating any water contained in it and injecting air bubbles or water into it under pressure so as to cause water turbulence.

The minimum energy performance standard (MEPS) in part 2 of AS 5102-2009 is stated in terms of a minimum EF. Specifically, the current MEPS is 8 liters/watt-hour (2.09 gallons/Wh).

The European Union is considering regulations for private and public pool pumps. In 2014, the European Commission completed a study on pumps for private and public swimming pools, along with other pump products under the Ecodesign Directive.21 The goal of the study is to provide the European Commission with an assessment of the energy savings potential and feasibility of different types of performance-based or design standards for such equipment. The study considered input from various stakeholders, including representatives from manufacturing companies, energy efficiency advocates, and government agencies. The Ecodesign Directive published the results of their study on March 28, 2014.22 DOE has reviewed the available information and will continue to monitor these efforts.

The CIP Working Group recommended that DOE initiate a separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92) Therefore, in the pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to explicitly define the category of pumps referred to as dedicated-purpose pool pumps, based on their distinct construction and resulting operational characteristics and utility, and also proposed that the test procedure proposed in the NOPR would not address or be applicable to such pumps. See 80 FR 17586, 17597 (April 1, 2015).

In considering the establishment of test procedures and energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, DOE would first establish the criteria specifying the scope of applicable equipment that would be regulated, including physical characteristics, operating parameters, equipment types, and equipment configuration.

In the pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed a new definition for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. DOE intended for this definition to apply to pumps used to circulate water through the filtration system in a stationary pool. Based on input from interested parties provided during the negotiated rulemaking process (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 62 at p. 195), DOE used the presence of an integrated basket strainer to differentiate dedicated-purpose pool pumps from other end suction close-coupled (ESCC) and end suction frame-mounted (ESFM) pumps that may otherwise be within the scope of the pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR at 17597. The proposed definition would treat an end suction pump designed specifically to circulate water in a pool and that includes an integrated basket strainer as a dedicated-purpose pool pump. See 80 FR at 17641.

DOE's preliminary review of industry literature indicates that although most models marketed as pool pumps are sold with an integrated basket strainer, some are sold without one. Of the models sold without a basket strainer, most are configured to accept a basket strainer that is sold separately.

DOE notes that non-self-priming end suction pumps that are used in pool applications but are sold without an integrated basket strainer and are ≥1 hp will meet the definition of either an ESCC or ESFM pump as proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR at 17641 (April 1, 2015). DOE also notes that self-priming pumps of any hp, and <1 hp pool pumps sold without an integrated basket strainer, would not meet the proposed definition of an ESCC or ESFM pump. Id.

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether the proposed definition of dedicated-purpose pool pumps, as detailed in the pumps test procedure NOPR, 80 FR at 17641, should be modified—and if so, what changes should be made. One item of specific interest to DOE is whether the definition should explicitly account for the self-priming feature described above. DOE also seeks comment regarding how best to handle those pump models marketed as pool pumps but are not sold with a basket strainer.

Issue 3: DOE seeks information and data regarding the percentage of pool pump sales that involve models that are sold without integrated basket strainers.

The definition of dedicated-purpose pool pumps proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR is not limited by operational parameters or characteristics. However, DOE may consider limiting the scope of any applicable dedicated-purpose pool pump regulations based on certain operating characteristics, including motor phase (single- versus multi-phase) and horsepower (hp) (THP or rated nameplate hp; minimum or maximum hp).

DOE's review of regulatory and voluntary programs indicates that some programs include maximum and minimum hp limits, as well as phase limitations. For example, the ENERGY STAR pool pump specification is only applicable to single-phase residential inground pool pumps that have a hp rating of between >0.5 and ≥4 THP. Aside from phase and THP limits, no other distinguishing characteristics have been identified.

DOE reviewed available product literature and found that dedicated-purpose pool pumps that meet the definition proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR 80 FR 17586, 17641 (April 1, 2015) typically range from 0.5 to 5 hp, although DOE identified some pool pumps as large as 20 hp. DOE's research identified three-phase pool pumps as small as 2 hp and single-phase pool pumps as large as 10 hp. DOE notes that if this potential rulemaking establishes limitations on the phase and/or hp of dedicated-purpose pool pumps, a subset of pumps (i.e., self-priming pumps or pumps with integrated basket strainers) may ultimately not be covered by either the scope of this potential dedicated-purpose pool pump rulemaking or by the current energy conservation standards rulemaking currently underway. 80 FR 17826 (April 2, 2015)

Issue 4: DOE requests data on the breakdown of shipments of dedicated-purpose pool pumps by phase (single- or multi-) and by hp range. To the extent possible, DOE seeks annual shipments data broken down by phase and horsepower covering the last 15 years.

Issue 5: DOE requests comment on whether DOE should consider motor phase or hp limitations for dedicated-purpose pool pumps in the scope of any potential rulemaking. If so, why, and if not, why not?

Pools pumps can be classified either by the rated hp (also referred to as “nameplate hp”) or the THP (also known as “service factor hp”) of the motor with which the pump is sold. Rated hp refers to the output power of the motor, as stated by the manufacturer, at a specified rotational speed, voltage, and frequency. Alternatively, THP is a characterization of the maximum continuous load the motor is designed to serve at nominal rating conditions. THP can be calculated as a product of the rated hp and the service factor. The service factor is defined as a scalar quantity that indicates the percentage beyond the rated hp that a pump motor may continuously operate without exceeding its allowable insulation class temperature limit. (For example, a 5 hp motor rated with a service factor of 1.25 can safely operate at 6.25 hp without incurring heat-related damage.) When determining service factor, other operating parameters, such as rated voltage, frequency, and ambient temperature, must be within the normal operating range.

Issue 6: DOE requests comment on the merits of using either the rated hp or total horse power as the metric in creating potential exclusions or equipment classes.

DOE identified several different pool pump types or classifications used by the industry. These include inground and aboveground pool pumps, inflatable pool pumps, auxiliary pumps, spa pumps, and several other types of pumps.

(a) Inground and Aboveground Pool Pumps

Dedicated-purpose pool pumps serve both inground pools and aboveground pools. DOE research has indicated that for inground pools, dedicated-purpose pool pumps are required to be self-priming. As such, the industry appears to refer to self-priming pool pumps as “inground pool pumps” in their marketing literature. These “inground pool pumps” typically are designed to provide higher hydraulic heads 23 than the non-self-priming dedicated-purpose pool pumps designed for installation in aboveground pools. The higher heads provided by self-priming pumps are typically required because the “inground pool pumps” usually must overcome greater flow resistance (e.g., from longer piping or more piping bends) than those serving aboveground pools. However, DOE has found that some pool pumps listed as aboveground are also self-priming.

ENERGY STAR differentiates inground versus aboveground pools based on their application in residential swimming pools with dimensions as defined in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/National Spa and Pool Institute (NSPI)-5 (ANSI/NSPI-5 2003), “Standard for Residential Inground Swimming Pools,” and ANSI/APSP-4 2007, “Standard for Aboveground/Onground Residential Swimming Pools,” respectively.

The ENERGY STAR pool pumps framework 24 document lays out a scope limited to the residential inground pool pumps market because of the large end-user base and national savings potential present with this market, as well as the availability of adequate supporting test data. The absence of robust test data for aboveground pumps led the ENERGY STAR program to not issue specifications for these pumps. DOE notes that both inground and aboveground pool pumps would meet the definition of a dedicated-purpose pool pump, as proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR at 17641.

Issue 7: DOE requests information on any performance or physical component differences between dedicated-purpose pool pumps designed to serve inground pools versus aboveground pools. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether dedicated-purpose pool pumps serving inground pools need to be self-priming to operate as expected.

DOE has identified a type of pump, sometimes classified as an inflatable pool pump, which is sold with an integrated filter system. The pump, motor, and basket strainer portion of these products appear to be similar to inground or aboveground pool pumps. This similarity in design indicates that the portion of the product not including the filter system may meet the current definition of a dedicated-purpose pool pump, as proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR at 17641.

Issue 8: DOE requests data on the annual shipments of inflatable pool pumps or pumps with integrated filter systems for the last 15 years.

Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether pumps with integrated filter systems should be part of a potential rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. If so, why? If not, why not? If standards for this category of pumps should be included as part of any DOE effort to regulate dedicated-purpose pool pumps, should any potential standards be limited to the pump and motor portion only, or should it also include the filter system? Please include the reasons supporting (or opposing) your view.

Issue 10: DOE requests comment on how inflatable pool pumps or pumps with integrated filter systems are typically designed and distributed for sale. Specifically, DOE is interested in whether the pump, motor, and basket strainer portions of pumps sold with integrated filter systems are typically purchased from manufacturers as completed units. If not, do manufacturers of pumps with integrated filter systems design and produce the pump, motor, and basket strainer specifically for use in such systems, even though they may be distributed in commerce as separate components?

DOE's research indicates that certain types of pumps are used to drive auxiliary pool equipment, such as pool cleaners, spas, and water features. In the industry, these pumps may be referred to as “specialty,” “booster,” or “auxiliary” pumps. The ENERGY STAR pool pump specification defines auxiliary pumps as those pumps which are not used primarily for pool filtration and water recirculation.

Limited data are available on these types of pumps. A review of the market indicates that these pumps do not have an integrated basket strainer, and thus would not meet the definition of dedicated-purpose pool pump as proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR at 17641. However, DOE's research suggests that most auxiliary pumps may be small ESCC pumps. As such, those that are 1 hp or greater would fall within the scope of DOE's recently proposed pumps test procedure. (80 FR 17586 (April 1, 2015)).

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on the annual shipments for the past 15 years of auxiliary pumps, broken-out by any commonly used equipment type designations, size (i.e. less than 1 hp and greater than or equal to 1 hp), and any other parameters relevant to the pool pump industry. DOE also requests data on typical usage profiles and energy use of auxiliary pumps used in pool applications.

Issue 12: DOE requests comment on how best to distinguish auxiliary pumps from other dedicated-purpose pool pumps intended for continuous use (i.e., the lack of an integrated basket strainer).

Issue 13: DOE requests comment on whether auxiliary pumps of less than 1 hp (or otherwise not meeting the definition of an ESCC pump as proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR, (80 FR 17586 (April 1, 2015)) should be included in the scope of any potential pool pump rulemaking. If so, why? If not, why not?

DOE notes that spa pumps are similar to auxiliary pumps in that they are small ESCC pumps without an integrated basket strainer. ENERGY STAR defines “residential spa pump” as a pump intended for installation in a non-permanently installed residential spa as defined in ANSI/NSPI-6 (ANSI/NSPI-6 1999), “Standard for Portable Spas.” ENERGY STAR also clarified that such pumps are sometimes referred to as a hot tub pump, but do not include jetted bathtub pumps.

Issue 14: DOE requests comment on the distinguishing characteristics of spa pumps (as opposed to dedicated-purpose pool pumps) and whether any categories of spa pumps should be included in the scope of any potential pool pump rulemaking.

DOE's research indicates that a type of pump commonly known as a “pool cover pump” is often classified by the industry as a pool pump. These pool cover pumps are typically submersible or sump pumps, and therefore they do not meet the definition of dedicated-purpose pool pump as proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR at 17641.

DOE has also identified solar-powered and “bottom feeder” pool pumps available for sale. These pumps are typically very small (less than 1/4 hp) and are also submersible. These pumps would not meet the definition proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR. 80 FR at 17641.

Issue 15: DOE requests information on the annual shipments for the past 15 years of pool cover pumps and solar-powered pool pumps, separately broken down by horsepower. DOE also requests comment on whether to include these pumps in any potential rulemaking to set energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. If so, why? If not, why not?

Issue 16: DOE requests comment and any supporting information on any other categories of pool pumps that would be relevant to its efforts in examining potential energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps that are not already addressed in section II.B. 3.

Some types of pumps can be differentiated by the configuration in which the pump is sold, either as a bare pump, with a motor, or with a motor and controls.

In the pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to differentiate pumps considered in the scope of that rulemaking based on the configuration in which the pump is sold. These configurations include: the bare pump, the bare pump with an electric motor, and the bare pump with an electric motor and continuous or non-continuous controls. 80 FR at 17627. The pumps test procedure NOPR proposed unique but comparable test methods and rating metrics that are applicable to a pump based on its sale configuration. Id. To achieve this differentiation, DOE proposed a series of definitions based on the CIP Working Group recommendations (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92 at p. 1):

(1) “Pump” means equipment designed to move liquids (which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and controls.

(2) “Bare pump” means a pump excluding mechanical equipment, driver, and controls.

(3) “Mechanical equipment” means any component that transfers energy from a driver to a bare pump.

(4) “Driver” means the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare pump directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Examples include, but are not limited to, an electric motor, internal combustion engine, or gas/steam turbine.

(5) “Control” means any device that can be used to operate the driver. Examples include, but are not limited to, continuous or non-continuous speed controls, schedule-based controls, on/off switches, and float switches.

DOE's research indicates that most dedicated-purpose pool pumps are paired with an electric motor when sold—rarely are they sold as bare pumps.

Issue 17: DOE requests information on whether dedicated-purpose pool pumps are offered for sale by pool pump manufacturers as bare pumps. If they are offered for sale as bare pumps, are they typically paired with a motor by a distributor or retailer before being sold to an end user? Related to this request, DOE seeks information regarding the percentage of dedicated-purpose pool pump shipments that are sold by the pump manufacturer as a bare pump, without a motor.

Dedicated-purpose pool pumps can also be sold with different types of controls that allow for the variation of motor speed at part load conditions. Specifically, dedicated-purpose pool pumps can be paired with multi-speed motors or variable-speed controls. The CEC established definitions of two-speed motors and variable-speed motors, while ENERGY STAR established definitions for multi-speed pumps, variable-speed pumps, and variable-flow pumps (flow controlled variable-speed pumps; see section II.A.2).

In the pumps test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed definitions of continuous controls and non-continuous controls to distinguish between controls with discrete speed options (e.g., two-speed and multi-speed controls) and controls that can continuously adjust speed in response to the required load (e.g., variable-speed drives):

• “Continuous Control” means a control that adjusts the speed of the pump driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the required pump flow, head, or power output.

• “Non-Continuous Control” means a control that adjusts the speed of a driver to one of a discrete number of non-continuous preset operating speeds, and does not respond to incremental reductions in the required pump flow, head, or power output.

These definitions may also be relevant to dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

Issue 18: DOE requests information on the market share of dedicated-purpose pool pumps sold with: (1) Continuous controls, (2) non-continuous controls, and (3) other types of controls. DOE also seeks information on what other types of controls are applicable to pool pumps along with the market share held by each of these other controls.

Related to considering potential energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, DOE is also considering potential test procedures and rating metrics for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Manufacturers of covered equipment use DOE test produces and rating metrics as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)(1)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))

To inform DOE's consideration of test procedures and rating metrics, DOE reviewed the pool pump test procedures that are established or referenced by the existing regulatory and voluntary programs that are discussed in section II.A. The rating metrics and testing requirements for each of these programs are summarized in Table II.3.

As discussed in section II.A.1, the CEC regulations established prescriptive design requirements for residential pool pumps that focused on the motor and controls with which the pool pump is sold.25 As such, the CEC requires that reported motor efficiency be verifiable by IEEE Standard 114-2001, “IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction Motors.” 26

Although the CEC does not currently regulate pool pumps on a performance basis, the regulations require reporting certain performance information when certifying a pool pump under the Title 20 regulations. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1606, subd. (a)(3). For example, pool pump efficiency must be measured in accordance with the Hydraulic Institute's (HI) Standard 1.6 (ANSI/HI 1.6-2000), “American National Standard for Centrifugal Pump Tests” and a manufacturer must report that its pool pump has been tested in accordance with this testing standard. Similarly, a manufacturer must test the performance of its pool pump along three representative system curves, known as curves A, B, and C. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1604, subd. (g)(3).

The test requirements for ENERGY STAR and CEE are harmonized with those adopted by the CEC.27 The ENERGY STAR and CEE test methods for pool pumps reference the Association of Pool and Spa Professional's (APSP) Standard 15 with Addendum 1 (ANSI/APSP/ICC-15a-2013), “American National Standard for Residential Swimming Pool and Spa Energy Efficiency.” ANSI/APSP/ICC-15a-2013 is based on the CEC test methodology.

The test requirements for the Australia and New Zealand energy rating program are defined in part 1 of AS 5102-2009, “Performance of household electrical appliances—Swimming pool pump—units: Energy consumption and energy performance.” Part 1 of the AS 5102-2009 test procedure is similar to the CEC testing requirements, but includes a different test setup and different measurement requirements. In addition, part 1 of AS 5102-2009 only requires rating along a new curve D.

In all of these test methods, the pump head is adjusted until the flow and head lie on the specified system curve. EF is then calculated at various rating points and speeds for multi- and variable-speed pumps as the ratio of flow over power, and is expressed in units of gal/Wh.

DOE recently proposed a test procedure for pumps that would incorporate by reference the Hydraulic Institute's (HI) Standard 40.6-2014, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” as the basis for establishing the tested performance of a bare pump, pump with motor, or pump with motor and controls. 80 FR at 17642. DOE's proposed test procedure for pumps also includes additional calculations and default assumptions necessary to determine the constant load pump energy index (PEICL) for bare pumps and pumps sold with electric motors, or the variable load pump energy index (PEIVL) for pumps sold with electric motors and continuous or non-continuous controls. 80 FR at 17643-17651. The PEICL and PEIVL describe the power consumption of the rated pump, inclusive of a motor and any continuous or non-continuous controls, normalized with respect to the performance of a minimally compliant pump for each pump basic model. DOE believes that such an approach could potentially be modified to be applicable to dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

Issue 18: DOE requests comment on the pros and cons of any of the rating metrics relevant to dedicated-purpose pool pumps, including EF, PEICL, and PEIVL, or prescriptive design requirements for the motor and/or controls.

Issue 19: DOE requests comment on the applicability of any of the test procedures that might be applied to dedicated-purpose pool pumps, including the test procedure proposed by DOE for pumps in the pumps test procedure NOPR. If any particular provisions are not applicable, DOE requests comment on how they might be adapted to be more appropriate for the testing of dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

Issue 20: DOE requests comment on the burdens, if any, associated with testing dedicated-purpose pool pumps in accordance with any of the referenced industry test procedures.

Issue 21: DOE requests comment on any other pool pump test procedure that DOE should consider in developing a potential test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

To help inform DOE's decision of whether to regulate dedicated-purpose pool pumps, DOE seeks a variety of different types of information. If DOE chooses to regulate this equipment, the information collected in this RFI will also inform a number of analyses that are required to support an energy conservation standard rulemaking. Table I.1 provides a summary of these analyses. To this end, DOE seeks detailed data regarding the following aspects:

Issue 22: DOE seeks data on historical shipments (specifically from 1995-2014, in number of units and revenues) for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Where available, DOE requests this data be broken-out by equipment type, hp (rated nameplate hp or THP), operating speed, application, and any other parameters relevant to the pool pump industry.

Issue 23: The CEC maintains a database of pool pumps meeting the CEC's prescriptive design requirement standard.28 DOE seeks comment on whether the range of product efficiencies (specified in EF) in the CEC database are representative of dedicated-purpose pool pumps in the United States. If not, DOE is interested in information regarding the typical range of efficiencies for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. If available, DOE requests these data be broken-out by equipment type, hp (rated nameplate hp or THP), operating speed, application, and any other parameters relevant to the pool pump industry.

Issue 24: DOE requests comment and information on design features that are typically used by the pool pump manufacturers to describe and differentiate pool pumps. This includes features used to differentiate various types of pool pumps from each other, as well as features used to differentiate dedicated-purpose pool pumps from the scope of pumps defined in the pumps test procedure NOPR. See 80 FR at 17642-17643. Additionally, DOE requests information on how these design features affect the efficiency of a dedicated-purpose pool pump.

Issue 25: DOE requests information and comment on technology options that could be considered to improve the energy efficiency of dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in the magnitude of efficiency improvements available from any potential technology options, as well as how these efficiency improvements may, or may not, impact equipment performance, features, utility, or safety. Please provide efficiency improvements in terms of the relevant parameter, such as pump efficiency, motor efficiency, EF, etc.

Issue 26: DOE understands that there are two typical market channels for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, the distributor model (Manufacturer → Distributor → Pool Service Contractor → Customer) and the retail model (Manufacturer → Retail Store → Customer). DOE requests comment on whether these distribution channels sufficiently depicts the market channels for this equipment or if other channels, such as direct sales through national accounts or wholesalers, exist that DOE should also consider. DOE requests data regarding the sizes of these market channels and requests data on the percentage of dedicated-purpose pool pumps sold through each channel, by type or application, if appropriate.

Issue 27: According to APSP,29 in 2013 there were approximately 8 million inground and aboveground swimming pools in the United States. DOE requests comment and information on the total number of installed inground and aboveground swimming pools in each state or climate region of the United States. DOE also requests comment on the number and type of dedicated-purpose pool pumps that are typically installed in each inground and aboveground swimming pool.

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-2015-1279; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-049-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.

On September 23, 2011, we issued AD 2011-21-06, Amendment 39-16829 (76 FR 64788, October 19, 2011). AD 2011-21-06 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2011-21-06, Amendment 39-16829 (76 FR 64788, October 19, 2011), we have determined that the life limit of certain main landing gear components must be reduced, and new inspections of certain repairs that affect fatigue strength of critical structure must be added to the maintenance/inspection program.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0043, dated February 21, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The unsafe condition is the failure of certain structurally significant items, including the main landing gear and nose landing gear, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane; and fuel vapor ignition sources, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. 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-2015-1279.

BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited has issued Subjects 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations”; 05-10-20, “Certification Maintenance Requirements”; and 05-10-30, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)—Fuel System”; of Chapter 05, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited J41 AMM, Revision 38, dated September 15, 2013, which describe procedures for inspections of structurally significant items and the fuel system. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2011-21-06, Amendment 39-16829 (76 FR 64788, October 19, 2011), and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2011-21-06 is $85 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 $340, or $85 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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-2015-1277; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-155-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.

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 limit of validity (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 the DAH during the process of establishing the LOV for Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series 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 2014-0177, dated July 25, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Related investigative actions include rotating probe testing for cracking of the fastener holes and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the stringers. 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-2015-1277.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1266, Revision 01, dated June 20, 2013. This service information describes procedures for replacing clips, shear webs, and angles at rear fuselage section 19, FR72 and FR74. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 44 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 110 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 $411,400, or $9,350 per product.

We have received no definitive data on the costs of required parts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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-2015-0929; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-218-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.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-32, dated September 8, 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:

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-2015-0929.

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 100-24-24, dated June 6, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection, repair if necessary, and modification to reroute wiring harness installation to prevent contact with the hydraulic line. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

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

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

We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $64 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $43,228, or $404 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

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-2015-1275; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-070-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.

On June 29, 2004, we issued AD 2004-14-09, Amendment 39-13718 (69 FR 41398, July 9, 2004). AD 2004-14-09 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above. AD 2004-14-09 superseded AD 98-22-05, Amendment 39-10851 (63 FR 56542, October 22, 1998).

Since we issued AD 2004-14-09, Amendment 39-13718 (69 FR 41398, July 9, 2004), we have determined that, based on the average flight duration, the average weight of fuel at landing is higher than that defined for the analysis of the fatigue-related tasks; and that shot peening might have been improperly done on the CAA protection, which would adversely affect fatigue crack protection.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0065, dated March 14, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1275.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1043, Revision 06, dated December 5, 2013. This service bulletin describes procedures for shot peening in the radius of the milling step between stiffeners 13 and 14 near the fuel pump aperture.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1082, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2013. This service bulletin describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the lower surface panel on the wing center box.

The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 46 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2004-14-09, Amendment 39-13718 (69 FR 41398, July 9, 2004), and retained in this proposed AD take about 25 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 2004-14-09 is $2,125 per product.

The new requirements of this proposed AD would add no additional economic burden.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

History

On September 25, 2014, the FAA published a NPRM to remove Class D airspace at Independence Municipal Airport, Independence, KS, as the air traffic control tower has closed (79 FR 57483). The comment period closed November 10, 2014. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA reassessed the proposal to include the removal of the associated Class E surface area airspace at Independence Municipal Airport, Independence, KS. Also, the title section is amended to include Class E airspace. The FAA seeks comments on this SNPRM.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0565/Airspace Docket No. 14-ACE-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This supplemental proposal proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by removing Class D airspace and the associated Class E surface area airspace at Independence Municipal Airport, Independence, KS. The closing of the airport's air traffic control tower has made this action necessary. Also, the Title section is amended to read “Proposed Revocation of Class D and E Airspace; Independence, KS”.

Class D and E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Independence Municipal Airport, KS.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-1067/Airspace Docket No. 14-ANM-15.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E surface area airspace and establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bremerton National Airport, Bremerton, WA. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found modification of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at the airport. Class E surface area airspace would be adjusted to be defined from the Bremerton National Airport reference point versus the Kitsap NDB, with segments extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southwest, and 6.1 miles northeast of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be established within a 6.1-mile radius of the airport, with segments extending from the 6.1-mile radius to 8.1 miles southwest, and 7.6 miles northeast of the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Bremerton National Airport, Bremerton, WA.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Public Participation: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by the Department. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted. If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of the comment may not be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.

This rule proposes revisions to the Department's regulations under the Privacy Act. In particular, the action will amend the Department's Privacy Act regulations regarding applicable exemptions to reflect new Department wide systems of records notices published since the last time the regulations were updated. The revisions of the Privacy Act regulations in subpart B of part 4 incorporate changes to the language of the regulations in the following provisions: § 4.33 (General exemptions); and § 4.34 (Specific exemptions).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce proposes to amend 15 CFR part 4 as follows:

On May 11, 2012, the Treasury Department and the IRS published temporary regulations under section 956 (TD 9589) in the Federal Register (77 FR 27612). On the same date, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-107548-11) by cross-reference to the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 27669). This document withdraws those proposed regulations (REG-107548-11; RIN 1545-BK10) and provides new proposed regulations (REG-102656-15).

Final and temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1). The final and temporary regulations amend the regulations under section 446 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to the treatment of nonperiodic payments made or received pursuant to certain notional principal contracts for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The final and temporary regulations also amend the regulations under section 956 of the Code regarding an exception from the definition of United States property. The text of the final and temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the final and temporary regulations explains those regulations and these proposed regulations.

It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small entities.

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the Addresses heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

The principal authors of these regulations are Alexa T. Dubert and Anna H. Kim of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-107548-11 and RIN 1545-BK10) that was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2012 (77 FR 27669) is withdrawn.

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

The revisions read as follows:

Background. The President is committed to making the Government more open to the American people, as outlined in his January 21, 2009, memorandum to the heads of executive branch agencies. However, the Government must still protect some unclassified information, pursuant to and consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Government-wide policies. This information is called Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

Prior to Executive Order 13556, Controlled Unclassified Information, 75 FR 68675 (November 4, 2010) (the Order), more than 100 different markings for such information existed across the executive branch. This ad hoc, agency-specific approach created inefficiency and confusion, led to a patchwork system that failed to adequately safeguard information requiring protection, and unnecessarily restricted information-sharing.

As a result, the Order established the CUI Program to standardize the way the executive branch handles information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls (excluding information that is classified under Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information, 75 FR 707 (December 29, 2009), or any predecessor or successor order; or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. § 2011, et seq.), as amended.

To develop policy and provide oversight for the CUI Program, the Order also appointed NARA as the CUI Executive Agent. NARA has delegated this authority to the Director of ISOO, a NARA component.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (September 30, 1993), and Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulation Review, 76 FR 23821 (January 18, 2011), 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 proposed rule is “significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because it sets out a new program for Federal agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this regulation.

This review requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and publish it when the agency publishes the proposed rule. This requirement does not apply if the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 603). NARA certifies, after review and analysis, that this proposed rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on small entities. However, information on the number of small entities contracting, or wishing to contract, with the executive branch that have not already implemented appropriate information systems standards for handling CUI is unreported and difficult to collect, in part because it could reflect adversely on a contractor in other ways. As a result, while NARA believes from all available information that the economic impact would be minimal, if any, we are opening this issue to public comment in addition to the content of the proposed rule, in case reviewers have additional information to the contrary that was not available to NARA.

The CUI Program provides a unified system for handling unclassified information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls, and sets consistent, executive branch-wide standards and markings for doing so. The CUI Program has established controls pursuant to and consistent with already-existing applicable law, Federal regulations, and Government-wide policy. However, because those authorities, as well as ad hoc agency policies and practices, were often applied in different ways by different agencies, the CUI Program also establishes unambiguous policy, requirements, and consistent standards.

The Order establishes that the CUI Executive Agent, designated as NARA, “shall develop and issue such directives as are necessary” to implement the CUI Program (Section 4b). NARA has delegated this authority to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Consistent with this tasking, and with the CUI Program's mission to establish uniform policies and practices across the Federal Government, NARA is issuing a regulation, to establish the required controls and markings Government-wide. There is no viable alternative to a rule for meeting the Order's mandate to establish consistent information security standards Government-wide. A regulation binds agencies throughout the executive branch to uniformly apply the Program's standard safeguards, markings, and disseminating and decontrol requirements. The proposed rule contains a consistent program that NARA developed in consultation with affected stakeholders, including private industry and Federal agencies. While developing this program, NARA conducted working group discussions and surveys, consolidated and streamlined current practices, and developed initial drafts that underwent both formal and informal agency comment and CUI Executive Agent comment adjudication for individual policy elements.

NARA believes that this proposed rule will benefit industry that contracts with the Federal Government, including small businesses. In the present contractor environment, differing requirements and conflicting guidance from agencies for the same types of information gives rise to confusion and inefficiencies for contractors working with more than one agency or handling information originating from different agencies. A single standard that de-conflicts requirements for contractors or potential contractors when contracting with multiple Government agencies will be simpler to execute and reduce costs. Because the regulation's uniform controls derive from already-required laws, regulations, and Government-wide policies, the standards are already ones with which businesses should be complying and the impact of the rule should be minimal or non-existent.

Those entities that currently do not implement information systems security controls for CUI consistent with requirements contained in the regulation will need to make changes and implement new practices, which could therefore have an impact on such businesses. Consistent with the Order, these requirements are based on applicable Government-wide standards and guidelines issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and applicable policies established by OMB (Section 6a3). These standards, which OMB and NIST established, have been in effect for some time, and were not created by this proposed rule. Rather, the proposed rule requires use of these standards in the same way throughout the executive branch, thereby reducing current complexity for agencies and contractors. The potential impact on businesses currently not in compliance with these standards arises from the possibility that some might need to take actions to bring themselves into compliance with already-existing requirements if they are not already. From all available information, NARA believes this impact will be minimal, but reporting on non-compliance with these OMB and NIST standards is limited. If any businesses are not in compliance with these requirements, or are substantially out of compliance, the impact on those entities may be significant.

NARA has taken steps, however, to alleviate the difficulty for contractors and small businesses of complying with information systems requirements, whether they already comply or will need to comply in future. Many of the security controls contained in the NIST guidelines are specific to Government systems, and thus have been difficult for contractors to implement with their own already-existing systems. This has also limited some businesses from competing for Federal contracts. Non-Federal systems are often built using different processes from the Government-specific ones outlined in the NIST guidelines, even while achieving the same standard of protection as set forth in the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). NARA has therefore partnered with NIST to develop a special publication on applying the information systems security requirements in the contractor environment. Doing so should make it easier for businesses to comply with the standards using the systems they already have in place, rather than trying to use the Government-specific approaches currently described. This publication has already undergone one round of public comment as NIST SP-800-171 and is undergoing a second round of public comment until May 12, 2015; we expect to finalize it in June 2015.

The CUI Executive Agent is also planning a single Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR) clause that will apply the requirements of the proposed rule to the contractor environment and further promote standardization to benefit a substantial number of businesses, including small entities that may be struggling to meet the current range and type of contract clauses. In the process of this three-part plan (rule, NIST publication, standard FAR clause), businesses will not only receive streamlined and uniform requirements for any unclassified information security needs, but will have information systems requirements tailored to contractor systems, allowing the businesses to help develop the requirements and to be in compliance with Federal uniform standards with less difficulty than currently. Businesses that currently meet all standards will have a clearer and easier time doing so in the future with virtually no negative impact, and businesses that do not currently meet standards will be able to bring themselves into compliance more easily as well, thus reducing the potential impact coming into compliance would have on them.

Despite all of this, there may still be a significant impact on small businesses, related to bringing themselves into compliance with existing standards that will be applied uniformly under this rule. NARA does not have data on how many small businesses may be impacted by this rule, or to what degree, because such information on compliance with the standards involved is not tracked for small businesses. NARA therefore opens this topic for input from small businesses during the public comment period.

This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Review under Executive Order 13132 requires that agencies review regulations for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and, if the effects are sufficiently substantial, prepare a Federal assessment to assist senior policy makers. This proposed rule will not have any direct effects on State and local governments within the meaning of the Executive Order. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, NARA proposes to amend 32 CFR, Chapter XX, by adding part 2002 to read as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0315] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

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

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0315) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

This rule involves a fireworks display associated with an event that will take place in Baltimore, MD, on July 2, 2015. The launch site for the fireworks display is from a discharge barge located in the Patapsco River. The permanent safety zones listed in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506 do not apply to this event.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones. Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near the navigable waters of the United States. The potential hazards associated with fireworks displays are a safety concern during such events. The purpose of this rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is needed to ensure safety on the waterway before, during and after the scheduled event.

Under Armour will sponsor a fireworks display launched from a barge located in the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, MD, scheduled on July 2, 2015 at approximately 9:30 p.m.

Through this regulation, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone. The proposed zone will encompass all waters of the Patapsco River, within a 300 yards radius of a fireworks discharge barge in approximate position latitude 39°16′56″ N, longitude 076°36′19″ W, located in the Inner Harbor at Baltimore, Maryland, MD. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2015.

The effect of this temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the regulated area immediately before, during, and immediately after the fireworks display. Vessels will be allowed to transit the waters of the Patapsco River outside the safety zone.

This rule requires that entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone. To seek permission to transit the area of the safety zone, the Captain of the Port Baltimore can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Federal, state, and local agencies may assist the Coast Guard in the enforcement of the safety zone. The Coast Guard will issue notices to the maritime community to further publicize the safety zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices will continue until the event is complete.

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

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

Although this regulation would restrict access to this area, the effect of this proposed rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will only be in effect from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2015, (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and (iii) although the safety zone will apply to certain portions of the Inner Harbor, smaller vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit through or within, or anchor in, the safety zone during the enforcement period. This proposed safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons provided under Regulatory Planning and Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone for a fireworks display. The fireworks are launched from navigable waters of the United States and may negatively impact the safety or other interests of waterway users and near shore activities in the event area. The activity includes fireworks launched from barges near the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer to protect the public from fireworks fallouts and premature detonations. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

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

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0188 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

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

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0188 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

This is a first time event with no regulatory history.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish regulatory safety zones.

By establishing a temporary safety zone, the Coast Guard will ensure the protection of the event participants, support vessels, and maritime public from the hazards associated with the event.

For the reason discussed above, the COTP, Sector Boston, is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Manchester Bay, Manchester, Massachusetts. This rule is necessary to ensure the protection of the event participants, support vessels, and maritime public from the hazards associated with the event. Vessels not associated with the event shall maintain a distance of at least 100 yards from the participants. Specific geographic locations are specified in the regulatory text. This rule will be effective on August 1, 2015, from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

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

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but that potential impact will likely be minimal for several reasons. First, this safety zone will be in effect for only 4 hours in the morning when vessel traffic is expected to be light. Second, vessels may enter or pass through the safety zone during an enforcement period with the permission of the COTP or the designated representative. Finally, the Coast Guard will provide notification to the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the event.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For all of the reasons discussed in the REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW section, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule may be categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this assessment 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 proposed rule.

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

Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background III. Proposed Rules IV. Comments Requested V. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

The Commission establishes a rulemaking docket pursuant to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006), which authorizes the Commission to develop rules and establish procedures that it deems necessary and proper to carry out Commission functions.1

The primary purpose of this rulemaking is to establish procedures that would simplify the docket closure process by permitting automatic closure of a docket where there has been no activity in the docket for at least 12 months. The proposed rule would ensure that the information provided to the public concerning active dockets remains current. The proposed rule promotes sound and efficient administrative practice, and would serve the public interest by reducing uncertainty over the status of inactive dockets.

Currently, there are no regulations in place that allow for the automatic closure of an inactive docket. In recent years, the Commission has initiated closure of inactive dockets by issuing an order to that effect. For example, on January 29, 2015, the Commission issued an order closing Docket No. PI2012-1 after nearly two years of inactivity.2 On January 30, 2015, the Commission issued an order closing Docket No. PI2010-1 as there had been no activity in the docket since June 2011.3 Certain other long-standing dockets, such as the ones noted above, remain open and are identified on the Commission's Web site as active dockets, despite years of inactivity. The proposed rule would establish a maximum inactive period that would automatically initiate docket closure, without Commission action, thereby preventing dormant dockets from remaining open without productive activity. It would also establish an opportunity for interested persons to request the reopening of an automatically closed docket for good cause.

Proposed § 3001.44(a) sets an inactive period of 12 months as the triggering event for automatic docket closure. Proposed § 3001.44(b) provides interested persons with an opportunity to request that an inactive docket remain open at least 10 days prior to automatic closure. Proposed § 3001.44(c) provides interested persons with an opportunity to request that an automatically closed docket be reopened for good cause.

Interested persons are invited to provide written comments concerning the proposed rules. Comments are due no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All comments and suggestions received will be available for review on the Commission's Web site, http://www.prc.gov.

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Anne C. O'Connor is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in the above-captioned docket.

It is ordered:

1. Docket No. RM2015-8 is established for the purpose of receiving comments on the proposed changes to part 3001, as discussed in this Order.

2. Interested persons may submit comments no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Anne C. O'Connor is appointed to serve as Public Representative in this proceeding.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register.

I believe due process and transparency in public proceedings obliges a notice to the public when a docket is closed. Lacking such notice, it will be more difficult for interested persons to determine when, how and for what reason a docket was terminated.

I would add the following language to the Proposed Rule: The Commission shall issue a public notice announcing the automatic closure of the docket, at the time of closure.

The rule would be improved and the Commission's commitment to openness and citizen participation would be enhanced if the Commission were to adopt in the Final Rule the additional step I had recommended.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. What is the topic of this public meeting?

In the Federal Register issue of April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18330; FRL-9920-90), EPA proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain chemical substances when they are manufactured or processed at the nanoscale. EPA is seeking public comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. In addition, EPA is especially interested in comments pertaining to the following specific issues identified in Unit V. of the proposed rule:

Requests to participate in this meeting, as well as any requests for accommodation of a disability, should be submitted directly to the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered Confidential Business Information (CBI), and do not submit any comments. Such requests must be received on or before June 1, 2015.

Please remember that your comments must be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the proposed rule; must be identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0572; and must be received on or before July 6, 2015.

The docket for the proposed rule, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0572, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

A. Background

NASA is proposing to revise the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to remove policy at 1846.370 NASA contract clauses, and the related clause at 1852.246-70, Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program. Additionally, other revisions, partially related to the removal of the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program, and to clarify and update the guidance, are proposed to Subpart 1823.5, Drug-Free Workplace, and the associated clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce.

NASA discontinued the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program (the Program) effective April 8, 2014. As stated at 79 FR 7391, the Agency conducted an analysis of its existing regulations and determined that 14 CFR part 1214, entitled “Space Flight Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program,” was obsolete and had been replaced by other measures to ensure that contractor employees assigned to mission-critical positions meet established screening requirements. Accordingly, NFS policy implementing the Program is no longer needed. However, the Program was linked to the prescription for the Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce clause which directed contracting officers to use the clause in all solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 1852.246-70, “Mission Critical Space Systems Personnel Reliability Program.” With the discontinuance of the Program, the prescription for this clause must be revised.

NASA's authority to require contractor alcohol and drug testing is derived from the Civil Space Employee Testing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-195, sec. 21, 105 Stat. 1616 to 1619. The Act states the success of the United States civil space program is contingent upon the safe and successful development and deployment of the many varied components of that program and that the greatest efforts must be expended to eliminate the abuse of alcohol and use of illegal drugs. To this end, NASA is authorized to prescribe regulations which require contractors to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of contractor employees responsible for safety-sensitive, security, or national security functions for use, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation, of alcohol or a controlled substance. While the NFS drug and alcohol testing requirements are partially tied to the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program, rescission of the program does not remove the need for such testing. Furthermore, 14 CFR, subpart 1214.5, contained two key terms and their definitions that will be helpful to Agency contracting officers in determining which contracts should include the drug and alcohol testing requirements. These terms are “mission critical space system” and “mission critical positions/duties.” This rule proposes to add these terms to NFS 1823.570, Drug- and Alcohol-free Workplace, and the associated clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce.

Two other terms, “employee” and “controlled substance,” are referenced, but not defined at 1823.570-1. These terms are defined at FAR 23.503. Additionally, NFS 1823.570-1 contained the statement, “The use of a controlled substance in accordance with the terms of a valid prescription, or other uses authorized by law shall not be subject to the requirements of 1823.570 to 1823.570-3 and the clause at 1852.223-74.” This exemption of a controlled substance used in accordance with the terms of a valid prescription, or other uses authorized by law was removed from the definitions and added to paragraph (c)(1) of the clause, so that contractors may easily see when use of a controlled substance may be permitted.

A revised section (b)(2) to the clause adds a reference to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 3792.1, NASA's Plan for a Drug Free Workplace, Appendices A and B on “Testing Designated Positions” (TDPs) for federal employees, as a guide for contractors to use when determining if an employee is in a sensitive position and subject to drug and alcohol testing.

The most recent titles and references for the applicable Federal drug testing programs are added: “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs” published by the Department of Health and Human Services 73 FR 71858 and the procedures in 49 CFR part 40, “Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. Additionally, the rule expands the list of drugs required to be tested for from “marijuana and cocaine” to add amphetamines, opiates and phencyclidine (PCP) in accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs Mandatory Guidelines, Section 3.1, and 49 CFR 40.85.

Based on the Civil Space Employee Testing Act requirements, the current clause at 1852.223-74 requires contractors to conduct “post-accident” drug and alcohol testing. A new paragraph (5) is added to specify post-accident testing is required when the contractor determines the employee's actions are reasonably suspected of having caused or contributed to an accident resulting in death or personal injury requiring immediate hospitalization or damage to Government or private property estimated to exceed $20,000. Additionally, the contractor is advised that the contracting officer may request the results of this post-accident testing. The purpose of this is to inform any accident investigation NASA may conduct. The contractor is required to provide only information on whether the testing was conducted and whether results showed any evidence of drug or alcohol use in violation of the clause. The contractor is not required to provide the names of individuals tested or of individual employee's test results.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

NASA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

• This proposed rule amends the NFS to remove requirements related to the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program which was discontinued effective April 8, 2014. The NFS contains a clause at 1852.246-70, Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program, which implemented the requirements of the Program on NASA contracts involving critical positions designated in accordance with 14 CFR 1214.5, Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program. With the discontinuance of the Program the clause is no longer necessary and is removed.

• NFS 1823.570-2, Contract clause, requires the contracting officer to insert the clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce, in all solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 1852.246-70, “Mission Critical Space Systems Personnel Reliability Program.” With the discontinuance of the Program, the prescription for this is revised to remove the reference to the Program. However, because NASA's contractor drug and alcohol testing requirements are based on the statutory requirements of the Civil Space Employee Testing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-195, sec. 21, 105 Stat. 1616 to 1619, the terms “mission critical space systems” and “mission critical positions/duties,” previously used in the Program, are carried over to the drug and alcohol testing clause as a point of reference for defining contract personnel and contract functions which come under the civil space employee testing requirements. While the term “mission critical space systems” is carried over, the definition is revised from “The Space Shuttle and other critical space systems, including Space Station Freedom, designated Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV's), designated payloads, Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and other designated resources that provide access to space” to “the collection of all space-based and ground-based systems used to conduct space missions or support activity in space, including, but not limited to, the crewed space system, space-based communication and navigation systems, launch systems, and mission/launch control.” The revised definition deletes obsolete references such as the “Space Station Freedom” and “Shuttle Carrier Aircraft” and characterizes the systems which are critical to NASA's space mission.

• The statement that use of a controlled substance in accordance with a valid prescription or otherwise authorized by law is moved from the definitions to 1823.570-1 to paragraph (c)(1) of the clause, so that contractors may readily see when use of a controlled substance may be permitted.

• A reference is added to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 3792.1, NASA's Plan for a Drug Free Workplace, Appendices A and B on “Testing Designated Positions” (TDPs) for federal employees, as a guide for contractors to use when designating “sensitive” positions. This is intended as a guide and does not change the application of the policy.

• The clause contained an outdated Federal Register reference to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, published by the Department of Health and Human Services. The reference to the Department of Transportation's procedures at 49 CFR part 40 is revised to include the appropriate title, Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs.

• The list of drugs required to be tested is revised from marijuana and cocaine to add amphetamines, opiates and phencyclidine (PCP) in accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs Mandatory Guidelines, Section 3.1, and 49 CFR part 40 Section 40.85.

• A new paragraph (5) is added to specify that post-accident testing is required when the contractor determines the employee's actions are reasonably suspected of having caused or contributed to an accident resulting in death or personal injury requiring immediate hospitalization or damage to Government or private property estimated to exceed $20,000. Additionally, the contractor is informed that the contracting officer may request the results of this post-accident testing.

The proposed rule will not change the application of the clause. This proposed rule imposes no new reporting requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that would meet the objectives of the rule. Excluding small business concerns that may be subject to the rule would not be in the best interest of the small business concerns or the Government, because drug and alcohol testing of contractors performing functions related to mission critical space systems is statutorily mandated and is necessary in order to protect human life and the nation's civil space assets. NASA invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities. NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 and RIN number 2700-AE17 in correspondence.

The proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1823, 1846, and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows: